Call for Prevention and Remediation Channels within Seasonal Migrant Worker Schemes
Amongst stories of harsh realities faced by many seasonal workers under the UK government’s seasonal migrant worker visa scheme is the story of an Indonesian fruit picker. This worker found himself in the UK, trapped in debt bondage, highlighting the dark shadows of a program meant to provide economic opportunities. Having incurred substantial debt along with his parents’ home and original identity and qualification documents taken as collateral compounded by a meagre pay, excessive working hours and poor living conditions, his experience of the seasonal worker scheme forms the basis of a test case against the scheme.
Brought forward by the Anti Trafficking and Labour Exploitation Unit (ATLEAU) against the Home Office and the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), the case contends that the very design of the scheme is such that it breached the worker’s right to be protected from modern slavery and labour exploitation. ATLEAU is seeking compensation and a declaration that the scheme violated the teenager’s human rights and hopes this case will compel the UK Government to rectify systemic flaws in the design of the scheme in order to minimise instances of exploitation of vulnerable migrant workers.
However, this issue extends beyond the UK. The human rights landscape concerning seasonal migrant workers in South Korea is equally troubling. Launched in 2017 to address chronic labour shortages, the Seasonal Worker Program (SWP) – a foreign employment permit policy – involves hiring of migrant workers for agricultural and fishing work for 5 to 8 months. A recent study conducted by the Joint Committee with Migrants Korea (JCMK) involving field visits to the Philippines, Nepal, and Vietnam to interview workers and other key stakeholders catalogues a series of rights violations including payment of high recruitment fees, non-payment of wages, absence of employment contracts in mutually understandable language, and exploitative working conditions amongst others. The report highlights the urgency to ensure transparency in the migration process to eliminate recruitment fees paid by workers to middlemen and ‘to establish domestic and international systems to prevent human rights violations’ (pp 150).
The juxtaposition of these cases from different parts of the world illustrates a pervasive problem. Loopholes in the very systems aimed at facilitating migration of workers, accentuate the vulnerabilities of workers opening floodgates for unchecked exploitation. The lack of access to remedy can leave the already vulnerable workers ‘in relationship and geographic isolation’ exposing them to heightened risks of forced labour (pp 46). As we scrutinise these instances, it becomes apparent that channels of prevention and remediation are imperative to rectify the flaws inherent in seasonal worker visa schemes.
As we work towards heightened demands for transparency, accountability and remedy it is crucial to recognise the interconnectedness of these issues. Governments must ensure worker voices are heard and addressed, with specialised mechanisms extending redressal. Workers and worker groups should be consulted and meaningfully engaged in the design, development and implementation of migration schemes. It is imperative on sending and receiving states to ensure that the relevant infrastructure to support the prevention and addressing of harm to workers is created ahead of the operation of such schemes. This creates a migration pathway that not only upholds the rights and dignity of migrant workers, but also fosters legitimacy among workers by readily providing remediation when rights violations are identified.
References: