« September 2006 | Main | November 2006 »

October 31, 2006

Immigrant worker fatalities from violence

Frances Schreiberg of Kazan, McClain, Abrams, Fernandez, Lyons, Farrise & Greenwood, an Oakland-based law firm, alerted me to a Chicago Tribune article focusing on the higher murder fatality rate among immigrant workers, and the need to protections for taxi drivers and retail workers. Jason Barab’s Confined Space is another source of information about immigrant worker deaths. I have previously posted an entry about Asian worker deaths on the job.

A Chicago Tribune analysis shows that in 2005, when foreign-born workers made up 15 percent of the nation's workforce, 188 were murdered on the job, accounting for more than a third of the 564 workplace homicides, the highest ratio since the government began keeping track in 1992.

Much of this loss of life can be avoided with measures that are both well-known and not costly, experts say. But protecting cab drivers and store clerks hasn't been as big a priority as saving lives on the factory floor, they add.

"This is a terrible thing and it is fixable," says Rosemary Sokas, a workplace safety expert at the University of Illinois at Chicago and a former official at the research arm of the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

A $500 plastic shield that separates taxi drivers from passengers can save countless drivers' lives, say experts like Sokas.

Between 1992 and 2005, the latest year for which statistics are available, 3,040 foreign-born workers were murdered on the job, according to government figures. Most of the victims were Mexicans, but the workplace homicide rates were the highest among immigrants from India, Cuba, Korea and Vietnam.

In 1998, OSHA published guidelines for late night retail workers, that included such recommendations as physical barriers (such as bulletproof enclosures), pass-through windows in late night retail, or deep service counters, alarm systems and panic buttons, elevated vantage points, clear visibility of service and cash register areas, bright and effective lighting, adequate staffing, arranging furniture to prevent entrapment and cash-handling controls, such as using drop safes.

Unfortunately, OSHA does not cite employes for not following the guidelines. In fact, OSHA rarely even investigates workplace homicides, especially in retail establishments. Large corporate chains generally follow the guidance, but not other stores.

Arizona, microcosm of views on immigration: candidates positions

The Christian Science Monitor ran an extensive report on how the immigration issue is playing out among Nov. 7 political; candidates. Bottom line: immigration is a big issue, but cutting both ways. Read this about polling results:

"Our surveys show that immigration is the most important issue for likely voters in this state," says Fred Solop, a political scientist at Northern Arizona University and director of the Social Research Laboratory there. But voters aren't distinguishing between competing proposals, he adds: "They just want something to be done."

And read this from the Chamber of Commerce

"Arizona is a microcosm of the nation when it comes to views on this issue. We're ground zero for the debate," says Farrell Quinlan, a spokesman for the Arizona Chamber of Commerce in Phoenix. "Our economy is growing, and a lot of industries have grown to rely on that source of labor."

And this dose of reality:

In peak migration season, more than 8,000 immigrants cross from Mexico into Arizona every day, according to the National Border Patrol Council. Many find jobs in the state's booming construction, tourism, and farm industries. But the surge in newcomers exacts a heavy toll on schools, hospitals, and law enforcement, as well as on the migrants themselves, who in summer months perish by the scores in Arizona's harsh border regions.

The article goes on….

The state's all-Republican congressional delegation - some of whom are in unexpectedly close contests for reelection - is deeply divided on the immigration issue. Sharing [retiring Republican Representative [Randy] Kolbe's [moderate] view are Rep. Jeff Flake, in the upscale Phoenix suburb of Mesa, and the very popular Sen. John McCain. They'd like to see an approach to immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship for some of the 12 million people now in the US illegally.

On the other side are Graf and Rep. J.D. Hayworth, who represents the also-upscale Fifth Congressional District in Scottsdale. They say their colleagues' plan amounts to amnesty for illegal immigrants and would reward people for breaking the law. The nation must secure its borders first, they say. Then there's Sen. Jon Kyl, up for reelection this year, who favors expanding a guestworker program but who would also require undocumented workers to leave the US before applying for citizenship.

Senator McCain's approach is to put party loyalty ahead of immigration differences. He has endorsed both Graf and Representative Hayworth, rather than candidates whose views on immigration are closer to his own. He is also stumping for Senator Kyl.

Arizona, a microcosm of views on immigration – the ballot questions

The East Valley Tribune, A Pheonix area newspaper, gave a run-down on the immigration related ballot issues for Nov.7. Republican legislatures passed bills “ranging from tough sanctions on employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers to giving law enforcement agencies the authority to arrest illegal immigrants under state trespassing laws.” Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano vetoed them all.

Here are the four ballot questions:

PROP. 103 — ENGLISH AS THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE
Proposition 103 would declare English as the official language and prohibit some government agencies from conducting official business in other languages. The concept isn’t new to the state; Napolitano rejected a similar measure in 2005.

And in 1988, voters approved a measure declaring English the state’s official language. But it was ultimately declared unconstitutional by the Arizona Supreme Court because it was too broad and would have prevented elected officials from communicating with voters in another language.

PROP. 300 — ACCESS TO PUBLIC SERVICES
Proposition 300 would prohibit illegal immigrants from receiving in-state college tuition, state-subsidized child care and adult education services, such as English classes.

PROP. 102 — PUNITIVE DAMAGES
If Proposition 102 passes, it would amend the state constitution to prevent illegal immigrants from being awarded punitive damages in court.

PROP. 100 — BAILABLE OFFENSES
Voters also will have to decide if illegal immigrants arrested on a felony charge deserve the right to be released on bail.

October 23, 2006

size of Indian work populations in the United States.

Here is some summary data on Indians who work in the United States, which I found at this website. There are roughly 2 million persons of Indian origin in the U. S. today.

About the Asian American Hotel Owners Association

Representing over 8,300 members, AAHOA is one of the leading forces in the hospitality industry and one of the most powerful Asian American advocacy groups. Together, the members own more than 20,000 hotels, which have over one million rooms, representing over 50 percent of the economy lodging properties and nearly 37 percent of all hotel properties in the United States.

Of the hotels owned by AAHOA members, approximately 11,700 are franchised while 6,300 are independent. The market value of the properties owned by AAHOA members is estimated to be $29.9 billion in franchised properties and $8.1 billion in independent properties.

