‘Flexible’ workers for ‘flexible’ jobs? The labour market function of A8 migrant labour in the UK

Introduction

There has been considerable interest in the migration literature and elsewhere in how immigrants fare in the labour market of their host country. At a general level the existing body of evidence points towards migrants being disadvantaged in the labour market, both in terms of labour market participation levels and their distribution across the occupational hierarchy (Chiswick et al., 2008). More recently these concerns have been given added urgency by the deep and on-going economic turmoil which is affecting the economies of many migrant labour sending and receiving countries (Green and Winters, 2010; Orrenius and Zavodny, 2010). The specific aim of this article is to advance some of the understandings put forward in the literature in relation to the nexus between migrant labour and flexible labour market structures. This is pursued through the analysis of a sizeable quantity of interviews with the providers and users of migrant labour in low-wage sectors of the British labour market. In particular the investigation centres on East-Central Europeans; a cohort of labour migrants whose inflows into the UK have been substantial, remarkably geographically dispersed and which have taken place over a relatively short period of time (Burrell, 2009). The three main themes explored in this analysis are:

Migrant labour and flexible labour markets: the chicken or the egg?

Since the accession of the A8 states (Poland, Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary and Estonia) to the European Union on 1 May 2004 citizens from these countries have had the right to participate in the British labour market. Given significant disparities in wage levels and the fact that most other EU countries enacted so-called transitional measures on access to their labour markets, it is not surprising that large numbers of A8 migrants have come to work in the UK. In fact within a short space of time East-Central Europe has become one of the principal source regions of migrants to Britain and nationals from these states now constitute some of the largest foreign-born populations in the country (McCollum, 2013). From a sociology of work perspective these flows have been especially interesting, since a glance at the labour market position of this large cohort of labour migrants (high employment levels but low wages) suggests that they may serve a particular function in the UK labour market: that of flexible workers for flexible jobs. These sizeable inflows could conceivably have served to exacerbate flexible employment structures; and it is the relationship between segmented labour markets and migrant labour that is the focus of this research.

The issues considered in this article sit within an emerging literature on the characteristics and consequences of ‘flexible’ labour market structures and the role of migrant labour in facilitating them (Castles and Kosack, 2010; Ruhs, 2006). Concerns about the supposedly increasingly precarious nature of work have been a prominent feature of academic and public debates regarding contemporary (flexible) labour markets (Benach and Muntaner, 2007; Kalleberg, 2009). However, as is often lamented, ‘flexibility’ is a widely used yet ill-defined term (Furåker et al., 2007). With regard to its application to the economy, flexibility is often presented as a broad set of potential employer–employee relations which can have positive and negative outcomes for workers, businesses and their customers. Narrowing down somewhat, flexibility has often been aligned with discussions surrounding the segmentation of labour markets (Karlsson, 2007) and it is in this spirit that the term is applied in this article.

A burgeoning body of academic literature has developed around the issue of segmented labour markets and migrant workers and these perspectives potentially offer a useful theoretical underpinning for attempts to conceptualize the position of A8 labour migrants in Britain. A seminal contribution to this field can be found in the writing of Michael Piore (1979). Dissatisfied with the inability of conventional economic theory (i.e. spatial disparities in the supply of and demand for labour) to fully account for the mobility of individuals for employment related reasons, Piore (1979) postulated that the structures of modern labour markets in developed countries are inherently oriented towards a permanent requirement for migrant labour. This state of affairs was attributed to the supposed existence of a dual labour market, consisting of a primary sector dominated by non-migrant labour and characterized by reasonable salaries and levels of job security and a secondary segment associated with migrant labour and involving poor pay and conditions, such as insecure and often tedious work with limited opportunities for progression (Piore, 1979). Initial applications of this framework involved consideration of how labour market structures combine with a ready supply of new immigrant labour to limit opportunities for skill acquisition among particular groups, thus constraining them to ‘secondary’ sectors of the economy which offer few opportunities for upward occupational mobility, e.g. in the case of garment workers in New York (Waldinger, 1986).

