Uk govt using forced labour
eyes wide open | 03.02.2005 13:43
the Guardian article is a devastating indictment of our deregulated economy, our use of co-ercive and slave labour, and highlights the complicity of academics, unions and others in a cover up of a major report
Damning migrant report delayed
Government fears pre-election backlash
Hsiao-Hung Pai
Thursday February 3, 2005
The Guardian
The publication of a ground-breaking report on forced labour and the exploitation of migrant workers in Britain has been delayed after attempts by the government to hold it back until after the general election.
The Guardian has obtained a copy of the draft report, which is marked "confidential, not for further distribution". Written by independent academics, it explores the relationship between forced labour and deregulated markets under the Labour government.
Forced Labour and Migration to the UK was delivered last August to the International Labour Organisation in Geneva and the TUC in London, which jointly commissioned it in January last year. But six months later it remains unpublished.
It catalogues the coercive techniques used by private employers to force migrants to work for low wages and in poor conditions, from physical and sexual violence to debt bondage and blackmail.
It also gives examples of where the government has paid wages well below the minimum legal wage, following deductions to agencies.
The research focuses on building work, farming, contract cleaning and residential care. Its findings conclude that:
· many foreign migrants were forced to work through violence and intimidation and were prevented from seeking help;
· many have been forced into debt bondage, having taken loans to fund their travel to the UK repayable at exorbitant rates of interest. One woman had borrowed $1,000 (£530) to come here and had not paid the debt off four years later;
· migrants were often working in dangerous conditions, and for excessive hours. Some deaths of migrants at work had been identified;
· nurses brought to Britain to work in the NHS and in private care homes in particular complained of exploitative deductions from their wages. A group of 32 nurses from Asia were paid just £46 a week by an NHS trust after deductions to their agency.
The ILO/TUC publication was supposed to come out during the TUC conference last September. But according to sources in both bodies, pressure from government departments has pushed back its release until after the general election, expected in May.
A senior TUC official said the timing of publication was delayed after an intervention by Whitehall. "ILO was threatened with funding cuts by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) if the report were to be published," the official said.
The official believed the report was being held back until after the election because it would embarrass the government. "Contrary to the idea of a social Europe, Britain's economy is marked by the reality of a deregulated labour market and the super-exploitation of migrant workers," the official said.
The union movement has become increasingly alarmed by the growth of forced labour in Britain. However, there is a heated debate inside unions about whether to sound the alarm before the election.
An ILO official in Geneva familiar with the report said the delay had followed "extensive comments from the British government". There had been "some very sensitive discussions".
Among the most disturbing findings in the research paper is evidence of exploitation of migrants working for government bodies such as the NHS. It cites the case of Conrado, a qualified nurse brought from Asia to Britain by a labour agency to work in a hospital.
He and several others were made to pay £700 to labour agencies, followed by a month's deposit and rent for accommodation.
When they started working for the NHS their monthly pay of £805 was reduced to £198 - £46 a week - after deductions were made at source by the NHS trust and handed to the agency.
The report also cites cases of Indian nurses working for private care homes under contract to the government where each nurse was charged £3,000 for registration.
One group of Indian nurses were told they would have to pay £2,000 to their employer if they wanted to quit the job.
The ILO is the UN body which promotes workers' rights in 177 countries. The British government, led by the DWP, is one of 10 countries with a permanent seat on its governing body. It is understood to have paid £20,000 towards the costs of the forced labour research.
A spokeswoman for the ILO said the working paper had not yet been completed, and no publication date had been set.
The TUC said the paper would be published shortly, but revisions had to be made.
Its authors, Bridget Anderson of Compas, a left-leaning centre on migration policy and society based at Oxford University, and Dr Ben Rogaly, lecturer in human geography at Sussex University and a member of the Sussex Centre for Migration Research, declined to comment.
and
The third way's dirtiest secret
Ministers have tried to cover up their dependence on forced labour
Felicity Lawrence
Thursday February 3, 2005
The Guardian
A year ago this Saturday, 23 Chinese cocklepickers died at Morecambe Bay. A major new report that uncovers the scale of forced labour in Britain and makes recommendations on curbing this new form of slavery might be thought a fitting memorial to those who died. Instead, the government has tried to block its publication until after the election, as our front-page story reveals.