About the American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin

With a constituency of over 41,000 doctors and 10,000 medical students and residents, AAPI is the largest ethnic medical association in the United States and is the largest Indian American professional association in the United States.

October 20, 2006

The Hispanic vote and the next Congress

It’s worth pausing to think about the November Congressional elections, the Hispanic vote, and the next few years of working immigrant policy. Will the elections results improve chances of a guest worker program being enacted?

There are about 200 million eligible voters in the U.S. About 8.6% of them are Hispanic. The Hispanic population is booming, though more of it is underage compared to white and black populations. Between 2002 and 2005, The Pew Hispanic Center reports that the Hispanic population grew by 21.5% compared to 1.6% among whites, 7.4% among blacks, and 24.6% among Asians.

In 2005, Hispanic comprised at least 5% of eligible votes in 15 states: AZ, CA, CO, FL, HI, IL, MA, NV, NJ, NM, NY, RI, TX, UT and WY.

Democratic takeover of Senate and/or the House will shift power to those who agree with Bush’s guest worker program ideas. Would the prospect of a guest worker program improve if the Hispanic vote on November 7 was more dominant than in the past? I say yes, especially if Hispanic turnout suggests a pattern of increasing participation trending towards white levels of participation.

A recent Pew Hispanic Center study on the 2006 elections reports that Hispanics increased as a share of eligible voters from 7.4% in 2000 to 8.6% in 2006. There are now 17 million Hispanic citizens over the age of 18.

The big question is if the historically low rate of Hispanic registration among eligible voters will improve. According to the Center, in 2004 the registration rates among eligible voters were 58% for “Latinos”, 69% for blacks, and 75% for whites.

This November, if Latinos register according to 2004 patterns, there will be 10 million registered Latino voters. If they register at the 2004 white rate, there will be 12.3 million registered Latino voters.

October 14, 2006

Immigrant labor essential for New Orleans recovery

I'm in New Orleans and have had conversations with people about rebuilding the residential areas. Thousands of homes have yet to be touched, but thousands are being repaired, some with replacement of all the walls. My friend Dan lives in the scacely hurt area of "Uptown." He is doing major renovations on a 3,000 foot residence. He told me that Brazilian workers from Massachusetts are essential to getting the work done. (There is strong demand for housing.) I talked with Glenn and Brad about the large, 7,500 household neighborhood of Lakeview. This is one of the most actively rebuilding neighborhoods -- virtually all homes were 4 or more feet underwater for a week. Glenn told me that governmental agencies have been well meaning but pretty much useless in the rebuilding. He said that the rebuilding could not be done without (1) Hispanic workers and (2) Wal-Mart and Home Depot stores.

And--the first restaurants to reopen were ethnic restaurants because only they had enough staff.

October 13, 2006

Remittances to Mexico expand, new Federal Reserve program helps

The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) reported on 10/11 on advances in the remittance business, which I have posted about in the past. Remittance volume to Mexico this year may exceed $23 billion.

“Dubbed "Directo a Mexico," the [new] remittance program enables U.S. commercial banks to make money transfers for Mexican workers through the Federal Reserve's own automated clearinghouse, which is linked to Banco de Mexico, the Mexican central bank.” User fees: as little as $2.50 a transaction.

“To use the service, a Mexican need only possess a matricula consular, an I.D. issued by the Mexican consulate in most major U.S. cities to those with proof of Mexican birth or citizenship, or a picture I.D. card issued by the U.S. or another foreign government.”

One desired effect of the program is to increase the use of banks by Mexicans on both sides of the border. “…One of the Federal Reserve Bank's goals is to use the program as a springboard for drawing hundreds of thousands of immigrants into the formal U.S. banking system since commercial banks require that those wanting the service first open a savings account.

“Last month, the program was expanded to enable migrants in the U.S. to open an account for relatives to whom they plan to send money. A bank teller in the U.S. can open the account remotely on a Web site set up by Mexico's Banco del Ahorro Nacional y Servicios Financieros, the development bank known as Bansefi, which has a vast network of branches in urban and rural areas.”

For undocumented workers, “the Federal Reserve's brochure poses the following frequently asked question: "If I return to Mexico or am deported, will I lose the money in my bank account?" The answer: "No. The money still belongs to you and can be easily accessed at an ATM in Mexico using your debit card."

Barriers to occupational health services tolow wage workers in CA

The California Commission on Health and Safety and Workers Compensation, a highly visible state agency, has released its study of “Barriers to occupational health services for low-wage workers in California.” This is the largest scope and best investigated study of its kind. I have previously posted on numerous other more limited studies about garment, hotel and meat processing workers, and day laborers. I have copied below the entire Executive Summary.

This study says several important things either explicitly or by omission. First, work safety and access to workers compensation protections are pervasive problems among low wage workers -- in particular, immigrant workers. The authors are effectively confirming other studies, in this broad and deep examination.

Second, the authors say by their silence that the California state agency with the greatest practical influence over correcting these problems is, well, useless. The authors appeared to have never even interviewed executives at the massive state run State Compensation Insurance Fund. SCIF is by far the largest workers comp insurer in the state, in fact the largest in the world, and whose seven person board includes three union representatives.

I queried the Commission last summer about why SCIF is not even mentioned. I did not receive a direct answer. I am left with the feeling that one state agency, CHSWC, decided that SCIF was useless as either a source of information or as a agency of work safety and workers comp system improvements.

Who are these low wage workers? The authors write, “Officially, over 3.7 million Californians are employed in occupations whose median wage is less than $10 an hour, the definition used in this report to classify workers as “low-wage.” Perhaps as many as two million more may be employed in California’s expanding underground economy. The majority of low-wage workers are nonwhite and immigrants. Typical low-wage occupations in California include restaurant and food service employees, health aides, cashiers, janitors, hotel cleaners, assemblers, security guards, farm laborers, retail clerks and sewing machine operators, among others.

“Overall, nearly two-thirds of the 25 leading occupations reporting non-fatal work-related injuries and illnesses are low-wage occupations. Heavy physical exertion, exposure to toxic substances and blood borne pathogens, repetitive motions performed bent over or in awkward postures for hours and slips, falls and other accidents are some of the common risk factors.”