While the concept of the dual labour market offers a clear broad framework for explaining the labour market position of migrants, Piore’s (1979) theories have inevitably been refined over time, with an increasing analytical emphasis on segmented as opposed to dual labour markets. These developments have reflected the recognition that economies contain a spectrum of jobs, rather than dual labour market theory’s rather crude and simplistic division of the labour market into primary and secondary jobs. However, in keeping with dual labour market theory, understandings of segmented labour markets posit that clusters of jobs are distinguishable from each other according to characteristics such as pay, security and opportunities for progression (Reich et al., 1973). Critically, migrant workers can become associated with particular parts of the labour market, thus reproducing their segmentation in it over time (Waldinger and Lichter, 2003). An advantage of the more sophisticated view of the labour market as being segmented rather than simply a dualism between primary and secondary sectors is that it has allowed for recognition of the broad set of processes that produce the position and experiences of migrant labour. For example, Peck (1996) has demonstrated how particular employment and recruitment regimes, modes of state regulation and migrant social practices have combined to simultaneously position particular segments of labour markets towards migrant labour and orientate migrants towards these specific functions.

The argument that the segmented nature of modern labour markets creates a structural demand for migrant labour (Anderson and Ruhs, 2010; Friberg, 2012) has more recently been advanced with the contention that historically significant flows of migrant labour over the past decade or so are both a cause and an effect of burgeoning flexible labour market structures in post-industrial labour intensive economies (Castles and Miller, 2009). The logical conclusion from these understandings is that segmented labour markets are dependent on migrants being available and willing to perform functions that otherwise would not be fulfilled and thus would not exist in their absence. As Anderson and Ruhs (2010) have highlighted, the ‘need’ for migrants is a social construct which in theory need not exist. According to their reasoning the ready availability of migrant workers allows employers to offer poor pay and working conditions and does not create incentives to alternatives such as better paid jobs or switching to less labour intensive production processes. In this sense it is pertinent to frame the relationship between migrant labour and segmented labour markets as potentially mutually reinforcing: employer practices create a permanent demand for migrant labour, the ample supply of which in turn enables segmented labour markets to further flourish (Piore, 1979). The decision of the UK government not to limit the right of East-Central European workers to access the British labour market at the time of the A8 accession in 2004, during a period of sustained economic growth, may be viewed as a pivotal moment in this respect. Segmented labour markets undoubtedly predated large scale immigration. However, the sudden availability of large numbers of well perceived workers, who were tolerant of employment conditions eschewed by domestic labour (and other migrants), not only could have enabled employers to fill labour shortages but arguably could also have facilitated the development of ‘flexible’ employment and production processes that would not have been possible otherwise. This analysis seeks to shed light on whether this has been the case and if so how these processes have operated.

A criticism of dual labour market explanations of migrant employment conditions is that they frequently focus on the demand at the expense of the supply side of the labour market equation (Samers, 2010). Migrants tend to be young, often lack language skills and have qualifications that are not recognized in the host economy. Thus human capital models can also aid understanding of migrants’ labour market outcomes (Shields and Wheatley Price, 2001). Additionally reliance upon social networks may also contribute to migrants’ labour market marginalization: a new arrival who finds employment through a social network is likely to attain a job similar to those of the constituents of that network (Portes and Sensenbrenner, 1993). Finally, in the short term at least, migrants’ ‘dual frame of reference’ (Piore, 1979) means that they are accepting of wages and employment conditions that are considered unfavourable in their host society because they are still favourable to those in their countries of origin. This point relates to the often unacknowledged role of the agency of migrants in the relationship between migration and flexible employment structures. Recent work by Alberti (2014) for example has questioned the view of migrants as mere victims of precarious employment. Alberti’s investigation, involving migrant hospitality workers in London, is refreshing in that it illustrates how some migrants are able to use temporary jobs strategically, such as to improve English language skills. Such migrant perspectives usefully encourage a view that goes beyond seeing migrant labour as an inert tool in the processes of labour market flexibilization.

This brief overview of the body of literature that has applied the ideas of segmented labour markets to migrant workers offers a number of potentially valuable insights into the position of A8 migrants in the UK and it is to this labour supply that the discussion now turns. In particular these insights encourage a focus on not only how employer recruitment and employment practices produce a perennial need for migrant labour, but also how these practices combine with labour supply issues (such as spatial wage inequalities and international immigration policies) to connect particular types of workers with specific segments of the economy.