Interviews with migrants record the violence, threats, debt-bondage, dangerous conditions and enforced long hours to which they are exposed. They also lead to the inescapable conclusion that the deregulated economy has created the conditions for this exploitation to flourish under Labour.
The report* was commissioned at the beginning of last year by the International Labour Organisation - the UN body that works with government, unions and industry - and the TUC, and was completed last summer by academics at Oxford and Sussex universities. Yet it is only now seeing the light of day. It will finally be published this week by the TUC, but minus its ILO and Department for Work and Pensions backers. What is a Labour government that champions social justice so frightened of? And why has it taken the unions so long to defy its efforts at censorship?
The original title of the report was Free Market and Forced Labour. For it looks not just at the extent to which coercive employment takes place - and the answer is far more than anyone has acknowledged - but also at the nature of economic demand that drives migration and forced labour. And herein lies the real horror.
It is not just the sex industry that traffics and exploits migrants, but our key sectors - food and agriculture, contract cleaning, hotels and catering, construction and care homes. Moreover, the state uses migrants' forced labour in many cases - when it outsources local authority care to the private sector, when it uses agencies to recruit NHS nurses who end up living on £5 a week, when it uses contract cleaners provided by the cheapest bidder for its offices, or when subcontracted migrant labour is used on private finance initiative construction.
The UK has Europe's most flexible labour force; it lives in fear and squalor, is paid a pittance and is bussed round the country to work in the shadows of the night shift.
If exploitation of migrant labour turns out to be at the core of our competitiveness, as this report suggests, then tackling the problem requires Labour to address the structure of big business and its regulation - to rethink the philosophies inherited from the Tories that advocate subcontracting, outsourcing, competitive tendering, low piece rates, short-term contracts, workforce mobility and a light touch on red tape. But that undermines New Labour's whole narrative - the third way in which economic growth, based on global competitiveness, can be combined with tackling poverty and inequality.
The lives of migrant workers described in this report make a mockery of the government's programme of social justice. Social justice for our own population turns out to depend on the importation of an underclass of foreigners to create our wealth. We compete with countries that have no labour rights by importing their conditions.
There is ammunition for both the anti-immigration far right and pro-regulation old left here, and small wonder Labour would rather postpone the discussion until after an election. The unions have been alarmed about the scale of forced labour for some time as the realisation grows that unless they protect migrants, their own members' conditions cannot be protected. The intense talks between union leaders and ministers to thrash out Labour policy commitments before the election included a discussion of "superexploitation" among migrants. (The word exploitation is no longer thought adequate to describe what is going on.) Reportedly there were even suggestions that a crusade to protect our twilight migrant workforce might restore the government's moral authority lost in Iraq. But unions and ministers alike are afraid to rock the boat on migration for fear of losing votes. So a deal has been done to wait.
But super-exploitation cannot wait. Talk to residents in the agricultural town of Boston, Lincolnshire, where some 50% of the vote in the borough elections was for Ukip or the BNP, and they will tell you that the reason they are drawn to the far right is that no one else is talking about what they see, the violence and crime that organise migrants.
Conspiracies of silence always play into the hands of the far right. If the government really wants a new moral authority, it should come clean on forced labour and its causes now.
*Forced Labour and Migration to the UK, by Bridget Anderson and Ben Rogaly;
· Felicity Lawrence is the Guardian's consumer affairs correspondent and author of Not on the Label (Penguin)
Government fears pre-election backlash
Hsiao-Hung Pai
Thursday February 3, 2005
The Guardian
The publication of a ground-breaking report on forced labour and the exploitation of migrant workers in Britain has been delayed after attempts by the government to hold it back until after the general election.
The Guardian has obtained a copy of the draft report, which is marked "confidential, not for further distribution". Written by independent academics, it explores the relationship between forced labour and deregulated markets under the Labour government.
Forced Labour and Migration to the UK was delivered last August to the International Labour Organisation in Geneva and the TUC in London, which jointly commissioned it in January last year. But six months later it remains unpublished.
It catalogues the coercive techniques used by private employers to force migrants to work for low wages and in poor conditions, from physical and sexual violence to debt bondage and blackmail.
It also gives examples of where the government has paid wages well below the minimum legal wage, following deductions to agencies.