The Executive Summary:

BARRIERS TO OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR LOW-WAGE WORKERS IN CALIFORNIA -EXECUTIVE SUMMARY-

CHAPTER 1. BACKGROUND

Frequently absent from debates on workers’ compensation is a discussion of prevention efforts by industry and the critical role prevention could play in reducing workers’ compensation expenditures and, most importantly, worker pain and disability. Also overlooked has been the dilemma of low-wage, mostly immigrant, workers who do some of the most hazardous jobs in our society and who face substantial, often systemic barriers in their attempts to obtain medical treatment and workers’ compensation benefits when they are injured.

Exclusion of low-wage workers from the workers’ compensation system often means that the burden of medical care and disability is shifted to their families and to the taxpayers who fund the public and community-based health care services these workers use. This form of cost-shifting also presents serious problems for legitimate businesses in California that must compete against firms that can easily underbid them because they provide no employee benefits, invest little or nothing in injury prevention, and often violate basic labor laws and health and safety regulations.

Scope of the Report. Many businesses that employ low-wage workers do not participate in the abuses described in this report and are often themselves victims of such practices because they struggle to compete against firms that do not abide by the law. This report looks at those businesses that do not abide by the law. It covers three interrelated topics: (1) low-wage workers and the issues they face in accessing the workers’ compensation system, (2) prevention efforts in a typical industry that employs low-wage workers; and, (3) the involvement of community health clinics in providing care to injured workers. Recommendations for introducing systemic changes through prevention efforts and increasing access to medical treatment and workers’ compensation benefits for low-wage workers are presented.

Methodology. Findings are based on a series of seven focus groups with workers, extensive interviews with community-based organizations that serve the low-wage worker populations, site visits and interviews with industry representatives and business owners in the building maintenance industry and a survey of community clinics. An extensive review of the literature and existing data was also completed.

Limitations. Accurate quantitative data do not exist on this topic. Consequently, this report is a qualitative exploration aimed at identifying the key issues and providing insight into the employment and socio-cultural dynamics that contribute to the health and safety access problems of low-wage workers. As such, this report focuses on identifying problem areas. While there was surprisingly strong consensus about the nature of these problems, it should be noted that this report is not an assessment of prevalence; as stated above, not all businesses that employ low-wage workers participate in the abuses described in this report. An additional caveat is that Senate Bill (SB) 899 was passed during the course of this study and the bill’s provisions were not yet in effect when the research was conducted.

CHAPTER 2: LOW-WAGE WORKERS IN CALIFORNIA

Officially, over 3.7 million Californians are employed in occupations whose median wage is less than $10 an hour, the definition used in this report to classify workers as “low-wage.” Perhaps as many as two million more may be employed in California’s expanding underground economy. The majority of low-wage workers are nonwhite and immigrants. Typical low-wage occupations in California include restaurant and food service employees, health aides, cashiers, janitors, hotel cleaners, assemblers, security guards, farm laborers, retail clerks and sewing machine operators, among others.
Overall, nearly two-thirds of the 25 leading occupations reporting non-fatal work-related injuries and illnesses are low-wage occupations. Heavy physical exertion, exposure to toxic substances and blood borne pathogens, repetitive motions performed bent over or in awkward postures for hours and slips, falls and other accidents are some of the common risk factors.

Underreporting. A recent U.C. Davis study concluded that the Bureau of Labor Statistics reporting system overlooked between 33% and 69% of all injuries. Various studies in other states have found that from 9% to 45% of workers do not report injuries or file legitimate claims for workers’ compensation. Based on the interviews and research for this report, underreporting is endemic among certain groups of low-wage workers. Major risk factors include:

• Employment in the informal or “underground” economy. Over 2 million workers may be employed by illegally operated businesses in California. The underground economy, its growth spurred in part by the popularity of subcontracting, produces between $60 billion and $140 billion in goods and services annually. Wage and hour violations, hazardous conditions and worker intimidation are common. Limited enforcement, lack of workers’ compensation coverage, payment by piece rate, take-home work and, occasionally, human trafficking are problems which contribute to injuries and underreporting in this sector.

• Employment in small businesses. Small businesses employ the majority of low-wage workers. Compliance with complex and sometimes costly training, prevention and legal requirements can be exceptionally difficult for small-scale enterprises with limited resources. New businesses and immigrant-owned businesses may be particularly at risk.

• Immigrant status (especially undocumented immigrant). More than 26% of California residents are immigrants, a percentage over two times higher than the rest of the United States. An estimated 2.7 million residents, approximately 6.5% of the state’s population, are undocumented. Limited English language and literacy skills (coupled with low acculturation levels) are major barriers for many immigrants.

• Lack of health insurance, sick leave and other employment benefits. No health insurance, lack of access to health care services and the inability to take time off work to seek care or recover from illnesses and injuries were repeatedly cited as reasons why workers did not seek care for chronic—and sometimes even acute—occupational injuries and illnesses. Nationally, 76% of low-wage workers have no paid sick leave. Based on a recent UCLA study, California workers employed in the smallest firms (42.5%), low-income workers (48.9%), and undocumented workers (50.4%) were the least likely groups to work in firms that offered health insurance.

• Lack of unionization. Union representation is far less frequent among foreign-born and low-wage workers in California. The great majority of workers interviewed in this study were non-union.

CHAPTER 3: FROM THE WORKERS’ PERSPECTIVE: BARRIERS TO REPORTING INJURIES AND ILLNESSES

Low-wage workers face multiple barriers to filing workers’ compensation claims when they are injured on the job. The findings from the focus groups and interviews are presented in the respondents own words since this best conveys the nature and scope of the problem. Common themes mentioned in the interviews and focus groups with workers included:

• Fear of Retaliation. Fear of job loss and other retaliation for filing workers’ compensation claims or for complaining about unsafe conditions were the most frequent concerns mentioned by workers. Actual physical abuse of workers in order to push them to work harder or because they had complained, while less common, was also reported.

• Blacklisting. Fears of blacklisting or of ostracism by their fellow workers for potentially jeopardizing jobs are other variations of the often overt pressure on workers not to report injuries or speak up in the workplace. While we were unable to ascertain how much blacklisting actually occurs, the belief that it does exist is widespread and contributes to the atmosphere of intimidation.

• Firing. While in some cases these fears may be misguided or exaggerated, all too often they were a realistic appraisal of the workplace situation. Several supervisors reported that firing employees who complained or filed workers’ compensation claims was company policy.