Situating the research: East-Central European migration to the UK

East-Central European migration to the UK since 2004 has been exceptional due to the sheer volume of arrivals over a relatively short space of time and the geographically dispersed pattern of immigration (Burrell, 2009). From a labour market perspective, the existing body of research has pointed to employers having positive perceptions of East-Central Europeans (Scott, 2012) and of these workers disproportionately occupying low paid and temporary forms of employment (Migration Advisory Committee, 2014).

In terms of employers’ engagement with A8 workers, the existing evidence points towards two distinctive functions: migrant workers are used due to a lack of alternative labour sources; and migrant labour is used as a more favourable option than alternative labour sources. The ‘labour shortages’ perspective relates to the providers and users of migrant labour frequently citing labour and skills shortages as their primary reason for drawing on foreign workers, even for filling low and unskilled jobs (Anderson and Ruhs, 2010). Employers often attribute their use of migrant labour to a paucity of domestic labour willing and able to engage in poorly paid, insecure or undesirable work (MacKenzie and Forde, 2009). While evaluating the causes of supposed labour shortages in low-skill occupations in a time of economic recession is beyond the scope of this article, research has pointed to labour shortages as a key driver of the demand for migrant labour in many parts of the UK labour market (see Local Government Association, 2009 in the case of agribusiness, for example).

An alternative possible explanation for employers’ use of migrant labour in jobs at the bottom end of the labour market is not that they cannot source domestic labour but that they regard migrant labour more favourably and thus choose to recruit from this particular pool of labour. This emphasis on the demand rather than supply-side of the labour market makes the case that jobseekers and other forms of domestic labour are often regarded as unappealing by employers, especially whenever there is a plentiful supply of migrant labour which is viewed as having more desirable attributes (Lucas and Mansfield, 2010). Migrants are often portrayed by employers as having a superior ‘work ethic’ to local workers (MacKenzie and Forde, 2009). This represents a form of direct and indirect discrimination in recruitment practices whereby employers recruit based on national stereotyping, with the suitability of workers for particular roles being determined categorically rather than on individual merit (Lucas and Mansfield, 2010). This leads to ethnically ordered hiring queues whereby employers devise an implicit hierarchy of nationalities according to their desirability as employees (Scott, 2012). These processes may be thought of as a form of cumulative causation whereby the ample supply of flexible migrant labour and high employer demand for it become mutually reinforcing and institutionalized over time (Ciupijus, 2011).

These understandings are more nuanced than the rather crude migrant versus domestic labour lens through which labour market segmentation is sometimes viewed. Low-wage employers will not only often view migrants more favourably than non-migrants, but will attach higher value to particular nationalities of migrants over others and will orientate their practices accordingly in order to engage with these groups. These ‘virtual hierarchies of migrants’, where a worker’s ethnicity affects an employer’s view of them even before they have any contact with them, are especially orientated towards the recruitment of A8 migrants into low-wage work (Matthews and Ruhs, 2007: 17). Employers, especially in relation to non-technical and lower skilled jobs, have been shown to prioritize ‘attitude’ over relevant experience or particular skills (Nickson et al., 2005). In the case of the service sector for example, UK employers have been shown to value the level of ‘middle classness’, which some A8 migrants can offer relative to other potential pools of labour (Lucas and Mansfield, 2010). Hence, these ‘constructions of nationality’ can have an impact on the functions assigned to migrant workers, with workers from EU countries preferred in front of house roles to migrants from regions such as the Middle East, Asia or Africa (Matthews and Ruhs, 2007). Critically, stereotypes based on nationality interact with the meanings attached to other categories such as sex, age and social class to produce employer conceptions of the ‘good’ migrant worker (MacKenzie and Forde, 2009). The perception that migrants with particular characteristics and qualities can give employers ‘what they want’ in terms of their (pre)scripted understandings of ‘good workers’ means that labour demand and supply can be thought of as ‘mutually conditioning’ (Anderson and Ruhs, 2010). Existing research has pointed towards some of the strategies used by low-wage employers to specifically target A8 migrants in their recruitment processes. These tactics include: direct recruitment from East-Central Europe, recruitment through migrant social networks and the use of recruitment agencies associated with A8 migrant labour (Findlay and McCollum, 2013; McCollum et al., 2013). In turn migrant workers have been shown to respond to employer expectations by ‘performing’ in ways which meet the stereotypes associated with their ethnicity or region of origin (Waldinger and Lichter, 2003).

