Pre-reading: summarise four key points about this topic from two tutorial readings (two points from each) (4 marks):
|Reading |Point, argument or conclusion made (provide specific page number where possible) |
|Shelley, T. (2007): Exploited:|Within Shelley’s (2007) study he discussed government responses and their responsibilities regarding migrant workers. |
|Migrant Labour in the New |Evidence of their response can be seen in 2007, when Bulgaria and Romania achieved accession in to the EU. The British |
|Global Economy, London: Zed |government were faced with a choice of whether or not to grant them the same rights within the labour markets as other EU |
|Books. |nations. At the time there were “implicit characterisations of Bulgarians and Romanians as having criminal tendencies” |
| |(Shelley, 2007, pp. 139-140); this resulted in Britain opting to restrict their rights. In Latin America the workers |
| |association uncovered another example of similar discrimination, this saw migrant workers being labelled as drug smugglers.|
| |Not only have the government in Britain stereotyped migrant workers in the EU but they have also created “a ‘points-based’ |
| |system of access to the British labour market for non-EU citizens” (Shelley, 2007, p. 140). It has been argued that this is|
| |a method, which aims to simplify entry procedures, however “the Command document putting the proposals before parliament |
| |does not disguise the racial grounding of the enterprise” (Shelley, 2007, p. 140). The ‘points-based’ system is in place to|
| |benefit the Britain, as migrants will receive points for how valuable they are, lower skilled migrant workers are seen as |
| |less valuable. |
| |In order to understand why people would migrate the push and pull factors have been discussed. Jonathan Moses discussed in |
| |his study that “push factors must be powerful to drive people from their home” (Shelley, 2007, p.18). The international |
| |Organisation for Migration calculated that 3 per cent of the world’s population live outside of their own countries |
| |(Shelley, 2007), this leads to the question of ‘why?’. One way this can be answered is by looking at a paper written by the|
| |UN’s International Labour Organisation, which “directly linked the rising secular trend in global migration for work to |
| |changes in the world economy” (Shelley, 2007, p.19). Due to the economic downturn public-sector jobs, jobs in traditional |
| |industries and agriculture competiveness are in decline; therefore individuals are required to look elsewhere for work. For|
| |example the earning potential in the UK compared to China is vast, a Chinese worker “migrating to work in Europe using one |
| |of the officially sanctioned employment agencies springing up in China might expect to earn £1,000 a month. That compares |
| |well with £100-£300 a month in a factory in inland China” (Shelley, 2007, p. 20). This can also be seen in a variety of |
| |industries as “migrant prostitutes working in Oslo or London may well intend to amass enough saving to achieve a particular|
| |end – provide education for a child at home or pay off a family debt” (Shelley, 2007, pp. 20-21). If working within their |
| |own countries, they may not be able to afford the same; therefore in this instance the best option may have been to |
| |migrate. |
|Fitzgerald, I. and Hardy, J. |In recent years, trade union (TU) “recruitment and organization activity has centred on inclusion and has been undertaken |
|(2010): “‘Thinking Outside the|on new terrains using innovative strategies” (Fitzgerald and Hardy, 2010, pp. 131). In order to entice migrant workers to |
|Box’? Trade Union Organising |join TUs, in 2005, TUC regions were encouraged to think of initiatives for the “TUC Development Fund, to undertake projects|
|Strategies and Polish Migrant |with affiliates with regard to migrant workers” (Fitzgerald and Hardy, 2010, pp. 137). More recently migrant workers have |
|Workers in the United |been located under the vulnerable workers umbrella in order to remove emphasis from their citizenship status. A TUC Officer|
|Kingdom’, British Journal of |supported this by stating: “I think it is important to identify that we support vulnerable workers everywhere…it sends out |
|Industrial Relations, 48(1): |a message that we are interested in all workers, not just those from abroad” (Fitzgerald and Hardy, 2010, pp. 138). |
|131-150. |Fitzgerald and Hardy (2010) also discussed in their study, the relationships TUs formed in order to organise migrant |
| |workers on the different spatial levels, such as locally, regionally, nationally and internationally. On a national level, |
| |through campaigning and lobbying the TUC were successful in improving employment law and its enforcement. The TUC “have |
| |worked with the Citizens Advice Bureaux, with regard to Polish migrant workers, in the development of a joint |
| |TUC/Solidarnosc webpage” (Fitzgerald and Hardy, 2010, pp. 143). Also, Regional TUCs and regional development agencies (RDA)|
| |can be seen working together, with strategy seeking as the motivation. Although it has been argued, that it “raises |
| |questions as to who controls the agenda” (Fitzgerald and Hardy, 2010, pp. 146). Locally, in order to support European |
| |migrants, TUs “have forged new linkages with local councils, NGOs and members of the established Polish community and |
| |churches to provide support and information for the newly arrived” (Fitzgerald and Hardy, 2010). Lastly, UK TUs have also |
| |begun developing relationships with TUs internationally, specifically regarding migrant workers. This cross-border |
| |co-operation can aid in achieving a better understanding of those migrating. However, it can be argued that migrant workers|
| |may be torn between which TU to join if both are involved. |

Tutor Assessment of Student’s Oral contribution to the Class discussion (1 mark)
| |
| |
| |

Total marks (out of 5):