• Underreporting of Chronic and Non-acute Injuries. Most claims that ultimately do get filed are from workers who have already been fired or who have acute injuries that require emergency care. Chronic pain and non-acute injuries were only infrequently reported to employers. In some cases, this was due to lack of understanding that these conditions are work-related and serious enough to report.

• Normalization of Pain and Injury. For many low-wage workers, sub-acute injury and pain are so common that they are considered a normal part of the job.

• Working Despite Injuries. Lack of insurance or sick leave means loss of much needed pay. Interviewees described continuing to work despite nearly unendurable pain because they believed they had no alternatives. Others reported constant worry about health problems and chemical exposure.

• Perceived Employer Indifference to Worker Injury. The widespread belief that employers did not care about injuries created an atmosphere that contributed not only to underreporting, but to worker unwillingness to notify employers of health and safety problems at the job site. Many believed that employers would consider them ‘complainers’ or worse if they raised such concerns.

Treatment of Injured Workers. Workers who had been injured on the job reported numerous problems in getting adequate care or compensation benefits for their injuries and illnesses. These included being sent to company doctors who trivialized their injuries, being dropped at emergency room or left without care, given only token medical treatment and being forced to work despite injuries. Some reported attempts to dissuade them from filing for workers’ compensation Referring workers to primary care providers or attempting to make them pay for their own medical care when they were injured were also reported.

Treatment of Workers Who Filed Claims. When workers actually tried to file workers’ compensation claims, they often faced overwhelming barriers in the workplace. Some accused employers of deceptive practices including claiming that they were not actually their employees or “losing” injury and illness reports. In other cases, legitimate claims were not processed because the documentation was not available. Some workers claimed they were misled by their employers and the statute of limitation expired before the claims could be processed. While such problems were reported by workers in every industry we interviewed, day laborers and construction helpers appeared to be the victims of some of the worst abuses.
System Barriers. Lack of knowledge about workers’ compensation benefits, uninsured employers, language barriers and the complexity of the process were major problems preventing many workers from filing or pursuing claims. In almost all cases, workers were only able to successfully pursue claims when they had legal support, which was often not easily available to them.

CHAPTER 4: HEALTH AND SAFETY IN THE JANITORIAL INDUSTRY

Many of the occupational injuries and illnesses experienced by low-wage workers are preventable. Simple measures-- proper procedures, adequate training, the use of safe equipment and products —are often all that is necessary to avert serious injury and illness. Despite this, prevention efforts are minimal, if not entirely lacking, in many businesses that employ low-wage workers.

Intense Competition. The increasing practice of outsourcing janitorial services, coupled with the ease of starting a janitorial service, has resulted in the proliferation of many small companies and intense competition for contracts. Many of these small companies operate without business licenses or insurance and often violate wage and hour laws and health and safety requirements. With such artificially lower overhead costs, they are able to underbid legitimate building maintenance firms. As a result, cost-cutting is a hallmark of the industry and prevention efforts suffer.

Site Visit Findings. As discussed in Chapter 4, a Department of Health Services contract industrial hygienist visited ten Bay Area janitorial companies to identify risk factors and to assess prevention practices. Heavy, fast-paced workloads and numerous chemical exposure, ergonomic, safety and other risk factors were observed during the site visits. Prevention programs at these sites were generally poor or absent. All but one company lacked an injury and illness prevention programs (required by California law). Hazard communication and training efforts were generally inadequate, inconsistent and infrequent.

Employers cited a variety of barriers to implementing health and safety programs for their workforces. These included time limitations, high worker turnover which made cohesive training difficult, language barriers, difficulty getting workers to follow instructions provided by training, no space available for training (since many employers have no offices), not being aware that health and safety problems exist, not having financial resources and not knowing where to go for help.

CHAPTER 5: ACCESS TO MEDICAL CARE

Access to appropriate medical care was one of the most important issues raised by workers and agency staff interviewed. Most low-wage and uninsured workers currently obtain their health care at public and nonprofit community clinics, which generally have the language skills and cultural competency skills needed to serve them effectively. Interviews were conducted with a small sample of these facilities to assess knowledge and awareness of occupational health issues and practices with regard to workers’ compensation. Slightly over half of the facilities interviewed reported that they routinely screened for work-related causes, but only 27% had treatment guidelines for occupational injuries or illnesses or a protocol for workers’ compensation cases. Many reported not filing workers’ compensation reports because of worker fear of retaliation or because the paperwork and system were too complex. Clinician training in occupational health issues was limited, though interest in more training was high.

Chapter 6: Recommendations

There was substantial consensus about what needs to be done among respondents to this study and in recent reports published by various concerned groups and other researchers. This report focuses on a “short list” of what appear to be the most pertinent and feasible recommendations, which include:

Increase inspections of health and safety conditions in target industries. Study respondents and other observers generally consider increased enforcement of target industries to be the most important remedy the state could consider adopting to improve conditions for low-wage workers. The highest priority could be given to increasing the number of bilingual inspectors, revitalizing the state’s task forces on underground industries, and increasing a program of unannounced inspections at low-wage workplaces.

Explore increasing the capacity of local governments to participate in compliance efforts. Pilot projects could be funded to develop innovative enforcement and outreach strategies at the local level and to explore the possibilities for enhancing local inspection efforts and the use of legal remedies by district attorneys and other local regulators to address health and safety compliance at the local level.

Promote efforts by community-based organizations to assist workers with filing claims, obtaining medical services and negotiating the workers’ compensation claim process. Models exist of community-based organizations that effectively help workers file claims, report problems, access occupational health care and negotiate the workers’ compensation process.

Encourage advisory boards to include representation from community-based organizations.

Encourage development of an outreach campaign to communicate worker rights, responsibilities and resources in vulnerable communities. As is evident from the success of tobacco education and other public health programs, social marketing campaigns can have an enormous impact. They save lives and save money. Current outreach and education efforts in occupational health are sporadic and rely heavily on written materials, which often do not reach their intended audience or serve the needs of low-wage workers. More innovative, creative, and coordinated approaches to outreach are needed. The use of media—especially ethnic media—to reach low-wage populations is one important and not necessarily costly strategy.
Provide understandable health and safety and workers’ compensation information in the language and at the literacy level appropriate for low-wage workers.

