News
BackIn the light of recent events, AK EUROPA, the Brussels Office of the Austrian Federal Chamber of Labour and the ÖGB Europabüro, the Brussels Office of the Austrian Trade Union Federation hosted a well-attended and exciting panel discussion on the subject of “Labour migration into the EU - problem and potential”. The background of the event was among others formed by the recent proposals of the European Commission on seasonal workers and on the intra-corporate transfers of third country workers. However, the discussion also dealt with the future structure of EU migration policy. Emilie Turunen, MEP, Rudolf Kaske, Chairman of the trade union for transport workers vida, Sverker Rudeberg of BUSINESSEUROPE and Johannes Peyrl of the Chamber of Labour, Vienna got to the bottom of the most important questions and revealed that in spite of having different positions, there was also some common ground.
MEP Emilie Turunen: equal treatment of third-country nationals and EU citizens is essential
Emilie Turunen, deputy leader of the Greens in the European Parliament devoted her comments in particular to the seasonal employment of third-country nationals. To begin with, she underlined that many migrants without documents would have to endure awful working conditions and that it was essential to legalise their status. According to Turunen, the Greens want to see the equal treatment of third-country nationals and EU citizens, decent accommodation provided by future employers, regular supervision and inspection of employers of third-country nationals by the Member States and harsh sanctions against employers who infringe against the regulations. Furthermore, every kind of social dumping should be avoided. Finally, Turunen pointed out that even the mobility within the EU was not yet working hundred percent and that this aspect should not be ignored.
Vida chairman: often many third-country nationals remain illegally in a country
Rudolf Kaske, chairman of the trade union for transport, commerce and service workers vida stated in his opening remarks that the Austrian labour market would not function without migrants - individual sectors would rely on a share of migrants of up to 30 percent. Having said that, one had to be careful to strike a balance in the labour market. The trade union would be very critical of both Directive proposals. According to the Commission proposal, third-country nationals should be allowed to work in a country for a limited period; afterwards they should return to their own country. However, the practice showed that many of these people stay in a country illegally. However, often these illegally employed would continue to work under appalling conditions. In many cases, employers would seek seasonal workers to fill jobs nobody else was prepared to do; they would look for people who are so badly off that they had no choice but taking this job. However, this was the wrong way. One had to ensure that decent work was on offer that paid a reasonable wage. Also unreasonable was the case of a maid, who had only been paid € 2.40 per hour. This could be stopped; however, it was worth the effort to increase relevant inspections.
Industry representative Rudeberg: fears of social dumping are not justified
Sverker Rudeberg, spokesperson of the Business Europe, the Confederation of European Business, pointed out that both Commission proposals debated were completely different and that they would only be discussed together for political reasons. One proposal was aimed at seasonal workers, the other at highly qualified employees, who wanted to change from one subsidiary to the other within a Group. In general, people, who want to work within the EU, cannot be regarded as a problem. Even today the work would be done; however by the illegally employed and under poor working conditions. Hence, the Seasonal Migrant Workers’ Directive was a real improvement. Fears of dumping were not justified and not realistic; however, Rudeberg admitted that controls had to be improved. Apart from that, migrant workers from third countries could only be admitted to the labour market if no applicants could be found in the Member States.
Migrationexpert Johannes Peyrl: migration policy must not be treated as security policy
Johannes Peyrl, Expert of the Unit Labour Market and Integration, Chamber of Labour Vienna stated right at the beginning that migration would simply take place. Ca. 900,000 non-Austrians were currently living in Austria, ca. 500.000 of whom were not EU citizens. In doing so, he contradicted the argument that Europe would represent a fortress, which did not allow migration. However, one had to take much more care of the migrants, said Peyrl, and grant them the same social rights. Only then a successful migration policy would be guaranteed. With regard to the Seasonal Migrant Workers’ Directive he wants a clear restriction to the agricultural and tourism sector. Under no circumstances should the construction sector come under the Seasonal Migrant Workers’ Directive. With regard to intra-corporate transfers he said that in particular trainees and skilled workers were normal and not, as the EU Commission suggested highly qualified employees. Hence, in his opinion the danger of wage and social dumping remains. Peyrl reproaches the EU that there was no sustainable integration policy and that everything was only oriented towards temporary migration. However, the most serious problem is that migration policy is understood as security policy - by the EU Commission, the Council and by the EU Parliament. This paradigm change took place in the nineties, said Peyrl. Previously one still agreed that social, employment and education policy aspects had to play an important role. These, said Peyrl finally, would now be treated as a footnote, when in fact they represented the actual key issues of migration policy.