The research focuses on building work, farming, contract cleaning and residential care. Its findings conclude that:
· many foreign migrants were forced to work through violence and intimidation and were prevented from seeking help;
· many have been forced into debt bondage, having taken loans to fund their travel to the UK repayable at exorbitant rates of interest. One woman had borrowed $1,000 (£530) to come here and had not paid the debt off four years later;
· migrants were often working in dangerous conditions, and for excessive hours. Some deaths of migrants at work had been identified;
· nurses brought to Britain to work in the NHS and in private care homes in particular complained of exploitative deductions from their wages. A group of 32 nurses from Asia were paid just £46 a week by an NHS trust after deductions to their agency.
The ILO/TUC publication was supposed to come out during the TUC conference last September. But according to sources in both bodies, pressure from government departments has pushed back its release until after the general election, expected in May.
A senior TUC official said the timing of publication was delayed after an intervention by Whitehall. "ILO was threatened with funding cuts by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) if the report were to be published," the official said.
The official believed the report was being held back until after the election because it would embarrass the government. "Contrary to the idea of a social Europe, Britain's economy is marked by the reality of a deregulated labour market and the super-exploitation of migrant workers," the official said.
The union movement has become increasingly alarmed by the growth of forced labour in Britain. However, there is a heated debate inside unions about whether to sound the alarm before the election.
An ILO official in Geneva familiar with the report said the delay had followed "extensive comments from the British government". There had been "some very sensitive discussions".
Among the most disturbing findings in the research paper is evidence of exploitation of migrants working for government bodies such as the NHS. It cites the case of Conrado, a qualified nurse brought from Asia to Britain by a labour agency to work in a hospital.
He and several others were made to pay £700 to labour agencies, followed by a month's deposit and rent for accommodation.
When they started working for the NHS their monthly pay of £805 was reduced to £198 - £46 a week - after deductions were made at source by the NHS trust and handed to the agency.
The report also cites cases of Indian nurses working for private care homes under contract to the government where each nurse was charged £3,000 for registration.
One group of Indian nurses were told they would have to pay £2,000 to their employer if they wanted to quit the job.
The ILO is the UN body which promotes workers' rights in 177 countries. The British government, led by the DWP, is one of 10 countries with a permanent seat on its governing body. It is understood to have paid £20,000 towards the costs of the forced labour research.
A spokeswoman for the ILO said the working paper had not yet been completed, and no publication date had been set.
The TUC said the paper would be published shortly, but revisions had to be made.
Its authors, Bridget Anderson of Compas, a left-leaning centre on migration policy and society based at Oxford University, and Dr Ben Rogaly, lecturer in human geography at Sussex University and a member of the Sussex Centre for Migration Research, declined to comment.
and
The third way's dirtiest secret
Ministers have tried to cover up their dependence on forced labour
Felicity Lawrence
Thursday February 3, 2005
The Guardian
A year ago this Saturday, 23 Chinese cocklepickers died at Morecambe Bay. A major new report that uncovers the scale of forced labour in Britain and makes recommendations on curbing this new form of slavery might be thought a fitting memorial to those who died. Instead, the government has tried to block its publication until after the election, as our front-page story reveals.
Interviews with migrants record the violence, threats, debt-bondage, dangerous conditions and enforced long hours to which they are exposed. They also lead to the inescapable conclusion that the deregulated economy has created the conditions for this exploitation to flourish under Labour.
The report* was commissioned at the beginning of last year by the International Labour Organisation - the UN body that works with government, unions and industry - and the TUC, and was completed last summer by academics at Oxford and Sussex universities. Yet it is only now seeing the light of day. It will finally be published this week by the TUC, but minus its ILO and Department for Work and Pensions backers. What is a Labour government that champions social justice so frightened of? And why has it taken the unions so long to defy its efforts at censorship?
The original title of the report was Free Market and Forced Labour. For it looks not just at the extent to which coercive employment takes place - and the answer is far more than anyone has acknowledged - but also at the nature of economic demand that drives migration and forced labour. And herein lies the real horror.
It is not just the sex industry that traffics and exploits migrants, but our key sectors - food and agriculture, contract cleaning, hotels and catering, construction and care homes. Moreover, the state uses migrants' forced labour in many cases - when it outsources local authority care to the private sector, when it uses agencies to recruit NHS nurses who end up living on £5 a week, when it uses contract cleaners provided by the cheapest bidder for its offices, or when subcontracted migrant labour is used on private finance initiative construction.