Establish an ad hoc committee to review legal remedies and fines and penalties for health and safety violations. Effective legal remedies do not exist for repeated violations of health and safety standards or instances in which large groups of workers are adversely affected by company practices (e.g., long-term exposure to toxic chemicals.) Many of the fines and penalties for labor and health and safety violations were established years ago and do not act as effective deterrents. Statutes of limitations also make it difficult to pursue claims where medical problems from workplace exposures (e.g., cancers) do not show up until later years or when information about workers’ compensation benefits was not provided to workers by their employers.

Provide web-based public access to workers’ compensation insurance coverage information for California businesses. California should follow the lead of other states, notably Texas, that have developed publicly-accessible electronic database systems that quickly and easily provides this information.

Explore the possibility of creating a safety net for the most vulnerable workers by encouraging pilot projects to provide limited, confidential access to occupational health care to low-wage workers in target industries. Several free or low-cost worker-oriented clinics have been started in the last few years to respond to the problem of lack of access for low-wage workers. There are no funding streams available to support these clinics and at the same time allow them to provide care to patients who are risk of retaliation or to patients whose workplace injuries are not covered under workers’ compensation insurance. Pilot projects should be developed to gather data on the costs and impacts of providing medical care to workers in designated industries where a high risk of retaliation exists.

Strengthen the ability of public and community health clinics to provide occupational health care for low-wage workers. Training in occupational health care and in the laws and regulations governing workers’ compensation should be provided on an ongoing basis to community and public health clinics. Regulations that mandate the inclusion of qualified community and public health clinics on insurer-preferred provider lists for employers with low-wage workforces and efforts should be adopted to assist them in developing individual or shared billing services.

Determine if the medical treatment provided under SB 899 works effectively and efficiently for low-wage workers. One of the most consistent complaints from workers in the focus groups was about inadequate care received from employer-designated doctors. SB 899 gives even greater control to employers over the choice of health care providers and greatly limits employees’ ability to seek care elsewhere if they are dissatisfied. Analysis of this process should take into account the special needs and circumstances of low-wage workers.

Enhance Prevention Efforts in Low-wage Industries. The Working Immigrant Safety and Health Coalition provided a useful list of recommendations which would enhance prevention efforts in low-wage industries, including: (a) disseminating information about existing solutions for serious hazards in these industries; (b) providing incentives for employers including tax credits, grants and insurance rebates for implementing approved health and safety measures; and (c) supporting research on new workplace solutions.
Explore the feasibility of implementing a regular reporting mechanism beyond the Workers’ Compensation Information system (WCIS) and the annual survey by the Department of Labor Statistics and Research (DLSR) of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and a study of surveillance efforts and recommended improvements for tracking injuries and illnesses among low-wage workers. Without data to identify risk factors and track improvements, clear goals cannot be set for resolving the immediate problems identified in this and other reports, including recommendations for more useful and accessible performance data on inspections and other DIR programs.

Provide publicly accessible county-level data on injuries to facilitate local involvement. Regular reporting should be made publicly available and cover occupational illnesses and injuries, claims information, Cal-OSHA inspections, emergency room cases and other available data to assist local surveillance efforts.

Major study of low wage immigrant workers in California


The California Commission on Health and Safety and Workers Compensation, a highly visible state agency, has released its study of “Barriers to occupational health services for low-wage workers in California.” This is the largest scope and best investigated study of its kind. I have previously posted on numerous other more limited studies about garment, hotel and meat processing workers, and day laborers. I have copied below the entire Executive Summary. Go here for the CHSWC's website, where you can get a .doc version of the study.

This study says several important things either explicitly or by omission. First, work safety and access to workers compensation protections present pervasive problems among low wage workers -- in particular, immigrant workers. The authors are effectively confirming other studies, in greater depth and more nuance.

Second, the authors say by their silence that the California state agency with the greatest practical influence over correcting these problems is, well, useless. The authors appeared to have never even interviewed executives at the massive state run State Compensation Insurance Fund. SCIF is by far the largest workers comp insurer in the state, in fact the largest in the world, and whose seven person board includes three union representatives. I queried the Commission last summer about why SCIF was not even mentioned in an earlier draft. I did not receive a direct answer. I am left with the feeling that one state agency, CHSWC, decided that SCIF was useless as either a source of information or as a promoter of work safety and workers comp improvements. SCIF is likely by far the largest insurer of low eimmigrant workforces in the state.

Who are these low wage workers? The authors write, “Officially, over 3.7 million Californians are employed in occupations whose median wage is less than $10 an hour, the definition used in this report to classify workers as “low-wage.” Perhaps as many as two million more may be employed in California’s expanding underground economy. The majority of low-wage workers are nonwhite and immigrants. Typical low-wage occupations in California include restaurant and food service employees, health aides, cashiers, janitors, hotel cleaners, assemblers, security guards, farm laborers, retail clerks and sewing machine operators, among others.

“Overall, nearly two-thirds of the 25 leading occupations reporting non-fatal work-related injuries and illnesses are low-wage occupations. Heavy physical exertion, exposure to toxic substances and blood borne pathogens, repetitive motions performed bent over or in awkward postures for hours and slips, falls and other accidents are some of the common risk factors.”

The Executive Summary:

BARRIERS TO OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR LOW-WAGE WORKERS IN CALIFORNIA -EXECUTIVE SUMMARY-

CHAPTER 1. BACKGROUND

Frequently absent from debates on workers’ compensation is a discussion of prevention efforts by industry and the critical role prevention could play in reducing workers’ compensation expenditures and, most importantly, worker pain and disability. Also overlooked has been the dilemma of low-wage, mostly immigrant, workers who do some of the most hazardous jobs in our society and who face substantial, often systemic barriers in their attempts to obtain medical treatment and workers’ compensation benefits when they are injured.

Exclusion of low-wage workers from the workers’ compensation system often means that the burden of medical care and disability is shifted to their families and to the taxpayers who fund the public and community-based health care services these workers use. This form of cost-shifting also presents serious problems for legitimate businesses in California that must compete against firms that can easily underbid them because they provide no employee benefits, invest little or nothing in injury prevention, and often violate basic labor laws and health and safety regulations.