For the reasons discussed above it might be assumed that in the UK the 2004 EU expansion has arguably facilitated the growth of ‘flexible’ employment structures (House of Lords, 2008). Shortages of domestic labour and a preference for migrants could thus have contributed to a migration system whereby A8 migrants seek, are matched to and become associated with particular flexible labour market functions. As fittingly noted by Ciupijus (2011), the availability of East-Central European migrant labour associated with the A8 accession represents a potentially fundamental novel episode in labour migration processes and in terms of how the sociology of work is understood and conceptualized by scholars. In this vein a contribution of this analysis is that it seeks to elucidate the labour market function of A8 migrant labour in the UK, relative to non-migrants but also to other migrants. Research points to A8 migrants being disadvantaged in the labour market: they have high employment rates but tend to be concentrated in low skilled jobs and thus have earning levels that are below not just UK-born workers but other migrant groups too (Rienzo, 2012). This ties in with analysis which has shown that A8 migrants, despite being relatively well educated (Dustmann et al., 2010), are disproportionally concentrated in temporary forms of employment and in low paying sectors of the economy such as hospitality, agriculture, manufacturing and food processing (McCollum, 2013). This investigation seeks to go beyond the conventional migrant verses non-migrant perspective of some labour market research by exploring the extent to which the role of A8 migrants may differ not only from that of UK nationals but also from that of other migrant groups. In so doing the study considers whether East-Central European migration serves a distinct function in the UK labour market, one that can be seen as different from that of non-migrant labour but also from the role played by other migrants.

Methods

In-depth qualitative interviews were utilized to address the following research questions:

This article draws on 61 in-depth interviews with users (employers) and providers (recruitment agencies) of A8 migrant labour. The interviews were carried out in 2010 across four UK case study sites. The research concentrated on the food production and processing and hospitality sectors, which were judged to be key parts of the labour market associated with A8 workers (McCollum, 2013). The case study sites included rural and urban areas of England and Scotland (West Sussex/Hampshire, Southampton, Angus/Fife and Glasgow).

The labour providers ranged from individuals who ran their own recruitment businesses to large nationwide and multinational recruitment agencies. The position held by most of the interviewees was overall director of the firm, or local/regional managers in the case of larger organizations. The labour users ranged from large multinational organizations to smaller employers. Most of the hospitality employers were hotel or restaurant chains and most interviewees were general or personnel managers. The food production and processing interviews focused on farms and vegetable and meat processing companies. Most of those interviewed held the job title of operations or human resource managers within their firm. Overall 26 per cent of the organizations that were contacted agreed to take part in the research. Only 12 per cent explicitly refused to participate in the research, the remaining 62 per cent could not be contacted in a follow up round of telephone calls. Pseudonyms have been used in the quotations which follow to protect respondents’ anonymity.

The function of A8 migrant labour: flexible workers for flexible jobs?

Dual labour market theory postulates that the existence of ‘flexible’ labour market structures ‘produces’ a perennial need for an inexpensive and flexible supply of (migrant) labour. In this sense ‘core’ functions are mainly performed by indigenous workers while the secondary sector is dominated by migrants working in poorly paid and unstable jobs which offer limited opportunities for progression (Piore, 1979). This peripheral migrant workforce is utilized in response to fluctuations in demand for employers’ goods or services and thus demand for labour. This study of the recruitment and employment practices of low-wage UK employers found ample evidence in support of A8 migrant workers fulfilling the function of a peripheral workforce, as is typified by the quotation from Maria below.

Most of the permanent staff are locals but all of our agency workers are from overseas. We will always be able to get local people for the permanent jobs but we’d struggle to survive without the agency staff because they allow us to react to an upturn or downturn in demand, so at an hour’s notice you can phone up and say that you need another ten bodies and you get them straight away. (Maria, food processing company, urban Scotland)

As well as offering flexibility by supplementing a core permanent (domestic) workforce, in some cases A8 migrants were presented as filling jobs that domestic workers were unwilling to consider, with the result being that they constituted the entire workforce of many rural food production and processing businesses.