The UK has Europe's most flexible labour force; it lives in fear and squalor, is paid a pittance and is bussed round the country to work in the shadows of the night shift.
If exploitation of migrant labour turns out to be at the core of our competitiveness, as this report suggests, then tackling the problem requires Labour to address the structure of big business and its regulation - to rethink the philosophies inherited from the Tories that advocate subcontracting, outsourcing, competitive tendering, low piece rates, short-term contracts, workforce mobility and a light touch on red tape. But that undermines New Labour's whole narrative - the third way in which economic growth, based on global competitiveness, can be combined with tackling poverty and inequality.
The lives of migrant workers described in this report make a mockery of the government's programme of social justice. Social justice for our own population turns out to depend on the importation of an underclass of foreigners to create our wealth. We compete with countries that have no labour rights by importing their conditions.
There is ammunition for both the anti-immigration far right and pro-regulation old left here, and small wonder Labour would rather postpone the discussion until after an election. The unions have been alarmed about the scale of forced labour for some time as the realisation grows that unless they protect migrants, their own members' conditions cannot be protected. The intense talks between union leaders and ministers to thrash out Labour policy commitments before the election included a discussion of "superexploitation" among migrants. (The word exploitation is no longer thought adequate to describe what is going on.) Reportedly there were even suggestions that a crusade to protect our twilight migrant workforce might restore the government's moral authority lost in Iraq. But unions and ministers alike are afraid to rock the boat on migration for fear of losing votes. So a deal has been done to wait.
But super-exploitation cannot wait. Talk to residents in the agricultural town of Boston, Lincolnshire, where some 50% of the vote in the borough elections was for Ukip or the BNP, and they will tell you that the reason they are drawn to the far right is that no one else is talking about what they see, the violence and crime that organise migrants.
Conspiracies of silence always play into the hands of the far right. If the government really wants a new moral authority, it should come clean on forced labour and its causes now.
*Forced Labour and Migration to the UK, by Bridget Anderson and Ben Rogaly;
· Felicity Lawrence is the Guardian's consumer affairs correspondent and author of Not on the Label (Penguin)
eyes wide open
Comments
Hide the following comment
For those allergic to the hypocritical Grauniad...
03.02.2005 15:20
Migrants subject to forced labour in UK
Migrant workers in the UK, including those with the right to work here, are
subject to such levels of exploitation and control that they meet the
international legal definition of 'forced labour', according to a report by
independent researchers published by the TUC today (Thursday).
The TUC argues that migrant workers should benefit from the same rights that
apply to every other worker in the UK, and is calling on the government to
put much more emphasis on cracking down on employers who break employment
law in its "managed migration" policies.
People trafficking in the sex trade, and the exploitation of workers with no
legal right to work - such as the Morecambe cockle pickers who were drowned
a year ago on Saturday - has been exposed before. But this report reveals
that migrants who can legally work in this country are also shockingly badly
exploited because they are unable to enforce their legal rights because of
the power their employer has over them:
• people here on a work permit can be deported if they lose their job, and
employers can sack them if they complain (see case study 1)
• people may be dependent on their employer for accommodation or work (see
case study 2)
• employers may hold passports (see case study 3)
• people may owe their employer for loans taken out to finance their travel
or other arrangements (see case study 4)
• employers can intimidate and threaten staff who do not know their rights,
have little or poor English language skills and have no access to
alternative support. (see case study 5)
The report, 'Forced Labour and Migration to the UK' reveals abuse, including
very long hours, pay below the minimum wage and dangerous working conditions
in a range of sectors including construction, hospitality, agriculture, food
processing, horticulture, contract cleaning, nursing and care homes.
Employers and agencies who break the law are rarely prosecuted or even
inspected by the authorities. Indeed the report finds employers using the
threat of immigration authorities against migrant workers.
The International Labour Organisation identifies the following factors that
indicate forced labour. Examples of each are given in the report:
1) Threats or actual physical harm to the worker.
2) Restriction of movement and confinement, to the workplace or to a limited
area.
3) Debt bondage: where the worker works to pay off a debt or loan, and is
not paid for his or her services. The employer may provide food and
accommodation at such inflated prices that the worker cannot escape the
debt.
4) Withholding of wages or excessive wage reductions, that violate
previously made agreements.
5) Retention of passports and identity documents, so that the worker cannot
leave, or prove his/her identity and status.