Scope of the Report. Many businesses that employ low-wage workers do not participate in the abuses described in this report and are often themselves victims of such practices because they struggle to compete against firms that do not abide by the law. This report looks at those businesses that do not abide by the law. It covers three interrelated topics: (1) low-wage workers and the issues they face in accessing the workers’ compensation system, (2) prevention efforts in a typical industry that employs low-wage workers; and, (3) the involvement of community health clinics in providing care to injured workers. Recommendations for introducing systemic changes through prevention efforts and increasing access to medical treatment and workers’ compensation benefits for low-wage workers are presented.

Methodology. Findings are based on a series of seven focus groups with workers, extensive interviews with community-based organizations that serve the low-wage worker populations, site visits and interviews with industry representatives and business owners in the building maintenance industry and a survey of community clinics. An extensive review of the literature and existing data was also completed.

Limitations. Accurate quantitative data do not exist on this topic. Consequently, this report is a qualitative exploration aimed at identifying the key issues and providing insight into the employment and socio-cultural dynamics that contribute to the health and safety access problems of low-wage workers. As such, this report focuses on identifying problem areas. While there was surprisingly strong consensus about the nature of these problems, it should be noted that this report is not an assessment of prevalence; as stated above, not all businesses that employ low-wage workers participate in the abuses described in this report. An additional caveat is that Senate Bill (SB) 899 was passed during the course of this study and the bill’s provisions were not yet in effect when the research was conducted.

CHAPTER 2: LOW-WAGE WORKERS IN CALIFORNIA

Officially, over 3.7 million Californians are employed in occupations whose median wage is less than $10 an hour, the definition used in this report to classify workers as “low-wage.” Perhaps as many as two million more may be employed in California’s expanding underground economy. The majority of low-wage workers are nonwhite and immigrants. Typical low-wage occupations in California include restaurant and food service employees, health aides, cashiers, janitors, hotel cleaners, assemblers, security guards, farm laborers, retail clerks and sewing machine operators, among others.
Overall, nearly two-thirds of the 25 leading occupations reporting non-fatal work-related injuries and illnesses are low-wage occupations. Heavy physical exertion, exposure to toxic substances and blood borne pathogens, repetitive motions performed bent over or in awkward postures for hours and slips, falls and other accidents are some of the common risk factors.

Underreporting. A recent U.C. Davis study concluded that the Bureau of Labor Statistics reporting system overlooked between 33% and 69% of all injuries. Various studies in other states have found that from 9% to 45% of workers do not report injuries or file legitimate claims for workers’ compensation. Based on the interviews and research for this report, underreporting is endemic among certain groups of low-wage workers. Major risk factors include:

• Employment in the informal or “underground” economy. Over 2 million workers may be employed by illegally operated businesses in California. The underground economy, its growth spurred in part by the popularity of subcontracting, produces between $60 billion and $140 billion in goods and services annually. Wage and hour violations, hazardous conditions and worker intimidation are common. Limited enforcement, lack of workers’ compensation coverage, payment by piece rate, take-home work and, occasionally, human trafficking are problems which contribute to injuries and underreporting in this sector.

• Employment in small businesses. Small businesses employ the majority of low-wage workers. Compliance with complex and sometimes costly training, prevention and legal requirements can be exceptionally difficult for small-scale enterprises with limited resources. New businesses and immigrant-owned businesses may be particularly at risk.

• Immigrant status (especially undocumented immigrant). More than 26% of California residents are immigrants, a percentage over two times higher than the rest of the United States. An estimated 2.7 million residents, approximately 6.5% of the state’s population, are undocumented. Limited English language and literacy skills (coupled with low acculturation levels) are major barriers for many immigrants.

• Lack of health insurance, sick leave and other employment benefits. No health insurance, lack of access to health care services and the inability to take time off work to seek care or recover from illnesses and injuries were repeatedly cited as reasons why workers did not seek care for chronic—and sometimes even acute—occupational injuries and illnesses. Nationally, 76% of low-wage workers have no paid sick leave. Based on a recent UCLA study, California workers employed in the smallest firms (42.5%), low-income workers (48.9%), and undocumented workers (50.4%) were the least likely groups to work in firms that offered health insurance.

• Lack of unionization. Union representation is far less frequent among foreign-born and low-wage workers in California. The great majority of workers interviewed in this study were non-union.

CHAPTER 3: FROM THE WORKERS’ PERSPECTIVE: BARRIERS TO REPORTING INJURIES AND ILLNESSES

Low-wage workers face multiple barriers to filing workers’ compensation claims when they are injured on the job. The findings from the focus groups and interviews are presented in the respondents own words since this best conveys the nature and scope of the problem. Common themes mentioned in the interviews and focus groups with workers included:

• Fear of Retaliation. Fear of job loss and other retaliation for filing workers’ compensation claims or for complaining about unsafe conditions were the most frequent concerns mentioned by workers. Actual physical abuse of workers in order to push them to work harder or because they had complained, while less common, was also reported.

• Blacklisting. Fears of blacklisting or of ostracism by their fellow workers for potentially jeopardizing jobs are other variations of the often overt pressure on workers not to report injuries or speak up in the workplace. While we were unable to ascertain how much blacklisting actually occurs, the belief that it does exist is widespread and contributes to the atmosphere of intimidation.

• Firing. While in some cases these fears may be misguided or exaggerated, all too often they were a realistic appraisal of the workplace situation. Several supervisors reported that firing employees who complained or filed workers’ compensation claims was company policy.

• Underreporting of Chronic and Non-acute Injuries. Most claims that ultimately do get filed are from workers who have already been fired or who have acute injuries that require emergency care. Chronic pain and non-acute injuries were only infrequently reported to employers. In some cases, this was due to lack of understanding that these conditions are work-related and serious enough to report.

• Normalization of Pain and Injury. For many low-wage workers, sub-acute injury and pain are so common that they are considered a normal part of the job.

• Working Despite Injuries. Lack of insurance or sick leave means loss of much needed pay. Interviewees described continuing to work despite nearly unendurable pain because they believed they had no alternatives. Others reported constant worry about health problems and chemical exposure.

• Perceived Employer Indifference to Worker Injury. The widespread belief that employers did not care about injuries created an atmosphere that contributed not only to underreporting, but to worker unwillingness to notify employers of health and safety problems at the job site. Many believed that employers would consider them ‘complainers’ or worse if they raised such concerns.

