Forced Labour and Migration to the UK
Study prepared by COMPAS in collaboration with the Trades Union Congress

Bridget Anderson & Ben Rogaly
2009

FOREWORD
Over recent years, there have been many reports in the media of the extreme forms ofexploitation that some migrant workers face in Britain. The TUC has published several accountsitself. This report differs in that the researchers have put this shameful phenomenon into a biggerpicture.They show that the practices used by a minority of employers fall under the internationallyagreed definitions of forced labour, which most people would assume had been banished fromBritain long ago. Far from being restricted to the extreme fringes of the economy, forced labourcan be found at the base of key industries, and goes far beyond the agricultural and sex work withwhich it is normally associated. The authors suggest that the conditions for forced labour arecreated by employer demand for ultra-flexible labour. From the TUC’s point of view, this ismade worse both by the low level of protection that exists in British law for some categories ofworkers – agency workers in particular – and difficulties in enforcing those rights that do exist.As the researchers found people working with authorisation, such as work permit holders, canfind themselves without the means to assert fundamental rights – to be paid what they have beenpromised, or not to have their passports withheld, for example. For those working withoutpermission, the situation is much worse, as their fear of the authorities obliges them to acceptoppressive exploitation. The greater the hostility that migrant workers fear they may encounter,whether from the media, officialdom or politicians, the greater their vulnerability. Expressing orencouraging hostility to the presence of migrants, performing vital roles within our economy,only diminishes their capacity to resist exploitation and plays into the hands of the shadyemployers getting rich on the back of forced labour.Tolerating forced labour is not an option for the trade union movement. We accept ourresponsibility to organise migrant workers and in doing so, enable them to defend themselves. Itis in the interest of everyone at work to maintain decent minimum standards in every workplace,and trade unions can only benefit from reflecting more accurately the diversity to be found in themodern workforce.But to do our job, we need the right tools. As this report reveals even the rights that do exist canbe difficult to enforce. Many people working perfectly legally cannot in practice enforce theirrights, and those whose status may be in doubt are open to the worst kinds of exploitation, yet theemployers who take advantage of this seem almost immune from prosecution. A simpleimmigration control approach does nothing to reduce exploitation as unscrupulous employerssimply take on new workers and exploit them in turn. Only when migrant workers canconfidently claim their rights, including in particular the right to join and participate in a tradeunion, will the demand for vulnerable workers drop. And when everyone at work enjoysminimum standards, there is much less scope for any employer to sow divisions between groupsof workers in order to drive down wages and undermine collective agreements.Migrant workers who enter to work for a specified employer cannot take unfair dismissal claimsin Tribunals without risking finding themselves in breach of immigration rules. In other words,claiming their rights could mean leaving the country (which itself could prevent them frompursuing a claim). Someone working outside the immigration rules (for example an overseas
student working for more than 20 hours per week) is likely to find that they cannot make a claimfor unpaid wages because their employment contract is not judged to be legal. It is far from clearhow employers can be prevented from confiscating passports and identity papers. These gaps inprotection contribute to the forced labour practices identified in this report.The conclusions of the report reflect most of these concerns. Ideas such as extending (andimproving) the protections available to victims of trafficking to those subjected to forced labour,and of giving all workers access to redress for losses and damages imposed by rogue employerswould do much to aid the fight against forced labour. This is a struggle that can only be foughtalongside the workers affected. Interventions from the outside that do not engage migrants andtheir organisations (including of course their unions) cannot hope to succeed.The TUC is very grateful for the work put in by the authors Bridget Anderson and Ben Rogaly.They have produced a valuable report at a time when it is most needed. The TUC would also liketo thank staff at the ILO’s Special Action Programme to Combat Forced Labour for theirassistance and advice, and the many migrant workers, advisors, solicitors, researchers and tradeunionists who assisted the authors in gathering the information included in this report. Thecontent and conclusions of the report, however, are the responsibility of the authors and the TUC.Finally, this report is published a year after the tragedy in Morecambe Bay, when so manymigrant workers needlessly died. If we are to avoid a repetition, we need to consider how theproblems identified can be addressed to the advantage of the workforce as a whole, and how wecan drive forced labour out of Britain for good.Brendan BarberGeneral SecretaryTrades Union Congress