6) Threat of denunciation to the authorities, where the worker is in an
irregular immigration status.
The TUC is calling for employees here on a work permit to have more rights
to report abuse and change employer, and that employers guilty of abuses
should lose the right to apply for work permits for their staff. While
recognising that the forthcoming gangmasters licensing scheme will reduce
the scope for abuse in parts of the food sector, the report calls for more
scrutiny of agencies operating in other sectors. Workers subjected to forced
labour need the means to complain of abusive employers, and protections when
they do so, and organisations such as unions should be granted stronger
rights to pursue claims on their behalf.
TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said: "Tomorrow we will remember the
Morecambe Bay tragedy. The government has taken action since then, and we
welcome the Gangmasters Bill. But this report shows that more needs to be
done. The precarious position of those who have no legal basis to work here
is well known, but what this report shows is just how much people with every
legal right to hold a job can also be so badly exploited that they must
count as forced labour."
Case studies taken from the report
case study one - work permits
Three nationals of South Asian countries who entered on legal permits to
work for an employer in the manufacturing industry were threatened with
violence when they refused to accept their working conditions. They were
required to work 12-hour shifts from Monday to Friday and a 9-hour shift at
the weekend followed every day by cleaning the employer's private residence.
Their employer refused to negotiate and threatened to deport them. When they
eventually managed to escape from him he contacted the Immigration Service
to inform them that they were in the UK without work permits.
case study two - accommodation
A Filipina who had been told by her aunt, a UK resident, that she would be
able to work legally. She sponsored her, guaranteeing to support and
accommodate her. On arrival however the young woman was forced to work as a
contract cleaner, using her aunt's name and National Insurance number. Her
pay was being paid into her aunt's bank account and she was receiving no
money from her aunt at all. She was only allowed out to work and was kept
deliberately isolated. As well as her night cleaning job she had to perform
all the domestic work in her aunt's house and look after the young baby
during the day
case study three - holding passports
"My employer kept my passport. He kept it in an attaché case, locked. I
never tried to get it. The first year we came here, one colleague jumped and
they started to hide our passports in case we jumped too. They thought I
would be too scared to jump without my passport but it didn't work. When I
left I was worried about not having a passport. After two months, my
solicitor sent a fax to my employers and asked for my passport. There were
seven of us who jumped. I was the only one who got it. The others were too
afraid to ask for it back as the employer said we had stolen from them and
that they had hired police to search London."
case study four - debt bondage
One woman had borrowed US$1,000 for her trip and had not yet managed to pay
this off, despite being in the UK for nearly 4 years. She is currently paid
£2 an hour to work in a chip shop for 12 hours a day. >From Monday to
Saturday she lives on the chips, but on Sunday must pay for her food.
Sometimes she works as a barmaid with no pay but for a free meal.
case study five - intimidation
A group of Eastern Europeans were brought to the UK by a gang to work
illegally in a factory. They were originally informed that they would be
working with permits, but en route were given false British passports. When
they realized that they would be in the UK illegally they attempted to leave
the gang's control, but were threatened so seriously that they were forced
to continue. On arrival they were informed of their conditions: that they
must work seven days a week for one year with no pay because they needed to
repay their "debt" incurred for various expenses, including those related to
migrating to the UK. Their salaries were transferred into the bank account
of a gang member. They were watched very carefully, moved from house to
house, and kept isolated. If they broke any conditions - if they spoke to
anyone for example - they were fined and this was all noted down in a book
and added to their "debt". Control was maintained by beatings and physical
assault.
NOTES TO EDITORS:
A copy of 'Forced Labour and Migration to the UK' is available at
www.tuc.org.uk/extras/ForcedLabour.doc
- All TUC press releases can be found at www.tuc.org.uk
- Register for the TUC's press extranet: a service exclusive to journalists
wanting to access
pre-embargo releases and reports from the TUC. Visit
www.tuc.org.uk/pressextranet
- A series of TUC rights leaflets are available on our website and from the
know your rights line 0870 600 4 882. Lines are open every day from 9am-9pm.
Calls are charged at the national rate.
Contacts:
Media enquiries: Ben Hurley T: 020 7467 1248; Pager: 07699 713182; E:
Liz Chinchen T: 020 7467 1248; M: 07778 158175; E:
Skills for Life and media enquiries: Dan Ashley T: 020 7467 1372; M: 07880
504 846;
E:
Press Mole