Treatment of Injured Workers. Workers who had been injured on the job reported numerous problems in getting adequate care or compensation benefits for their injuries and illnesses. These included being sent to company doctors who trivialized their injuries, being dropped at emergency room or left without care, given only token medical treatment and being forced to work despite injuries. Some reported attempts to dissuade them from filing for workers’ compensation Referring workers to primary care providers or attempting to make them pay for their own medical care when they were injured were also reported.

Treatment of Workers Who Filed Claims. When workers actually tried to file workers’ compensation claims, they often faced overwhelming barriers in the workplace. Some accused employers of deceptive practices including claiming that they were not actually their employees or “losing” injury and illness reports. In other cases, legitimate claims were not processed because the documentation was not available. Some workers claimed they were misled by their employers and the statute of limitation expired before the claims could be processed. While such problems were reported by workers in every industry we interviewed, day laborers and construction helpers appeared to be the victims of some of the worst abuses.
System Barriers. Lack of knowledge about workers’ compensation benefits, uninsured employers, language barriers and the complexity of the process were major problems preventing many workers from filing or pursuing claims. In almost all cases, workers were only able to successfully pursue claims when they had legal support, which was often not easily available to them.

CHAPTER 4: HEALTH AND SAFETY IN THE JANITORIAL INDUSTRY

Many of the occupational injuries and illnesses experienced by low-wage workers are preventable. Simple measures-- proper procedures, adequate training, the use of safe equipment and products —are often all that is necessary to avert serious injury and illness. Despite this, prevention efforts are minimal, if not entirely lacking, in many businesses that employ low-wage workers.

Intense Competition. The increasing practice of outsourcing janitorial services, coupled with the ease of starting a janitorial service, has resulted in the proliferation of many small companies and intense competition for contracts. Many of these small companies operate without business licenses or insurance and often violate wage and hour laws and health and safety requirements. With such artificially lower overhead costs, they are able to underbid legitimate building maintenance firms. As a result, cost-cutting is a hallmark of the industry and prevention efforts suffer.

Site Visit Findings. As discussed in Chapter 4, a Department of Health Services contract industrial hygienist visited ten Bay Area janitorial companies to identify risk factors and to assess prevention practices. Heavy, fast-paced workloads and numerous chemical exposure, ergonomic, safety and other risk factors were observed during the site visits. Prevention programs at these sites were generally poor or absent. All but one company lacked an injury and illness prevention programs (required by California law). Hazard communication and training efforts were generally inadequate, inconsistent and infrequent.

Employers cited a variety of barriers to implementing health and safety programs for their workforces. These included time limitations, high worker turnover which made cohesive training difficult, language barriers, difficulty getting workers to follow instructions provided by training, no space available for training (since many employers have no offices), not being aware that health and safety problems exist, not having financial resources and not knowing where to go for help.

CHAPTER 5: ACCESS TO MEDICAL CARE

Access to appropriate medical care was one of the most important issues raised by workers and agency staff interviewed. Most low-wage and uninsured workers currently obtain their health care at public and nonprofit community clinics, which generally have the language skills and cultural competency skills needed to serve them effectively. Interviews were conducted with a small sample of these facilities to assess knowledge and awareness of occupational health issues and practices with regard to workers’ compensation. Slightly over half of the facilities interviewed reported that they routinely screened for work-related causes, but only 27% had treatment guidelines for occupational injuries or illnesses or a protocol for workers’ compensation cases. Many reported not filing workers’ compensation reports because of worker fear of retaliation or because the paperwork and system were too complex. Clinician training in occupational health issues was limited, though interest in more training was high.

Chapter 6: Recommendations

There was substantial consensus about what needs to be done among respondents to this study and in recent reports published by various concerned groups and other researchers. This report focuses on a “short list” of what appear to be the most pertinent and feasible recommendations, which include:

Increase inspections of health and safety conditions in target industries. Study respondents and other observers generally consider increased enforcement of target industries to be the most important remedy the state could consider adopting to improve conditions for low-wage workers. The highest priority could be given to increasing the number of bilingual inspectors, revitalizing the state’s task forces on underground industries, and increasing a program of unannounced inspections at low-wage workplaces.

Explore increasing the capacity of local governments to participate in compliance efforts. Pilot projects could be funded to develop innovative enforcement and outreach strategies at the local level and to explore the possibilities for enhancing local inspection efforts and the use of legal remedies by district attorneys and other local regulators to address health and safety compliance at the local level.

Promote efforts by community-based organizations to assist workers with filing claims, obtaining medical services and negotiating the workers’ compensation claim process. Models exist of community-based organizations that effectively help workers file claims, report problems, access occupational health care and negotiate the workers’ compensation process.

Encourage advisory boards to include representation from community-based organizations.

Encourage development of an outreach campaign to communicate worker rights, responsibilities and resources in vulnerable communities. As is evident from the success of tobacco education and other public health programs, social marketing campaigns can have an enormous impact. They save lives and save money. Current outreach and education efforts in occupational health are sporadic and rely heavily on written materials, which often do not reach their intended audience or serve the needs of low-wage workers. More innovative, creative, and coordinated approaches to outreach are needed. The use of media—especially ethnic media—to reach low-wage populations is one important and not necessarily costly strategy.
Provide understandable health and safety and workers’ compensation information in the language and at the literacy level appropriate for low-wage workers.

Establish an ad hoc committee to review legal remedies and fines and penalties for health and safety violations. Effective legal remedies do not exist for repeated violations of health and safety standards or instances in which large groups of workers are adversely affected by company practices (e.g., long-term exposure to toxic chemicals.) Many of the fines and penalties for labor and health and safety violations were established years ago and do not act as effective deterrents. Statutes of limitations also make it difficult to pursue claims where medical problems from workplace exposures (e.g., cancers) do not show up until later years or when information about workers’ compensation benefits was not provided to workers by their employers.

Provide web-based public access to workers’ compensation insurance coverage information for California businesses. California should follow the lead of other states, notably Texas, that have developed publicly-accessible electronic database systems that quickly and easily provides this information.

