For the first time, the European Council adopted rules on a less well-paid group of migrant workers: the seasonal ones. This group of workers is potentially vulnerable to exploitation and abuses. Does the recent Directive go far enough to protect them from these risks?
A ‘seasonal worker’ is a worker who normally resides outside the EU, and who lives temporarily in the European Union to “carry out an activity depending on the seasons”, pursuant to a fixed-term contract concluded directly with an employer established in a Member State. Member States are free to set higher standards for certain issues (procedural safeguards, accommodation, workers’ rights and facilitation of complaints), but they cannot alter the substantive grounds for admission or the rules on duration of stay and re-entry.
Following the presentation of the Directive 2014/36/EU by the commissioner Francesco Carboni, the debate among the Ministers started. The debate basically focused on the safety, accomodation and rights of workers.
Of all Ministers, especially Romania agrees about the safeguard of the workers’ rights, but only by ensuring the control on the borders. He is convinced that this system, on one hand, aims at curbing over exploitation of third-country nationals workers, but on the other hand can promote illegal immigration and clandestine activities by incresing the risk of terrorism. For this reason, Polan urges to take the decision on enlarging the control over the Schengen area.
However, not all the Member States can afford to keep seasonal workers. We are talking about Greece, whose Minister stated its intention to reach a bilateral agreement with Egypt and Albania, by justifying his choice just on the grounds of its geographical proximity.
Instead, countries such as United Kingdom, espress the preference for the hirling of skilled workers which can act as a form of enrichment of the nation.
About the safeguarding of worker’s rights, only few rights unify almost all the Ministers of the Council. One of these is the right to family reunification for seasonal workers. Everyone are convinced that it would result in a disproportionate costs for the Government with the risk of confronting with social conflicts due to the short amount of time for families to integrate themselves within the society. Only Latvia is in favour of the family reunification, considered as a way to augment the population.
We wait for Friday’s amendements proposed by the Ministers to find out more.
Mary Grimaldi
Sapienza moves to debate 