Temporary labour migration is increasingly presented as a solution to a number of challenges faced by societies in the Global North, ranging from labour shortages to demographic pressures (ageing). In addition, it is often identified as the politically feasible compromise between calls to “take back control of the borders” and the need of employers to access a migrant workforce in several essential sectors of the economy – such as agriculture, domestic and care work, construction. The legal framework of temporary labour migration schemes generally features an exchange between the possibility for migrant to access employment opportunities in the country of arrival and a restriction of their rights, starting from the time-limited nature of their visas, and expanding to the access to labour and social rights.
Temporary migration schemes put in place by destination countries such as the US, Australia, Canada, but also the Gulf states, have received important scientific attention. Far less attention has been paid to the European Union, due to a fragmented migration regime (up to 2014) and the distinction between intra- and extra-EU migration.
E-BoP develops the first empirical legal analysis of the construction of the EU legal framework for temporary labour migration, by examining the concepts which provide the foundation for the unequal treatment reserved to temporary labour migrants in the fields of social and labour rights. This covers the concepts of “labour market”, and the relationship of temporary labour migrants with it, and the one of “temporariness”. How does EU law justify the departure from the principle of equal treatment? Our systematic document analysis on the use of the concept of “labour market” by EU law documents offers the first investigation of its kind into this pivotal concept.
Having identified the internal legal meaning of these underdefined concepts, E-BoP will compare these with socio-economic data concerning temporary labour migrants in the EU. These will be collected to cover a set of Member States representative of different welfare traditions and varieties of capitalism. Are the assumptions behind the legal regulation of temporary labour migration tenable in light of empirical evidence?