Because it is minimum-wage work on a factory floor no Scottish people want to do it and the Eastern Europeans are the only ones that will. The locals are not really interested unfortunately because they’d rather be on benefits but our European workers are a great bunch, really hard working and diligent and if we didn’t have them we’d be in real trouble. (June, food processing company, rural Scotland)

As the quotations above imply, many employers regarded migrants as central to their functioning, either by taking on the flexible function of the workforce or by being the ‘core’ workforce itself. These findings tie in with understandings of low-wage employers using skills and labour shortage narratives to explain their perceived reliance on migrant labour (Anderson and Ruhs, 2010). A perhaps more interesting and novel perspective is to consider how A8 migrants are utilized in relation to not only domestic labour but other migrants and it is to this point that the discussion now turns.

A8 labour: exceptionally flexible?

As has been discussed, employers may use A8 migrant labour due to a paucity of other sources or because they value it more highly than alternative sources. Most low-wage employers regarded East-Central Europeans as offering greater ‘value for money’ than other potential sources of labour in terms of their ‘work ethic’. These favourable perceptions support the notion that employer preferences can partially explain the concentration of A8 migrants towards the bottom end of the labour market.

The Brits are not good at service and customer care is absolutely vital in this industry. But the calibre of the Eastern European is far higher than the local because they are willing to work and they smile and they have a happy demeanour and it is all about behaviour because I can train skills, but what I can’t do is train someone to smile. (Jeff, hospitality, urban England)

On the other hand narratives about local workers ‘not wanting to do’ the work supports the narrative of a demand for migrant labour in response to labour as opposed to skills shortages.

Nearly everyone here is Eastern European but it is not because we think that they are better workers, it is just that they are the ones who apply for the jobs so it would be hard to recruit other people … but the Eastern Europeans are very good workers so we are happy. (Beatrice, food processing firm, rural Scotland)

The analysis thus far has presented the two key narratives used by low-wage employers to explain their use of A8 migrant labour: they fill jobs shunned by domestic labour and they make better employees than domestic labour. However, this conventional labour and skills shortage perspective is rather blunt in that it does not account for the extent to which A8 labour is differentiated from other potential sources of migrant labour. As the quotation from Samuel illustrates, most of the interviewees described valuing A8 migrants favourably not only in comparison with domestic labour but also with other sources of migrant labour.

The Eastern Europeans are good workers and they have got a fantastic work ethic I think, especially compared to the locals … but before the A8 accession we used to have quite a few Australians and South Africans and New Zealanders and their work ethic is not the same at all. I would much prefer to employ an Eastern European person than I would Southern Hemisphere because they are just too chilled out or arrogant. (Samuel, hospitality, urban England)

The perceived superior ‘work ethic’ of A8 migrants was the most commonly cited reason for favourable impressions of this group, reinforcing the notion that low-wage employers often prioritize the ‘right’ attitude over the possession of particular ‘hard’ skills (Nickson et al., 2005) and draw on national stereotypes when recruiting (Matthews and Ruhs, 2007). When asked to elaborate on what constituted this positive work ethic, many respondents alluded to A8 workers being a workforce that could be drawn on when required and easily not utilized when not. Other valued elements of ‘flexibility’ referred to the times that they were prepared to work and tasks that they were prepared to perform.

They are so flexible. I mean people from Eastern Europe, they want to work and they are reliable and they are far more flexible, they will do anything. They won’t say, ‘Ah no, I just want to work in construction.’ These guys will go and do any type of work going. And it is attitude; it is just a completely different attitude to anyone else. (Jane, labour provider, rural Scotland)

Producing flexibility: economic and political structures

If it is accepted that A8 migrant workers do represent a particularly flexible source of labour upon which low-wage employers can draw, then it is logical to consider the factors that may contribute to this potential exceptionality. Some authors, such as Anderson (2010) and Scott (2013), have made the case that legislation surrounding immigration can serve to produce ‘precarious’ or ‘good’ workers over whom employers and labour users have particular mechanisms of control. These arguments appear to hold some currency in the case of A8 migration. With the accession of the A8 countries to the EU in 2004 two interrelated factors combined to produce a large flexible workforce for low-wage UK employers. Firstly only the UK, along with the smaller economies of Ireland and Sweden, granted A8 nationals immediate access to their labour market at the time of accession. This meant that a large labour supply could access the UK’s (but very few other countries’) labour markets without legislative barriers and conveniently and inexpensively owing to factors such as budget air travel. Secondly significant disparities in incomes and earning potential between Eastern and Western Europe resulted in unprecedented inflows of migrants to the then booming British economy. As the quotation from Samantha hints, these factors conspired to produce a ready supply of highly perceived labour migrants, enabling UK employers to become much more ‘flexible’ in their operations than might have been the case in the absence of this labour supply. In line with segmented labour market theory, this suggests that particular labour market structures generate an explicit requirement for migrant labour rather than for labour in general (Waldinger and Lichter, 2003). This in turn leads to the orientation of recruitment and employment practices towards specific sources of labour.

It is all Eastern Europeans that we supply and I have some clients who would never dream of taking on somebody who wasn’t from there … they are so flexible and flexible working practices are what have made Britain thrive. Employers want to have the flexibility to turn labour supply on and off like a tap because it’s more cost effective to use it that way and the migrants are the only ones who will do it and work whatever hours they can. (Samantha, labour provider, rural England)

Analytically it is important to not fetishize East-Central Europeans as being inherently flexible: structural imbalances in the European economy and immigration policy (in this case the principle of free movement) are complicit in producing this flexibility. This is a point that was recognized by many of the interviewees, who acknowledged that it was a combination of low incomes elsewhere and legislation that meant that A8 workers were the best available plentiful supply of migrant labour that was accessible to them. The issue of the role of economic conditions elsewhere and governance in mediating the supply of labour to low-wage employers is an important element in understanding the labour market position of migrants. This is worth noting since conventional readings of dual labour markets can be open to the charge of overplaying the demand for migrant labour generated by employers at the expense of other institutions such as the nation state or supra-state organizations such as the European Union (Samers, 2010). In an illustration of the significance of governance in influencing the supply of flexible migrant labour, many interviewees reported that it was ultimately migrants from lower income regions beyond Europe that they praised most highly, leading some to lament the unavailability of this labour supply owing to legislative barriers.

I would work with more Asian people if I could because their work ethic is even better than the Eastern Europeans, they are very focused and work is very much the main part of their life. But getting a work permit for them is so difficult that I just use Eastern Europeans because their mind-set is much more hospitality focused than British people and they are more accepting of the long hours and low pay that go along with this sector. (Kenneth, labour provider, rural England)

The spatiality of income differentials and immigration policy therefore matters in producing a flexible supply of labour from particular regions. These structures are thus central to understanding what it is that produces the flexibility of A8 migrant workers in Britain. Workers from poorer regions beyond Europe are viewed as potentially even more ‘flexible’ than A8 workers, but are largely inaccessible due to national and supra-state immigration policies. Within the available pool of labour within the EU, the flexibility of A8 workers is produced by significant income and earning differentials between Eastern and Western Europe combining with the UK economy’s structural requirement for migrant labour.

Importantly this flexibility can be thought of as having temporal as well as spatial determinants. It is accepted that migrants’ ‘dual frame of reference’ makes them tolerant of relatively poor employment conditions (Piore, 1979). However this often erodes over time as they become attuned to norms surrounding earning expectations in their host society. This was a point brought up by many interviewees, who bemoaned a perceived erosion of the ‘work ethic’ of migrants with time spent in Britain.

Their standards are starting to drop off now and they are beginning to go native a bit and display a lot of the characteristics of our own [UK] workforce … unfortunately they are adapting some of our cultures in terms of attitude to work. (Jack, food processing firm, rural Scotland)

As the quotation from Iris hints, in this sense a flexible supply of labour is dependent on immigration legislation steadily opening up new sources of labour in lower income regions.

It is a cycle, the A8 countries joined the EU in 2004 and now we are a good few years into the process, so the honeymoon period is sort of over. So I always think: when are we going to have new countries coming in [to the EU], because we will always need them because you have those five to 10-year periods where people are happy to do anything but as their economies pick up they will be gone and if they are not gone then they want better jobs. So it needs to be a cycle and we need to always bring new countries on board. (Iris, labour provider, urban England)

Producing flexibility: employer practices

The issues considered above tie in with the ideas of authors such as Anderson (2010) and Scott (2013), in that economic and geo-political structures can serve to produce ‘precarious’ or ‘good’ workers over whom employers and labour users have particular mechanisms of control. Of course employers, through their practices and preferences, are also active agents in facilitating the production of A8 workers as a flexible labour force. As has been discussed, low-wage employers have a preference for A8 workers over not only domestic workers but also other forms of (accessible) migrant labour.

The findings of this analysis chime with the outcomes of previous investigations of the tactics used by low-wage employers to enhance their workforce flexibility by engaging with A8 workers (Anderson and Ruhs, 2010; Findlay and McCollum, 2013). Routine strategies in this respect included: the use of agency labour, fixed-term and zero-hour contracts, piece rate pay (in agriculture) and recruitment of staff through informal migrant social networks.

A noteworthy issue to emerge from the research was how the control that low-wage employers have been able to exercise over East-Central European workers has varied in the period since the A8 accession to the EU in 2004. In the years immediately following the accession employers benefitted from having a ready supply of newly arrived and highly thought of workers who had low expectations regarding their pay and conditions and were prepared to be ‘flexible’.

Initially we were getting very skilled people as a source of labour, they were great … especially in outlying areas. Things like food processing tend not to be in city centres but Scots are not that flexible in terms of moving from one place to the other whereas Eastern Europeans were delighted to move. (William, labour provider, urban Scotland)

In the period immediately prior to the onset of the 2008 recession, interviewees reported a paucity of flexible workers owing to fewer new arrivals, higher expectations on the part of existing A8 workers and increased competition for workers from ‘better’ employers in the then booming British labour market. These circumstances forced some low-wage employers to improve their pay and conditions to attract workers.

Just before the recession we had big problems getting workers, so there was lots of fruit left in the fields in one of those years and farms had to get a lot better at keeping workers happy … but with the recession it has been much easier to source workers again, Latvia is a disaster zone economically at the minute so you can find lots of people from there. (Josh, labour provider, rural England)

As the quotation from Josh implies, the economic downturn was perceived by many low-wage employers in a positive light: demand for their products had remained steady (e.g. processed food) but the availability of labour had mushroomed owing to poor economic conditions in East-Central European countries and in the UK. These circumstances increased employers’ ability to exercise control over their workforce.

Business wise the recession had an impact at first but we are through the worst of it. But the overall impact has maybe been positive for us. The calibre of worker is now far better and turnover is way down … and sickness has disappeared because people are panicking about losing their jobs, so maybe we should keep the recession going! (Christine, hospitality, urban Scotland)

Discussion and conclusions

The conceptual starting point of this analysis was the logic that the structures of segmented labour markets can create a permanent demand for migrant labour (Anderson and Ruhs, 2010; Friberg, 2012) and that the large inflows of labour migrants that the UK and other post-industrial labour intensive economies have experienced in recent decades can be seen as both a cause and effect of the growth in flexible labour structures (Castles and Miller, 2009; House of Lords, 2008). Theoretically the relationship between segmented labour markets and migrant labour can thus be framed as mutually reinforcing: flexible labour markets create a structural demand for migrant labour and a ready supply of migrant labour allows flexible labour markets to flourish. This investigation has explored these issues in the context of recent East-Central European migration to the UK. This economic migration is particularly pertinent in discussions of flexibility as it represents the injection of a large quantity of well perceived workers who were (at least initially) accepting of relatively poor pay and conditions during a period of remarkable economic growth. This analysis sought to advance understandings of segmented labour markets and migrant labour in a number of ways. Firstly the function served by A8 migrants in flexible labour market structures was explored. Secondly the extent to which the role served by A8 migrants can be considered exceptional was discussed. Thirdly the factors which produce the labour market function of these workers were investigated.

