Symposium report
How do we understand ‘migrant work’? How does what many migrant workers experience differ from the experiences of other precarious workers? What is expected of migrant workers in the UK? Who are the ‘losers’ and ‘winners’ from the entrance into the UK of accession eight citizens since 1 April 2004? What is the relationship between what happens culturally, economically and socially in the UK and what takes place in the countries that migrants leave? These were just some of the intellectually and politically daunting questions that were behind the third EWERC annual symposium which took place on Friday 16th November 2007. Sponsored by the Brooks World Poverty Institute and the Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence, this Symposium brought together academics from across the social sciences, policy makers and trade unionists. The first two sessions consisted of four academic papers from backgrounds as diverse as geography, law and sociology. Session three consisted of three short, punchy panel presentations. These built on the earlier academic presentations and prepared the ground for a fruitful discussion on the alternatives facing local UK policy-makers in light of the influx of significant numbers of workers from overseas.
In the first paper, Bridget Anderson (COMPAS, University of Oxford) situated discussion around ‘migrant work’ in the wider context of the rise in the UK in precarious forms of employment. Drawing on the work of Rodgers and Rodgers (1989), she argued that the precarious ways in which many A8 migrants are attached to the UK labour market is not exceptional. Outlining how the UK government shapes the conditions under which ‘workers’ enter the UK and then enter and progress through the labour market, Bridget drew the audience’s attention to the different entrance and visa categories and their different conditions. Finally, she highlighted how the emphasis was increasingly on economic productivity, drawing the audience’s attention to the difficulties some newly arrived workers faced in balancing work with other responsibilities they might have. The second paper in the first session was delivered by Jane Wills (Geography and The City Centre, Queen Mary, University of London), and followed up on and developed some of the points made by Bridget. Drawing on fieldwork undertaken at a single workplace in Canary Wharf, Jane explored the emerging migrant division of labour. Thinking through the world in the workplace, on the one hand, and a workplace and the world on the other, Jane revealed the ‘super-diversity’ that characterises much of London’s low paid service sector workforce. Documenting the different citizenship and immigration types that characterised the case study workplace, she then went on to situate it in the wider context of the London labour market. Emphasising the role of the state in producing the contemporary labour and workforce, Jane emphasised the important of bringing together the insights of political economy with culturally-inflected approaches that emphasise notions of diaspora, identity and multi-culturalism.
After lunch, the second session began with a presentation by Samantha Currie (Law, University of Liverpool). She outlined the socio-legal context for the current entrance into the UK labour market of A8 workers. Samantha explained how EU and UK levels combine to produce the particular legal conditions for those seeking employment. Using the Zalewska example from Northern Ireland, she explained where EU legislation was currently being contended. In the case of the UK she revealed some of the contradictions in the current system. The fourth paper was presented by Alison Stenning (CURDS, University of Newcastle). She reported on two projects, one examining the regional implications of the movement into the region of workers from the A8 countries and the other examining changing urban household economies in Central and Eastern Europe. Alison argued for an appreciation of the way in which the futures of regions in the UK and Poland, for example, are inter-connected. Acknowledging this meant thinking differently about what we expect from workers from A8 countries who are involved in contributing economically in both the UK and in the country they left behind. Setting out an approach that emphases the inter-linkages between work, migration and development, Alison concluded the paper presentations by arguing that the contribution of migrants was not a panacea for development in the North East of England, nor were this group’s remittances a panacea for development back in Poland.
After a coffee break the format changed. Three panellists – Catherine May (Oxfam), Dave McCall (TGWU) and Simon Pemberton (Merseyside Social Inclusion Observatory and University of Liverpool) – each spoke for 10-15 minutes on their own work. Catherine revealed the approach Oxfam takes in the UK, learning from its experiences from overseas and organising a series of workshops for workers of different nationalities. Working with a host of other agencies, Catherine explained that Oxfam’s work emphasises capacity building in different migrant communities. Dave outlined the TGWU’s work in the region with different types of migrant workers. He made the link to past migrant experiences. The challenge was to improve the conditions of all workers who face discrimination in the workplace. He gave a series of examples from around the North West of the ways in which the union was involved in protecting workers. Finally, Simon outlined some of work of the Merseyside Social Inclusion Laboratory. He documented some of the findings from his studies of the North West, to reveal the uneven and variegated consequences of the arrival of people from the A8 countries, both in the region and back in the regions that they have left.
At 4.55 pm the symposium was drawn to a close. All left in the room agreed that it had been a successful event.