OBSERVATIONS ON THE PROPOSAL FOR A EUROPEAN
COMMISSION DIRECTIVE ON THE CONDITIONS OF ENTRY AND STAY FOR EMPLOYMENT
The
proposal as it is set out is only acceptable for subordinate highly qualified
jobs or for autonomous work of considerable economic impact.
For
subordinate work of low category, in fact, entry from abroad would be precluded
by the need to stipulate a contract prior to entry (which is the equivalent
under current law in Italy of
application by name).
Italian experience shows that, in fact, the establishment of a work
relationship requires a direct meeting between worker and employer. The possibility of such an encounter
(for example – in the Italian situation – through entry for
“insertion in the job market” either with a sponsor or by
self-sponsoring) is not excluded, but – given the primary importance of
the matter – merits specific mention. It is necessary, that is, in accordance with the affirmation
of the Commission’s Communication on a Community policy regarding
immigration (para.3.4.21., “Procedures of presentation of requests and
evaluation”), that methods of entry for stay for relatively (but not
excessively) short periods should be permitted in order to seek work offers in
person.
For
autonomous work activity in which the foreigner is self-employed (for example,
small service activities) access would be impossible due to the requirement
relating to “effective benefits” of employment and of development
in the member state. On the other
hand, Italian experience shows how an important part of the activities which
foresee positive insertion of immigrants can only with difficulty be related to
subordinate work, given the temporary character of the services offered by the
worker and the request for services on the part of the employer. The idea that a provider of small
services must be certified by an international commercial concern regarding the
relevance of the planned activity or employment in the immigration country is
obviously unrealistic, as also is the idea that to take occasional
advantage of such services the
worker must be employed with a contract for subordinate work.
The
criteria of “Community preference”, as a condition for entry of the foreign for
subordinate work is in principle
acceptable. In Italy however it was
in force for 12 years, without any benefit for the national unemployed, up to
1998 (under law 943/1986). In
fact, since it has been applied, it has only blocked entry of foreign workers
for regularly declared duties, and led to work relationships, at best,
disguised as those related to domestic work (exempt from obligations of control
on availability) or, at worst, encouraged the birth and continuance of
“moonlighting”.
The idea of
making worthwhile a law of
preference for Community workers (or foreigners already living in the
European Community area for at least three years for subordinate work) of six
weeks would require extensive reform of the structure of the labour
offices. To transfer to a European
level what
has not worked on a national or local scale does not seem opportune. Nor does it seem opportune to deny
– once again – one of the fundamental elements for the functioning
of a work relationship: the trust between employer and employed, it is not the
position in a waiting list or the formal reply to an application which
guarantees such trust.
On the
other hand, the obstacle introduced by the confirmation of non-availability
would be of limited importance (a wait of six weeks ) in respect of other
bureaucratic obstacles which Italian experience has unfortunately demonstrated
to employers and immigrants. If
today, for example, the confirmation of non-availability was imposed as a
condition for effective entry for work of foreigners staying in Italy for
insertion in the work market, the delay in terms of time which such
confirmation would represent would mostly cushion the time required for the
issuance of the corresponding law on quotas and the carrying out of other
practical matters.
The
limitations relating to the possibility of using, in the first three years, the
stay permit for work activity for reasons other than those originally
envisaged, or indeed, in different regions from that in which the activity has
been authorized, contrast with the criteria of best use of resources; the same
can be said of the preclusion of the passage from subordinate work to
autonomous work and vice versa.
Paradoxically, such restrictive rulings are related to the forecast of
exemption from further control of criteria to effective economic needs (control
of non-availability for subordinate work, check on positive effects of
employment or development for autonomous work) in the period of validity of the
stay permit. In fact, should one
wish to avoid that the foreigner admitted to carry out a determined
“useful” employment should turn to other “useless” employment or work in competition with
workers already present, rather than blocking the change of activity it should
at best be subject to the controls foreseen for new arrivals.
The
requirements for renewal and maintenance of the stay permit are too rigid, due
to the importance given to the current employment for renewal (for subordinate
work), or – on the negative side – of periods of unemployment or
scarcity of means blocking renewal of the permit. Italian experience shows that an excessively fiscal attitude
does no more than produce formal illegality, sanctioning of which is, at the
same time, counter-productive, expensive and useless. Furthermore, penalization
of unemployment seems
a)
anachronistic,
at a time when one hopes for greater flexibility in the labour market,
b)
unacceptable,
in the sense that tying up the continuance of the work relationship excessively, deprives the worker of a
relevant part of his/her contractual rights.
Under both
aspects, the best use of resources seems once again to be put at risk.
Even if it
might be acceptable, in principle, to condition stay for employment to
availability of means for a minimum amount below which
social assistance would be required, it should be established:
a)
that
the demonstration of such availability is required only when the renewal of the
permit is requested (one should not therefore revoke a currently valid permit
for reasons linked to means or unemployment).
b)
that
availability can be demonstrated in the wider sense: holder of savings matured
during the period of the stay permit, current or foreseeable income, guarantee
by third persons, etc.
This last
provision, in particular, giving a positive reflection on non-declared work
activity (in line, furthermore, with certain observations contained in the
above mentioned Communication of the Commission), would avoid pressure on the
foreign workers for the lack or insufficient declaration of such work. In addition, it would permit evaluation
of temporary work, which however is not without economic relevance.
The
impossibility of carrying out work activity without the correct “stay
permit for work (or autonomous work)”, although it does not veto per se
holders’ conversion of other permits (for study or for family reasons,
for example), forces them to enter into a different category, with reference,
for example, to conditions of renewal of the permit. In this way, the student-worker or the family member with
temporary employment, who would be able to renew the stay permit for the
original reasons, risk their position being destabilized, without any
advantage.
The
question regarding the status of students is further aggravated by the lack of
provision for right to study for the holder of a work permit; the conversion of
the study permit into a work permit precludes the possibility of continuing
study.
The
possibility of revocation of the permit for “reasons of public
policy” (such is the Italian text) seems generically unacceptable, unless
it is intended as “reasons of public order”.
ADRA
Federation of Protestant Churches in Italy
Community of S. Egidio
Jesuit Refugee Service (Centro Astalli)
UCSEI
Senza Confine
Ferruccio Pastore