Explore the possibility of creating a safety net for the most vulnerable workers by encouraging pilot projects to provide limited, confidential access to occupational health care to low-wage workers in target industries. Several free or low-cost worker-oriented clinics have been started in the last few years to respond to the problem of lack of access for low-wage workers. There are no funding streams available to support these clinics and at the same time allow them to provide care to patients who are risk of retaliation or to patients whose workplace injuries are not covered under workers’ compensation insurance. Pilot projects should be developed to gather data on the costs and impacts of providing medical care to workers in designated industries where a high risk of retaliation exists.

Strengthen the ability of public and community health clinics to provide occupational health care for low-wage workers. Training in occupational health care and in the laws and regulations governing workers’ compensation should be provided on an ongoing basis to community and public health clinics. Regulations that mandate the inclusion of qualified community and public health clinics on insurer-preferred provider lists for employers with low-wage workforces and efforts should be adopted to assist them in developing individual or shared billing services.

Determine if the medical treatment provided under SB 899 works effectively and efficiently for low-wage workers. One of the most consistent complaints from workers in the focus groups was about inadequate care received from employer-designated doctors. SB 899 gives even greater control to employers over the choice of health care providers and greatly limits employees’ ability to seek care elsewhere if they are dissatisfied. Analysis of this process should take into account the special needs and circumstances of low-wage workers.

Enhance Prevention Efforts in Low-wage Industries. The Working Immigrant Safety and Health Coalition provided a useful list of recommendations which would enhance prevention efforts in low-wage industries, including: (a) disseminating information about existing solutions for serious hazards in these industries; (b) providing incentives for employers including tax credits, grants and insurance rebates for implementing approved health and safety measures; and (c) supporting research on new workplace solutions.
Explore the feasibility of implementing a regular reporting mechanism beyond the Workers’ Compensation Information system (WCIS) and the annual survey by the Department of Labor Statistics and Research (DLSR) of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and a study of surveillance efforts and recommended improvements for tracking injuries and illnesses among low-wage workers. Without data to identify risk factors and track improvements, clear goals cannot be set for resolving the immediate problems identified in this and other reports, including recommendations for more useful and accessible performance data on inspections and other DIR programs.

Provide publicly accessible county-level data on injuries to facilitate local involvement. Regular reporting should be made publicly available and cover occupational illnesses and injuries, claims information, Cal-OSHA inspections, emergency room cases and other available data to assist local surveillance efforts.

October 10, 2006

I'll bet the fence is never built

Here's why:

1. Building it creates mighty bad eminent domain problems.

2. It is disliked by many border area Americans who depend on Mexican labor crossing over daily.

3. The Hispanics middle class is ever bigger, ever richer, and more politically vocal. (The number of Hispanics earning over $100,000 grew by 64% between 2000 and 2005, compared with 40% for all other groups on average.)

October 6, 2006

Disparities in education, income among second generation immigrants

The Migration Information Service published this week a study of education, language speaking, and income patterns among Latin American and Asian second generation immigrants in southern California (San Diego) and southern Florida (Miami/ fort Lauderdale). I plucked out of the study some interesting figures on relative educational attainment and income of the family in which the second generation immigrant – usually at their mi 20s – is living.

At the low end of educational attainment and family income are Cambodian and Laotians in southern California and Haitians in southern Florida. In contrast, “At the other end, the combination of high parental human capital, a high proportion of intact families, and a neutral context of reception (as defined above), led second-generation Chinese and other Asians to extraordinary levels of educational achievement, only matched in South Florida by the offspring of upper-middle-class Cuban exiles who attended private schools. Vietnamese youths also did quite well despite low average levels of parental education.”

The schedule below lists the region, the nationality, the percentage of high school students who did not go onto higher education, and the average family income. The educational attainment percentage is the share who did NOT go onto higher ed.

These education figures don’t jibe well with national average. Nationally, about 36% do not go onto higher ed. Higher ed utilization rates are notoriously complicated to estimate. The higher education participation figures by nationality seem much too high. However, I think we can use these figures to
*compare* the nationalities below. Chinese second generation people are most active in higher education among all groups. Cambodians and Laotians have the worst rate for post high school education.

How to read the list below...an example: Among Filipinos in southern California, 2nd generation persons were less inclined to pursue post high school education than were Vietnamese, other Asians and Chinese. The median income of the households in which the second generation resides is, for Filipinos, about $55,000 – much higher than any other listed nationality for that region.

Southern California:
Cambodian, Laotian 45.9%, $25,179
Chinese 5.7% $33,611
Filipino 15.5%, $55,323
Mexican 38% $32,585
Vietnamese 12.6% $34,868
Other, Asian 9.1%, $40,278
Other, Latin American 25.5%, $31,500

South Florida
Colombian 17%, $45,948
Cuban (Private School) 7.5%, $70,395
Cuban (Public School) 21.7%, 48,598
Haitian 15.3%, $26,974
Nicaraguan 26.4% $47,054
West Indian 18.1%, $30,326

October 3, 2006

Ten top migration issues of 2005

According to Migration Information Source, several of the “top ten migration issues" of last year were related to U.S. immigration in general and working immigrants in particular.

The most relevant ones were:

US Immigration Reform Moves Forward
This year, members of Congress have sponsored numerous reform proposals that have pushed the debate forward and generated significant media coverage.

Temporary Work Programs Back in Fashion
The legacy of guest-worker programs has kept most Western countries from considering new schemes even when faced with low-skill labor shortages. But those attitudes began to shift in 2005.

Remittances Reach New Heights
In 2005, research into the size of remittances and their role as a development tool reached a new peak.

Growing Competition for Skilled Workers (and Foreign Students)
The intensifying competition for professionals such as doctors, nurses, and IT workers, as well as foreign university students, was on the minds of media pundits and policymakers this year.

Others were:

Challenges of Immigrant Integration: Muslims in Europe
Only recently have European politicians and public opinion leaders talked about the need to focus on the integration of immigrants and their children.

Linking Security and Immigration Controls: The Post-9/11 US Model Goes Global
Since 9/11, the United States has helped push its border inspection and security agenda and a focus on biometric solutions onto the agendas of other countries.

EU Disunion: Immigration in an Enlarged Europe
Only the UK, Ireland, and Sweden have allowed accession-state nationals to work without permits since May 1, 2004 — and hundreds of thousands from Eastern Europe have arrived.