A Risk of Temporary Labor Programs

As US policymakers slog towards a possible reform to the US immigration system, talk of a temporary work program hangs in the air.  Temporary labor programs have a long history in modern immigration regimes in both the developed and developing world.  However, at least in the US and Europe these programs have often resulted in less-than-desirable outcomes.   Some of the more well-known are the Bracero Program in the US during the 1940s and 50s as well as the wave of temporary worker programs that swept Europe during the 1970s.  These programs can be seen as less-than-desirable because they led to wide spread abuse of immigrants as well as a spike in undocumented populations and social polarization around the issue of immigration.  However, the interest in temporary labor programs has not disappeared.

From a policy standpoint these temporary programs are ideal for spurring economic growth and filling gaps in the domestic labor markets.  At the same time allowing working people only temporary access generally curbs the potential impact on social welfare programs geared to the very young and very old.  Thus, policymakers in democratic countries are logically drawn to such programs because they appear to offer a politically safe compromise between business interests and domestic social groups.  Since the early days of these programs, governments have become more effective at tracking people and thus limiting the increase of undocumented immigration as temporary workers overstay.  It seems that hope springs eternal for these types of programs, especially in the developed world.  Whether or not temporary labor programs actually achieve any of these goals is a topic for scholarly debate.  In fact, some have indicated that temporary labor programs have much more insidious effects on society (but that debate is for another day).

Setting aside the macro economic and social policy debate, one of the major flaws in temporary labor programs is that they generally fail the immigrants themselves.  This failure is a structural consequence inevitable from the beginning of any such program.  By conceiving of immigrants as a source of labor, policy makers begin conceptualizing immigrants not as people, but as inputs into an economic equation.  There is little in the way of a democratic backstops to check this type of objectification thinking.  While elected officials have strong political incentives to ensure that temporary programs do not spur illegal overstay, there is no incentive to ensure that temporary programs are treating immigrants (read: non-voters) well.  Thus the stage is set for abuse.

Another structural element that necessarily leads to abuse of temporary immigrants is the economic drive for instituting the programs in the first place.  A temporary immigrant labor program is designed to save costs on labor.  Simply put, domestic labor is too expensive to entice into taking the jobs offered at the salaries they are offered at.  By starting out with cost savings as the motor of these labor programs it is not a stretch to see abuses stemming from this same logic.  Poor working and housing conditions, long hours and underpayment are among the most common problems.  Because temporary workers lack any political voice, there are few incentives to stop this type of abuse.

The extent of the problem recently came to light involving a scandal at an Amazon.com warehouse in Bad Hersfeld in Germany.  A documentary film exposed harassment and poor conditions for temporary workers brought in from Poland and Spain to work during the Christmas rush.  This is a surprising story for two reasons:  First it involves a business and industry with a high profile.  Often temporary immigrant workers are in agriculture or domestic service where they are largely hidden from the mainstream consciousness of society.  Second, this scandal involved workers from countries with special rights in Germany.  Both Poland and Spain are members of the Schengen agreement and Spain is a member of the European Union.  These agreements entitle citizens of these countries political rights in Germany, far and above the situation of most temporary workers.  Despite better access to the system, these workers found themselves in an abusive and exploitative situation.

The take-away from this recent scandal is that even in highly developed countries with pro-active immigrant protection and integration programs (such as Germany), temporary immigrant labor lends itself to abuse.  When policy-makers are considering implementing such programs political and human rights protections must be built in specifically, because temporary immigrant workers lack the ability to protect themselves.  The Amazon case grabbed news headlines because it involved a popular, 21-century firm and took place in Europe and between Europeans.  The simple fact is that most of the abuses of temporary immigrant labor occur without media attention and involve even more politically vulnerable groups.  Thus, while temporary immigration policies appear attractive to elected leaders, they must be carefully crafted and thoroughly scrutinized.