In opdracht van de Vereniging van Nederlandse Gemeenten (VNG) heeft European Impact Hub de resultaten samengebracht uit het onderzoek van 250 studenten European Studies aan de Haagse Hogeschool. Het doel van dit rapport is om duidelijk te maken hoe in kleine tot middelgrote steden gewerkt wordt aan huisvesting en registratie van EU-arbeidsmigranten. Op basis van gestructureerde interviews met onder andere Europese vertegenwoordigers in Brussel, lokale beleidsmakers en lokale uitzendbureaus zijn de volgende conclusies geformuleerd. Uit de interviews met de Europese vertegenwoordigers in Brussel blijkt dat de bal vooral uit het eigen speelveld wordt geschopt. Ook blijkt dat de vertegenwoordigers van de deelnemende gemeenten bij de EU vaak niet op de hoogte zijn van de problemen in de regio's. Daarnaast laten de interviews zien dat de deelnemende gemeenten tegen dezelfde problemen aanlopen als het gaat om huisvesting. Ondanks dat huisvesting hoog op de politieke agenda staat blijft de situatie nijpend, in de ene plaats nog meer dan in de andere. Registratieprocessen verschillen per land. Het beschikbaar stellen van het registratieproces in verschillende talen en het vereenvoudigen van het registratieproces blijken succesfactoren. Toch is dit niet overal het geval, in La Palma del Condado dient het registratieproces herziend te worden omdat het te eenvoudig is. Over de problematiek rondom de Europese vertegenwoordiging raadt dit rapport aan de resultaten te bespreken met de afdelingen sociale zaken van de respectievelijke permanente vertegenwoordigingen (PV/EU)'s van de lidstaten, alsmede de (gezamenlijke) inspecties.
For many EU citizens, working across the border is the only way to make a living in the EU. The battle for cheap labour has now become a well-oiled machine, in which almost all Western European countries participate. Nevertheless, the employment situation of EU Mobile Citizens, workers of low-skilled and -paid jobs, is often substandard. Challenges are housing, health care and working conditions. In addition, due to the lack of registration in municipalities, it is impossible to have an overview of the numbers and to offer effective help. This is a problem in small to medium-sized cities, where many workers live to work in agriculture, transport, construction, meat industry and logistics. For this study, 32 interviews were conducted in eleven small to medium-sized towns (SMSTs) in Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, Ireland, Poland, and Spain. The study uses three different perspectives: EU representatives of participating regions, municipalities, and employers. The outcomes show that most SMSTs deal with a shortage of housing, and a lack of grip on the registration process of EU citizens. Although there are some success stories, most SMSTs are not in touch with each other to share these. The paper concludes with proposals for further action-research and collaborations to impact local policies.
This paper addresses one important mechanism through which the EU tries to improve the operation of its labour markets: the opening up of national borders for free worker movement within the EU. Free worker movement is a fundamental EU right; but EU enlargement begged the question of how and when to allow complete free movement to workers from those new Member States. The EU agreed upon a transitional period of up to 7 years after accession of eight new Middle and Eastern European States (EU-8) on May 1st, 2004. Duringthis transitional period Member States may apply certain restrictions on the free movement of workers from, to and between these new Member States. By 2012, all such restrictions will have been abolished. A similar procedure applies regarding the accession of two additional new Member States on January 1st, 2007. Only three of the fifteen incumbent EU Member States at the time (EU-15) chose to immediately allow free movement from workers from the EU-8. The other twelve maintained their work permit systems, albeit with some modifications. Since, some (e.g. Germany) have already decided to keep such barriers in place until 2012. The Netherlands has kept a work permit system in place up to May 1st, 2007. At that time it abolished that system and effectively extended free worker movement to include workers from the EU-8. This makes the Dutch case, at this point in time, an interesting case for which to analyse the process and effects of increased free labour movement into a national labourmarket. This paper discusses the evolution of (temporary) work migration from EU-8 countries into the Netherlands. It first addresses the flexicurity nature of EU policies towards labour market integration and towards the inclusion of new EU countries in that process. It subsequentely reviews the three socio-legal regimes that can currently apply to work performed for Dutch firms Netherlands by workers from the EU-8 (which, now, is that same as that applies for workers from the EU-15): wage employment; employment through temporary employment agencies; and self-employment. It then discusses the development of the volume of work performed by citizens from the EU-8 in the Netherlands, and socio-economic effects for both the migrant workers and Dutch society and economy. It concludes with a discussion of challenges (or the lack thereof) that this increased free movement of foreign labour caused and causes for Dutch institutions.
