Labor Trafficking in Construction and Hospitality

Although law enforcement and community interest in human trafficking has increased tremendously since passage of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act in 2000, most anti-trafficking efforts by law enforcement and community-based organizations have focused on sex trafficking. Labor trafficking, when prioritized at all, is often conceptualized as a singular phenomenon—the variation in industries in which labor trafficking occurs and the variation in victim experiences within these industries are sorely overlooked. The lack of sector-specific knowledge about labor trafficking victimization limits the extent to which law enforcement, regulatory agencies, health officials, and community-based advocates can identify and respond to this crime.

In partnership with researchers from New York University and Northeastern University, we sought to explore how the recruitment, control, concealment, and needs of labor trafficking victims varies in construction and hospitality. We reviewed federally adjudicated cases in both industries and explored variation in labor abuses and exploitation in four communities that have robust construction and hospitality industries and offered diversity regarding geography, sociodemographic composition, and seasonal employment. Using a mixed methods approach, we addressed three primary research questions:

1. Does labor trafficking victimization manifest itself differently in distinct industries?
2. What is the underlying supply chain structure of labor trafficking in the construction and hospitality industries? 
3. Are there points throughout the stages of recruitment, control, and concealment of labor trafficking in these industries that could present opportunities for identification and intervention?

Experiences of Labor Abuse and Exploitation in Construction and Hospitality

In the survey, workers were asked a series of questions about their experiences with different types of labor abuse and exploitation (see chart below). Two categories of labor abuse were ubiquitous. Regardless of industry, nearly all workers reported experiencing at least one form of deception and lies or exploitative labor practices. However, some differences by industry also emerged. For example, restrictions on freedom of communication or movement were experienced by a significantly higher percentage of respondents who worked in hospitality than construction. However, the nature of these restrictions also varied by industry. For example, construction workers were more likely to experience a few specific types of restrictions, including having their identification papers taken; not being allowed adequate food, water, or sleep; and not being allowed to seek medical care or medication.

Although exploitative labor practices were reported by nearly all respondents, most of the specific types of exploitation were more common in construction (see chart below). Overall, intimidation, threats and fear were reported by more respondents in hospitality than construction. Yet, the most common type in both industries was verbal abuse, such as being belittled, humiliated or put down by their employer for not doing exactly what they were told.

Relatively few respondents reported more serious threats and abuse, and they were reported at similar rates by construction and hospitality workers. Threats to call the police and threats of any manner when workers tried to leave, complain, or seek help for their situation were the most common. However, sexual abuse was reported by more hospitality workers than construction workers. Sexual abuse or sexual coercion was primarily described as employers pressuring workers into having sexual relations with them. In some cases, acquiescing to sexual contact resulted in more favorable treatment or avoidance of punishment.

Opportunities for Labor Trafficking Identification and Intervention

Seeking help was uncommon among survey respondents—only ¼ workers with construction experience and 1/3 with hospitality experience told someone what happened or asked for help. Those who did disclose their workplace exploitation overwhelmingly sought informal help from relatives, friends or coworkers rather than formal help through service providers or law enforcement.

Informal Recruitment Strategies and Vulnerable Groups

Data from interviews with industry experts, advocates, and workers provided insight to help better understand whether there are opportunities for identification of and interventions to address labor trafficking and other labor exploitation. For example, employers exploit the underlying reasons that vulnerable groups are seeking employment and use informal recruitment strategies such as social media and word-of-mouth. To protect vulnerable groups, culturally-specific outreach and education to those who might seek risk work through the same channels as recruitment may help address exploitation during recruitment. In construction, day labor recruitment is a common informal recruitment strategy. Community organizing at congregate recruitment sites for day laborers may be useful outreach points. 

Housing Exploitation and Guestworker Programs

After they have successfully recruited workers, employers may take advantage of the lack of availability of affordable housing to control employees. Some guestworker visa programs require employers to provide housing for temporary workers. Although this may sound like a perk, interview respondents described employer-dependent housing as a source of exploitation because complaining about or leaving exploitative work situations often meant workers would lose their housing. Guestworker visa policies should be updated to allow workers to seek alternative employment and better monitor housing provided by employers.

Legal Loopholes and Worker Misclassification

Employers conceal their exploitation through avoiding documentation and taking advantage of legal loopholes that strip workers of labor protections. In construction, for example, employers purposefully misclassify workers as independent contractors instead of employees. This makes workers ineligible for certain labor protections and enables employers to conduct wage theft and bypass the provision benefits, including overtime, workers’ compensation, unemployment insurance, and others. These legal loopholes need to be addressed and monitored to help prevent exploitation stemming from misclassification.

Systemic Barriers to Addressing Labor Trafficking

While many of the suggested interventions to prevent and address the exploitation and labor trafficking of workers in construction and hospitality focused on efforts to educate and empower workers, it is important to note that these remedies still place the responsibility for prevention on these individuals who face pressure to accept risky work due to larger systemic forces such as poverty. The most effective prevention efforts need to address these larger social barriers that enable worker exploitation.