Actually, labor emigration to Western European countries existed even before Lithuania joined the European Union, only it was illegal. After Lithuania's admission to the EU, illegal emigration to the three above-mentioned countries became legalized and began to quickly grow with new arrivals. This process continues, but its trends have noticeably changed. From fear of new immigrants from the East, the West is moving toward a more benevolent attitude and even fawning over them. Why would that be?
Recently, the European Commission published a document timed to the expiration of the two-year moratorium on admitting labor from new EU members, which explains a lot. It contains, in particular, a passionate appeal to the rest of the European Union to open their labor markets to newcomer countries. As is known, EU old-timers introduced various restrictions and transition periods lasting up to seven years. Twelve EU states must decide by the end of April whether to lift these restrictions, keep them in force, or make them more flexible, say, keeping them for certain sectors of the economy.
Let us recall that during the last EU enlargement, it was envisaged that these restrictions would be lifted gradually. They are to be reviewed for the first time on April 30, 2005, two years after the EU enlargement. The next time the restrictions will be reviewed is only on April 30, 2009. Then the third stage will come, when they will be automatically lifted in all EU countries. This will happen in 2011.
So, what explains the European Commission's call for EU old-timers to open their markets? The point is that recently the trend of some labor emigrants returning to their homeland has become more than noticeable. On the other hand, the ardor of new potential emigrants from the eastern EU countries is gradually cooling.
Several factors contribute to this. First, the outflow of labor from countries such as Lithuania led to a significant restructuring of the local economy and a revision of local employers' attitudes toward hired workers. Before the start of mass labor emigration, employers constantly worsened the position of their employees, paying them on a residual basis. For example, for a long time supermarket cashiers in Lithuania received minimum wages of 400 litas (about $130 at the exchange rate of that time). In addition, as Lithuanian media repeatedly wrote, their working day, in violation of the law, lasted 12 hours. Those who objected to such conditions were shown a queue of job seekers. In the absence of effective trade unions, the worker was practically powerless and without rights.
A similar situation developed with builders, drivers, waiters, and hotel staff. Owners of supermarkets, construction firms, and hotels were warned that they were sawing off the branch they were sitting on. As soon as the markets of Great Britain and Ireland opened, hundreds of thousands of Lithuanian workers, offended by local exploiters, poured there. Very quickly, in just six months, an acute shortage arose of cashiers, builders, drivers, service sector personnel, and representatives of other professions. People left for places where the same work pays five or even ten times more.
As a result, today owners of Lithuanian supermarkets are searching the whole country for cashiers. But now cashiers set conditions themselves, and owners are forced to reckon with them. Today, for the same work, they are already paid 700-800 litas and shown corresponding respect. After all, now there is no queue outside the door. There is already talk of hiring Moldovans and Ukrainians to work in supermarkets. However, fortunately for Lithuanian workers, bureaucratic barriers so far prevent the mass import of labor migrants from the East.
On the other hand, wages are also rising in Ukraine, and not every Ukrainian can be lured to Vilnius today with a salary of $200-300. However, the steady growth of the Lithuanian economy, about 7% per year, means a growing need for new labor, and its absence creates economic problems. Therefore, local capital has to raise wages for hired workers in order to retain those who are ready to leave for the West.
At the same time, in Great Britain and Ireland themselves, after the market opened and the influx of labor emigrants, conditions for them worsened. Supply grows, demand falls. The contrast between wages in the West and in Lithuania is becoming less sharp. And if one considers that Lithuanians in these countries often have to live in poor conditions, several people in a room, often without families, then the desire to return home or not leave at all gradually increases.
The end of last year was marked by the first mass return of some Lithuanian emigrants home. Interviews appeared in the Lithuanian media in which they, comparing wages and prices in Great Britain and Lithuania, say that while receiving an average Lithuanian salary, there is no particular reason to think about emigration (Lithuania is one of the cheapest EU countries in terms of cost of living). Although only the first swallows have returned to Lithuania, many emigrants are still waiting. Also characteristic is the change in tone of the Lithuanian media, which for a year and a half praised in every way the "western paradise" that emigrants enter, and now are debunking the myths they themselves created.
The Lithuanian government, for its part, trying to stop the outflow of labor, keeps raising wages, especially the minimum wage. In 2005, wages in Lithuania grew by more than 10%, with annual inflation of about 2.5%. And in such a depopulated sector as construction, by 100 and even 200%. After all, construction workers are the highest-paid profession among emigrants in Western European countries. For example, a welder whom a Lithuanian company offers a salary of less than 2,000 litas (about $700) will not even enter into negotiations with it today. After all, he is awaited in Great Britain with a willingness to pay 2,000 pounds sterling. Some representatives of construction professions receive in Lithuania as much as 4-5 thousand litas ($1.5-2 thousand). Such workers no longer see any point in leaving their families and going West, because the cost of living there is much higher.
So, the situation is leveling out. True, not in favor of white-collar workers. Paradoxically, a Lithuanian construction worker who two years ago received only a quarter of a professor's salary can today earn twice as much as a professor.
That Lithuanians are proud people has been known for a long time. Even in the USSR they were held in special regard. And today, Lithuanian immigrants in the EU, like other representatives of the Baltic states, have to silently swallow a bitter pill. Eurostructures recently, in fact for the first time, called things by their proper names: the new labor force from the East is needed by the Western EU countries not because they care about the rights of "newcomers," but because they need "white" rather than "dark" negroes. Thus, in a published European Commission document timed to coincide with the expiration of the two-year moratorium on admitting labor from new EU members, it says that the EU's expansion did not flood the "old" EU countries with cheap labor as expected. According to EU Commissioner for Employment and Social Affairs Vladimir Špidla, workers from the ten new EU states made a positive contribution to the economies of the fifteen EU "old-timers" by doing jobs that do not attract local residents.
The meaning of these statements is clear. They say: don't worry about migrants from the East; they won't be let into prestigious positions anyway, and there is no one else to do the dirty and heavy work. Open your markets while those who are willing to wash toilets are ready to come to you. By the way, Spain and Finland have already heeded this call. Denmark, which has just suffered from Muslims, France, which has suffered from immigrants, and also Greece seem to be about to open up. Who is next? There is still time until April 30.
The commissioner's words should reassure those countries that still do not let in "plumbers from Poland and Lithuania." But they also ricochet against the self-esteem of the peoples who supply cheap labor to the West. One of the unspoken meanings of EU enlargement has now become obvious. And it is that the British and Swedes do not want to clean toilets. Deal with mortar. Wash dishes, wash their own, let alone someone else's laundry. Serve customers in cafes. Clean rooms in hotels. Build buildings and renovate apartments. Care for bedridden patients. In short, do heavy, dirty, unglamorous, and low-paid work.
For decades, the current EU old-timers imported blacks, Arabs, Chinese, and Vietnamese to have a rightless and cheap "service personnel." However, recent events have clearly shown what problems people of other races and cultures can create for Europe. So why rack your brains when you can expand the EU at the expense of "white negroes" brought up in European culture and fill the "black" labor markets with them?
In essence, we are dealing with a new feudalism fighting for its existence under the guise of democracy, liberalization of labor markets, and EU enlargement. Is it not for this reason, understanding what is what, that the proud Lithuanians have been drawn back to their families and native land?