Foreign worker

Abstract: Objectives Daily numbers of COVID-19 in Singapore from March to May 2020, the cause of a surge in cases in April and the national response were examined, and regulations on migrant worker accommodation studied. Methods Information was gathered from daily reports provided by the Ministry of Health, Singapore Statues online and a Ministerial statement given at a Parliament sitting on 4 May 2020. Results A marked escalation in the daily number of new COVID-19 cases was seen in early April 2020. The majority of cases occurred among an estimated 295 000 low-skilled migrant workers living in foreign worker dormitories. As of 6 May 2020, there were 17 758 confirmed COVID-19 cases among dormitory workers (88% of 20 198 nationally confirmed cases). One dormitory housing approximately 13 000 workers had 19.4% of residents infected. The national response included mobilising several government agencies and public volunteers. There was extensive testing of workers in dormitories, segregation of healthy and infected workers, and daily observation for fever and symptoms. Twenty-four dormitories were declared as ‘isolation areas’, with residents quarantined for 14 days. New housing, for example, vacant public housing flats, military camps, exhibition centres, floating hotels have been provided that will allow for appropriate social distancing. Conclusion The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted migrant workers as a vulnerable occupational group. Ideally, matters related to inadequate housing of vulnerable migrant workers need to be addressed before a pandemic.

Abstract: Many civil society organizations and advocacy groups consider international human rights norms to offer a more promising avenue for protecting migrant workers from precarious employment than do claims based upon citizenship and the nation state However, there is little research on how international right instruments specifically designed to protect migrant workers’ rights address the factors that make migrant workers’ employment precarious The paper provides a taxonomy that maps the link between migrant status and precarious employment, which it uses to explore the nexus between precarious migrant status and precarious employment in the three “low-skill” streams – the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program, the Live-in-Caregiver Program, and the Pilot Project for Occupations Requiring Lower Levels of Formal Training (NOC C and D) – in the Canadian Temporary Foreign Worker Program After demonstrating the relationship between precarious migrant workers and precarious employment, the paper evaluates the capacity of international human rights instruments specifically designed for migrant workers to the address the problem of precarious employment It finds that the main problem with relying on the international migrant workers’ rights instruments is that they defer to the principle of state sovereignty over immigration policy and accept the right of states to impose restrictions on non-national’s employment rights in exchange for the privilege to enter host state territory What these instruments do is limit the duration of employment restrictions to two years The problem is that allowing states to tie a migrant worker’s work authorization to a specific employer for two years permits state-sanctioned subordination of migrant workers to employers and creates a situation ripe for abuse To break the link between precarious migrant status and precarious employment it is crucial for nation states to develop forms of restrictions on migrant workers mobility, such as sectoral and occupational work authorizations, that are less likely to be as exploitative as authorizations that tie migrant workers to specific employers

Abstract: In recent years, the number of temporary foreign workers admitted to Canada has more than doubled. In this study, Delphine Nakache and Paula Kinoshita examine the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, in order to determine the Canadian and Albertan approaches to integrating and protecting these migrants. They consider three possible policy perspectives on the legal status of temporary foreign workers, according to whether the country of employment (1) sees temporary labour migration as an opportunity to integrate the workers; (2) is indifferent to their future position in society; or (3) tries to prevent their integration. In order to determine into which policy perspective Canada fits, the authors analyze three important integration mechanisms: employment, family unity and access to permanent residency. In the field of employment, there is a discrepancy between policy and practice in regard to temporary foreign workers’ rights. A significant factor is the restrictive nature of the work permit (temporary foreign workers are often tied to one job, one employer and one location), which can have the practical effect of limiting their employment rights and protections. Other problems include illegal recruitment practices, misinformation about migration opportunities and lack of enforcement mechanisms. In the context of employment, Canada seems indifferent to temporary foreign workers’ future position in society. On family unity and access to permanent residency, there are significant differences in their treatment, depending on their skill levels. The spouses of highly skilled workers are able to acquire open work permits, and highly skilled workers have the opportunity to get permanent residency from within. In contrast, the spouses of lower-skilled workers must apply for a restricted work permit, and lower-skilled workers, with few exceptions, have very limited opportunity to migrate permanently. Yet they can renew their temporary status so long as they have employment. Nakache and Kinoshita conclude that Canada encourages the integration of highly skilled workers and is indifferent to that of lower-skilled workers. The authors argue that the short-term focus of Canada’s temporary labour migration policy will not help the country realize its long-term labour market needs and is unfair to the vast majority of temporary foreign workers, who are expected to spend years in Canada without contributing to society in the long run. They offer a number of recommendations. To mention a few, they recommend that the work permit be restructured to allow these migrants greater mobility; that enforcement mechanisms be used to protect them from abusive practices; that communication between different governmental players be improved; that a policy be adopted to support the integration of temporary foreign workers; and that public debate about the recent changes in Canada’s labour migration policy be encouraged.

Abstract: We discuss liberalising the temporary mobility of workers under Mode 4 of the GATS, particularly the movement of medium and low skilled service providers between developing and developed countries. Such mobility potentially offers huge returns: a flow equivalent to three per cent of developed countries' skilled and unskilled work forces would generate an estimated increase in world welfare of over US $150 billion, shared fairly equally between developing and developed countries. The larger part of this emanates from the less-skilled, essentially because losing higher-skilled workers cuts output in developing countries severely. The mass migration of less skilled workers raises fears in developed countries for cultural identity, problems of assimilation and the drain on the public purse. These fears are hardly relevant to temporary movement, however. The biggest economic concern from temporary mobility is its competitive challenge to local less skilled workers. But as populations age and the average levels of training and education rise, developed countries will face an increasing scarcity of less skilled labour. Temporary mobility thus actually offers a strong communality of interest between developing and developed countries. The remainder of the paper looks at the GATS provisions on Mode 4 and the commitments that have been made under it. The paper reviews several official proposals for the Doha talks, including the very detailed one from India, and considers several countries' existing schemes for the temporary movement of foreign workers. Many countries have long had bilateral foreign worker programs, and some regional agreements provide for liberal and flexible movement. These show what is feasible and how concerns can be overcome. We caution that, to be useful, any WTO agreement must increase mobility, not just bureaucratise it. The paper concludes with some modest and practical proposals. We suggest, inter alia, that licensing firms to arrange the movement of labour is the most promising short-term approach to increasing temporary mobility.