Regulation vs. Reality: Protecting the Rights of Migrant Workers

Cross-border labor migration is a contemporary reality that places on many nations the burden of protecting the rights of transient workers. A July 2011 report from the Migration Policy Institute, “Running in Circles: Progress and Challenges in Regulating Recruitment of Filipino and Sri Lankan Labor Migrants to Jordan,” details the recruitment system that brings Filipino and Sri Lankan migrant workers to Jordan. The author, Dovelyn Rannveig Agunias, conducts a number of firsthand interviews with migrant workers, recruiters, employers, and policymakers to outline the recruitment and employment experience of laborers in Jordan.

According to 2009 estimates from Sri Lanka and the Philippines, approximately 110,000 Sri Lankan and Filipino migrant laborers currently work in Jordan. These migrants, the majority of whom are female and unskilled or semi-skilled, are often working in Jordan illegally. All three countries regulate the recruitment and employment of migrant workers by setting employment standards, placing caps on fees that employers pay recruiters, and licensing recruiters.

Aguinas identifies a number of potential problems with these systems of regulation. For instance, recruiters often charge workers high placement fees with the goal of trapping migrants in expensive loans. Other problems migrants report include a lack of information about the true terms and conditions of their work, poor living and working conditions, physical and sexual abuse and harassment, and regular confiscation of their passports. The biggest problem that migrant workers identify, writes Agunias, is the nonpayment or underpayment of wages.

Why do these problems persist, despite the countries’ efforts? Agunias identifies six problem areas in the governments’ regulation systems. The market for licensed recruitment agencies is overcrowded, generating a cutthroat business environment and large numbers of unlicensed subagents. Employers themselves are often unregulated: collusion between employers and recruiters is common and there are insufficient controls in place to weed out unqualified employers. The migrants’ situation is further imperiled by the fact that the Jordanian legal system does not afford them adequate protection. Finally, a 2008 Filipino ban on the hiring of Filipino domestic workers in Jordan has created a robust black market for recruiting these workers entirely outside of the law. The government of Jordan does not even recognize the law.

There are a number of steps the governments could take, Aguinas argues, to repair these blind spots in regulation. She urges governments and others involved in international recruitment to disseminate clear information to migrants and employers, to limit the number of licensed recruitment agencies, to regulate the informal actions of subagents and brokers, to cut-off unqualified employers’ access to foreign labor, and to improve and clarify migrant workers’ status within the Jordanian legal system. She also proposes lifting the ban on Filipino domestic workers and increasing investment in infrastructure, personnel, and technology to formalize the recruitment and migration processes.

“The challenges surrounding recruitment,” Aguinas concludes, “though enormous, are by no means insurmountable.” Although it will take a great deal of effort to overhaul the recruitment process, the Sri Lankan, Filipino, and Jordanian governments could ultimately improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of laborers.