Europeanisation, National Identities and Migration ... - europeanization

216 Norbert Cyrus
would fit the trade union tradition better. But he pointed out that the trade union
had to act hand in hand with the employers’ association, which would not agree
with measures granting more rights to foreign workers. In cooperation with the
social partners, only restrictive measures could be realised. The social partners
agreed on a national compromise that outside interlopers were mainly made
responsible for the bad situation.
By pointing at outside interlopers the organisation was able to translate the
intricate situation with a whole complex of transformation causes into a straight
argument indicating concrete guidance for action. Consequently, the enormous
efforts to restrict or at least to postpone the freedom of movement signalled to the
members that the organisation was able to represent their interests powerfully. The
demonstration of interest representation became more important than the result.
The content was rather actionism, but with xenophobic tendencies. Such a conclusion
is supported by the observation that the subject of Eastern EU enlargement
disappeared from the trade union agenda when the decision on the postponement
of freedom of movement was finally reached. While IG BAU discussed the issue
extensively on its website in the spring of 2001, the subject had completely
disappeared by the spring of 2002, after the decision to postpone free movement
was made. If the campaign against the introduction of free movement had
been caused by anti-Polish stereotypes, the subject would still be relevant on the
website.
With the postponement of free movement finally agreed, the hot issue lost
relevance without any improvement to the situation. The economic performance
and the labour market situation in the construction sector is still poor. In this
situation exclusionist arguments returned to the rhetorical arsenal of the trade union.
Today, illegal employment in general and the illegal employment of foreigners are
on top of the agenda. But Polish workers are no longer presented as the most
dangerous other. Some IG BAU officials meanwhile state that Polish workers are
no longer the main problem. A slight re-shaping of boundaries has taken place. It
is interesting to see how the boundary construction of categories of belonging
changed: from a territorial-political concept excluding all workers not belonging to
the German and later to the EU territory (including resident foreigners) to the
preference of a juridical-territorial concept excluding workers coming from outside
Germany and employed irregularly or illegally. Thus the re-framing of boundaries
takes into consideration the political re-framing of the territory: Poles are meanwhile
no longer excluded on the basis of territorial belonging alone. The new lines of
exclusive rhetoric stress the juridical concept of illegal employment and in so doing,
place Portuguese workers on the same level with Polish workers. It depends on one’s
perspective whether this development is interpreted as an improvement in the
perception of Polish workers or as a deterioration in the perception of Portuguese
workers. In any event, the new rhetoric indicates the factual orientation within the
European political opportunity space that definitely includes the final completion
of free movement of Polish workers. Meanwhile, IG BAU has already developed
inclusive strategies towards East European workers from candidate states. These
inclusive elements form the other side of the above-mentioned ‘double strategy’