Before the conceptual contributions of this study are considered, it is important to critically reflect on the potential limitations of the analysis. Firstly, the findings are based on interviews with a particular sample of low-wage employers and recruiters who agreed to participate in the research. Naturally ‘good’ businesses are more agreeable to engagement in social research than less scrupulous ones. As such it is conceivable that the data presented here are not a wholly complete representation of the role that A8 workers play in Britain’s low-wage economy. Secondly, the research did not engage with migrant workers themselves. The attractiveness of A8 workers to employers is clear, but what is less apparent is the mechanisms through which these migrants end up in these flexible jobs or what their labour market trajectories are over the longer term. Research involving migrants in low-wage work, perhaps following them over time, could potentially help to overcome this shortcoming. Finally, while A8 workers in general may display similar employment patterns, they are by no means a homogeneous group (Ciupijus, 2011). It is therefore necessary to be mindful of the ecological fallacy (making inferences about individual experiences from aggregate trends) when making pronouncements about the labour market function of East-Central European migrants.

In terms of existing debates about segmented labour markets and migrants, this analysis points to the notion that a function of the ready supply of A8 workers has been to oil the wheels of Britain’s flexible economy, meaning that employers have faced few incentives to retain or advance their workforce or move away from flexible employment and production practices (Ruhs, 2006). As was discussed, the tightening of the labour market in the period immediately prior to the onset of the recession in 2008 saw low-wage employers having to improve pay and conditions in order to attract staff. This points to the importance of context in considerations of how the flexibility of labour is produced. As postulated by dual labour market theory (Piore, 1979) employers and recruiters inevitably exercise control over labour in particular ways (e.g. through the use of fixed-term contracts and agency workers). However, this ability is enabled and constrained to a large extent by structural factors beyond their direct control. The evidence presented here supports the more nuanced representation of labour markets as segmented according to employer practices but also as a consequence of immigration policy and geographic disparities in income levels determining the labour sources that businesses have access to and the willingness of these workers to accept unfavourable pay and conditions (i.e. their flexibility).

A further conceptual contribution of this analysis is that it encourages a reading of the segmented labour market-migration dynamic that is sensitive to the inherently temporal as well as spatial aspects of these processes. Changing economic circumstances influence the supply of labour (domestic and migrant) and migrants generally become less accepting of their ‘flexible’ employment conditions over time. This is reflected in the calls from low-wage employers for the ‘opening up’ of new potential labour pools, in particular from low-wage regions beyond the EU. An improvement in economic conditions, coupled with increasing public opposition to immigration exerting political pressures on immigration legislation, may see low-wage employers becoming increasingly concerned about their access to ‘flexible’ workers in the future.

Conceptually this research highlights the importance of more sophisticated understandings of how the role of migrant labour in flexible labour market structures is theorized. Rather than a rather crude domestic labour/primary sector versus migrant worker/secondary sector dichotomy (Piore, 1979), a more analytically rigorous approach involves sensitivity to how the ‘virtual hierarchies of migrants’ (Matthews and Ruhs, 2007) framework that employers deploy when making recruitment decisions produces specific labour market experiences for particular groups of workers. Within these ‘ethnically ordered hiring queues’ (Scott, 2012) migrants are evidently regarded as more flexible than non-migrants: ‘The calibre of the Eastern European is far higher than the local’ (Jeff, hospitality, urban England). The geography of wage inequalities, immigration policy and the mutually reinforcing perceptions and practices of employers and migrants produce a situation whereby East-Central Europeans become positioned as the most flexible supply of labour that is available to low-wage sectors: ‘I would much prefer to employ an Eastern European than I would Southern Hemisphere’ (Samuel, hospitality, urban England). This differentiation of migrants based on region of origin places workers from lower income regions beyond Europe as the most desirable, yet inaccessible, labour supply: ‘I would work with more Asian people if I could because their work ethic is even better than the Eastern Europeans’’ (Kenneth, labour provider, rural England). The situation of East-Central European labour in the UK is thus not something that is inherent but that is contingent upon geo-political and economic structures producing time and space specific pools of labour. Therefore the ability of employers to use labour flexibly is not fixed; and the period following the A8 accession might in time come to be regarded as a particular phase in which various factors coalesced to produce especially flexible labour market dynamics. Only time will tell whether the situation described in this article represents a new norm in employment relations towards the bottom end of the labour market.