Migration, Ethnicity and Solidarity: ‘Multinational Workers’ in the Former Soviet Union
| Published date | 01 December 2020 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/bjir.12518 |
| Author | Devi Sacchetto,Claudio Morrison,Richard Croucher |
| Date | 01 December 2020 |
British Journal of Industrial Relations doi: 10.1111/bjir.12518
58:4 December 2020 0007–1080 pp. 761–784
Migration, Ethnicity and Solidarity:
‘Multinational Workers’ in the Former
Soviet Union
Claudio Morrison , Devi Sacchetto
and Richard Croucher
Abstract
We investigate migrant construction workers’ experiences in the Former Soviet
Union, examining their attitudes to other ethno-national groups, unions and
collective action. Industrial relations and migration studies view migrant
workers’ hypermobility and diversity, under conditions of low union coverage
and rising nationalism, as potentially obstructing consciousness-raising and
mobilizing. Workers in our study faced union indierence, ethno-national
segregation and discrimination. However, managerial abuses, informality and
contestation from below led to spontaneous mobilization. Lack of institutional
channels to solve these disputes drove workers’ further mobility. Complex
mobility trajectories and collective action translated into increased awareness
of collective interests and rejection of nationalist ideologies. The outcome is
‘multinational workers’potentially resistant to nation-state politics and capital’s
logics but also aware of the value and usefulness of collective solidarities. Thus,
previous arguments solely associating exit with individualistic attitudes, and
post-socialist legacies with workers’ quiescence present only partial pictures.
1. Introduction
We investigate migrant workers’ experiences in construction in the Former
Soviet Union (FSU). We examine their attitudes to social relations at work
with workers of other nationalities in a highly ethnically segregated industry,
and their views and experiences of unions and collective action, asking
what conditions and processes aect their consciousness development. These
concerns arise from significant recent debates on union organizing among
Claudio Morrison and Richard Croucher are at Middlesex University, Devi Sacchetto is at
University of Padova.
C
2020 John Wiley& Sons Ltd.
762 British Journal of Industrial Relations
migrant workers, a central issue being under what conditions solidarity
is forged by unions (Hardy 2015: 188; Marino et al. 2015: 1). Workers’
consciousness is equated to inclusive solidarity understood as the recognition
of common interests among dierent segments of the workforce. Weexamine
these workerspartly because of their reported indierence to union organizing
eorts (Berntsen 2016; Danaj et al. 2018; Rosewarne 2013).
Discussion has focused on workers’ culture and identity as factors
influencing the construction of solidarities (Tapia and Alberti 2019). Cases
of successful organizing demonstrate that, even under conditions of social
segregation, ethno-cultural dierence does not prevent awareness raising
or mobilization. However, these arguments clash with more sceptical
institutionalist scholarship. This posits a vicious cycle whereby low collective
bargaining coverage and exclusive solidarities exacerbate divisions (Doellgast
et al. 2018: 20), as exemplified by the case of hyper-mobile Eastern European
construction workers in Western countries (Berntsen 2016; Danaj et al. 2018).
Cognate contributions highlight how divisionsare promoted by the spread of
nationalism during neoliberal restructuring (Hardy 2015; H¨
urtgen 2014; ˇ
Zuk
and ˇ
Zuk 2018). While worker agency potentially answers these challenges,
it remains a nascent area of research (Doellgast et al. 2018: 10). We seek to
develop this area by casting further light on migrant workers’ perceptions.
Our approach draws on notions of transnational ‘mobility power’ and
of ‘multinational worker’. The mobility power concept has been developed
within labour processtheory (LPT) to challenge reductive characterizations of
mobility strategies as mere individual exit (Thompson and Smith 2009: 913;
Smith 2006: 390). Applying the concept to transnational labour migration,
some sociologists argue that ‘workers use their transnational exit power to
defy employers’ assumptions about their availability to work under poor
conditions’ (Alberti 2014: 865). Similarly,Andrijasevic and Sacchetto’s (2016:
226) ‘multinational worker’ concept explains how workers experiencing
international migrationare becoming less nationally bounded in their practice
and mentalities.
The FSU region is especially appropriatefor exploring conditions aecting
cross-ethnic solidarity development. The FSU focus allows the debates’
extension to non-western spaces where the nation-state remains fragile
(Panarin 2016: 7–15). FSU migration is exceptionally high in global
terms and temporary labour mobility prevails within it (Mukomel 2014).
Moreover, FSU republics deploy aggressive forms of ethno-nationalism
against migrants (Morrison and Cretu 2018; Mukomel 2014: 7). Moldova,
where our participants originate,has significant migration flows, especially in
construction (Mosneaga 2015; Smith et al. 2018) and intensified nationalism,
being dubbed ‘a notorious case of heavy-handedand callous nation-building’
(Van Meurs 2015: 191).
The remainder of the article is as follows. First, we delineate our
theoretical framework and research question, and provide historical context
to FSU labour mobility. The empirical sections analyse workers’ accounts
of, respectively, restructuring and migration from Moldova, labour relations
C
2020 John Wiley& Sons Ltd.
To continue reading
Request your trial