Migration and tourism are not new phenomena. Both have existed for as long as humankind. Today, human mobility is of great significance to the development of the European Union, not only from an economic point of view, but also in terms of its sociodemographic character. In a European Union where fertility rates are declining, family formation is changing, and the population is aging, migration may be more of an asset than a threat and hence might be desirable in demographic terms (Korno Rasmussen 1997:137–143).

Central to the raison d’être of the European Union (EU) and European economic integration is the aspiration to remove internal frontier controls and to allow the unhindered movement of people and goods across the boundaries of the member states (Lazaridis 1996:335–348). This is accompanied by an intensification of controls at the borders of the EU, aiming to protect the immediate interests of the member states. The EU initiatives and measures developed through the First and Third Pillars ( Monar 1997:327) are shaping migration policy development in Europe. In the light of the EU interest in the movement of labor within its regions, this paper looks at the character of migrant labor into Greece. In doing so it does not discuss migration policy in Greece as this topic has been dealt with in detail elsewhere (Lazaridis; Lazaridis and Poyago-Theotoky, 1997 and Lazaridis).

Based on ethnographic data, this paper discusses some preliminary findings concerning the experiences in the labor market of two different ethnic minority groups in two Greek cities, Athens and Thessaloniki. In particular, it focuses on the experiences of Albanian migrant workers (both Greek-Ethnic-Albanians and other Albanians), who entered the country illegally and find themselves on the fringes of the labor market, and of a particular tourist type who, being a citizen of a member state of the union, enters the country legally and chooses to “go native” in the host society. Falling in love with Greece’s relaxed and outdoor lifestyle, this type of tourist decides to stay knowing that being a European Union national they have rights throughout the union. Once in Greece, they find temporary seasonal employment as a means of financing their chosen alternative lifestyle. Both the Western tourist-workers and the Albanians come to Greece seeking better prospects than they can find at home. However, Albanians escape from impossible conditions (poverty, lack of peace, political persecution at home, unemployment) whereas tourist-workers seek kalozoia (the good life): good food, a warmer climate, and other positive features of Greek culture and life. Unlike the Albanians, the majority of the tourist-workers interviewed were sojourners, that is temporary migrants, with the clear intention of returning home in due course.

The paper focuses on the facets of discrimination and exclusion that the “others” (i.e., Albanians) experience in a member state of the European Union where national, ethnic, cultural, and religious difference is seen by the host community as a threat and the cause of problems. Hence, these migrants are, by default, seen as problematic and have acquired a negative image. Albanian migration is characterized by noncitizen status, with Albanians being incorporated to different degrees and in different forms, depending on whether they are ethnic-Greek or “other” Albanians; their experiences are contrasted with those of the tourist-workers who enjoy the privileges associated with European citizenship.

The comparative analysis reported in this paper focuses on the experiences of these two minority groups and particularly on their experiences in the labor market. Fieldwork over two years (1994–95 and 1995–96) has shown that both types of migrant worker constitute a “replacement labor force”, filling the undesirable, low paid menial jobs in the primary and tertiary sectors which have recently been deserted by Greeks (Lazaridis 1996). It is argued that, although both these social groups are found in low-paid occupations, the Western tourist-worker is treated more favorably by the hosts than members of other ethnic minority groups, such as the Albanians. The latter not only experience exploitation and discrimination in employment, but are treated as scapegoats in various political arenas. This paper asserts that the Albanians are trapped in conditions of inferiority, immobility and ultra-exploitation. It shows the contradiction between economic inclusion (albeit in the informal sector) and the different degrees of social exclusion that these two ethnic minority groups experience, drawing distinctions between the two Albanian types whenever appropriate.

“Us” and the “others”

One theoretical approach that may be used to understand the important set of problems faced by the Albanian ethnic minorities is that used within a dual labor market framework which rests on the distinction between the primary and the secondary labor markets. The former comprises jobs with relatively high wages, good working conditions, job security and opportunities for training and career mobility (such as managerial and professional). By contrast, the latter consists of poorly paid jobs with inferior working conditions, little or no job security, limited promotion opportunities or on-the-job training. These jobs are often filled by people from ethnic minorities, women, and young people (Castles and Kosack 1973). It has also been noted that these two types of employment coexist within the same firm (Doeringer and Piore 1971). This division of labor is seen as resulting from the strategies used by employers to obtain the types of labor they require.

Employers are prepared to offer those workers who have specialized skills and experience high wages and good career prospects, in order to persuade them to stay in the company. It is in the employer’s interest to have a stable workforce in jobs that require extensive training and investment by the company. On the other hand, employers see people who work in jobs with low skill requirements as dispensable. These secondary workers are easily replaced and hence there is no need to offer them high wages, or promotion prospects. In this theory, their positions in the occupational structure are dependent upon the market situation. The dual labor market theory focuses on the structure of the labor market and its effects on workers. Although there are various versions of this theory, they all draw attention to the strategies used by employers to privilege certain groups of workers in order to retain them as employees (Doeringer and Kahn, 1975). While this approach helps one to understand the consistent disadvantages suffered by the people interviewed because of their position in the labor market (they were all employed in the secondary labor market), it has a number of weaknesses. For example, it caters neither for new patterns of labor market segmentation between different migrant groups, nor for the diversification of conditions under which newcomers participate in the host country’s labor marker. For example, tourist-workers and Albanians arrive in Greece with diverse skills, resources, motivations, and legal statuses. As Castles and Miller argue, “the range and significance of immigrant labor market diversity is obscured by policy and analytical perspectives that stress the homogeneity of competitive labor markets or sharp contrasts between primary and secondary labor markets” ( Castles and Miller 1993:173).

Matza and Miller have drawn a useful distinction between those employed and those “sub-employed” in the secondary labor market (Matza and Miller 1976:661–662). Subemployment refers to the status of people who have a marginal position in the labor market, or people who find themselves employed casually, intermittently, and/or for limited periods of time. Their work is of low status and earning power. When work is scarce, they are likely to be unemployed. As a result, they move through various types of “ephemeral” labor, including temporary employment and casual work with no tenure. Furthermore, these marginal workers often experience periodic spells of unemployment ( Spicker, P., 1993. . Poverty and Social Security: Concepts and Principles Routledge, London.Spicker 1993:84). Hence, while the dual labor market approach offers a platform for understanding the problems experienced by these two ethnic minority groups in employment, there are limits in its explanatory power for the differential treatment of these groups. It shows little interest in the restrictive laws and regulations that prevent some groups of migrant workers from gaining employment in more desirable jobs. Nor does it account for the widening gaps between different migrant categories and the long-term marginalization of certain groups within the labor market. Further, it fails to account for the racist ideology and attitudes that lead to the relatively higher degree of marginalization and social exclusion experienced by the Albanians in this study. It should also be noted that the dual labor market theory does not allow the voice of the subemployed to be heard.