Emilie Turunen, deputy leader of the Greens in the European Parliament devoted her comments in particular to the seasonal employment of third-country nationals. To begin with, she underlined that many migrants without documents would have to endure awful working conditions and that it was essential to legalise their status. According to Turunen, the Greens want to see the equal treatment of third-country nationals and EU citizens, decent accommodation provided by future employers, regular supervision and inspection of employers of third-country nationals by the Member States and harsh sanctions against employers who infringe against the regulations. Furthermore, every kind of social dumping should be avoided. Finally, Turunen pointed out that even the mobility within the EU was not yet working hundred percent and that this aspect should not be ignored.
Vida chairman: often many third-country nationals remain illegally in a country
Rudolf Kaske, chairman of the trade union for transport, commerce and service workers vida stated in his opening remarks that the Austrian labour market would not function without migrants - individual sectors would rely on a share of migrants of up to 30 percent. Having said that, one had to be careful to strike a balance in the labour market. The trade union would be very critical of both Directive proposals. According to the Commission proposal, third-country nationals should be allowed to work in a country for a limited period; afterwards they should return to their own country. However, the practice showed that many of these people stay in a country illegally. However, often these illegally employed would continue to work under appalling conditions. In many cases, employers would seek seasonal workers to fill jobs nobody else was prepared to do; they would look for people who are so badly off that they had no choice but taking this job. However, this was the wrong way. One had to ensure that decent work was on offer that paid a reasonable wage. Also unreasonable was the case of a maid, who had only been paid € 2.40 per hour. This could be stopped; however, it was worth the effort to increase relevant inspections.
Industry representative Rudeberg: fears of social dumping are not justified
Sverker Rudeberg, spokesperson of the Business Europe, the Confederation of European Business, pointed out that both Commission proposals debated were completely different and that they would only be discussed together for political reasons. One proposal was aimed at seasonal workers, the other at highly qualified employees, who wanted to change from one subsidiary to the other within a Group. In general, people, who want to work within the EU, cannot be regarded as a problem. Even today the work would be done; however by the illegally employed and under poor working conditions. Hence, the Seasonal Migrant Workers’ Directive was a real improvement. Fears of dumping were not justified and not realistic; however, Rudeberg admitted that controls had to be improved. Apart from that, migrant workers from third countries could only be admitted to the labour market if no applicants could be found in the Member States.
Migrationexpert Johannes Peyrl: migration policy must not be treated as security policy
Johannes Peyrl, Expert of the Unit Labour Market and Integration, Chamber of Labour Vienna stated right at the beginning that migration would simply take place. Ca. 900,000 non-Austrians were currently living in Austria, ca. 500.000 of whom were not EU citizens. In doing so, he contradicted the argument that Europe would represent a fortress, which did not allow migration. However, one had to take much more care of the migrants, said Peyrl, and grant them the same social rights. Only then a successful migration policy would be guaranteed. With regard to the Seasonal Migrant Workers’ Directive he wants a clear restriction to the agricultural and tourism sector. Under no circumstances should the construction sector come under the Seasonal Migrant Workers’ Directive. With regard to intra-corporate transfers he said that in particular trainees and skilled workers were normal and not, as the EU Commission suggested highly qualified employees. Hence, in his opinion the danger of wage and social dumping remains. Peyrl reproaches the EU that there was no sustainable integration policy and that everything was only oriented towards temporary migration. However, the most serious problem is that migration policy is understood as security policy - by the EU Commission, the Council and by the EU Parliament. This paradigm change took place in the nineties, said Peyrl. Previously one still agreed that social, employment and education policy aspects had to play an important role. These, said Peyrl finally, would now be treated as a footnote, when in fact they represented the actual key issues of migration policy.