Suchergebnisse

This article presents the results of a scientific social-pedagogical research, which goal was displaying an overview of the current situation of migrant farm workers in Mexico, from a first approach to the state of knowledge on this issue through a documentary-bibliographic study. The study showed that the most researchers approach the issues of migrant farm workers from economic theory, however, is not enough to analyze the economic and social status of this group of people, it is necessary to place it in a multidisciplinary level (including economics, sociology, political science, psychology, education, etc.), study it from the theory of marginality and qualitative approach.

This article presents the results of a scientific social-pedagogical research, which goal was displaying an overview of the current situation of migrant farm workers in Mexico, from a first approach to the state of knowledge on this issue through a documentary-bibliographic study. The study showed that the most researchers approach the issues of migrant farm workers from economic theory, however, is not enough to analyze the economic and social status of this group of people, it is necessary to place it in a multidisciplinary level (including economics, sociology, political science, psychology, education, etc.), study it from the theory of marginality and qualitative approach.

A model community development center to help families settle into a more stable way of life is proposed and its basic characteristics described

Since the late 1990s, the share of agricultural workers who migrate within the United States fell by about 60%. On average over this period, one-third of the drop in the migration rate was due to changes in the demographic makeup of the workforce, while two-thirds was due to government and institutional changes in the market. However, in recent years, demographic change were responsible for nearly half of the overall change.

Immigrant and migrant farm workers from Mexico and other countries are large and growing in number and in importance to U.S. agriculture, but they often are not counted in the decennial census due to high mobility, illegal status, and/or unconventional housing. This report is based on ethnographic research conducted in California's Santa Maria Valley, an active agricultural area rich in labor-intensive cultivation of prime vegetable and fruit crops. Calculations of crop acreage, man-hours of labor required for each crop, and full- and part-time agricultural employees are verified and augmented by information gained from comprehensive interviews with immigrant and migrant agricultural workers concerning their migratory and employment histories, housing arrangements, and relationships to Mexican communities. The report concludes that routine census procedures can only result in a significant under-reporting of numbers of immigrant and, particularly, migrant farm workers in Santa Maria and, by extension, in other regions of the country which rely heavily upon imported labor; that many immigrant and migrant farmworkers have good reason to fear exposure to government representatives and thus will attempt to remain hidden from them; and that lack of adequate housing contributes to difficulties in locating and enumerating this population. The most important step toward resolution of these problems and many related issues would be reform of U.S. immigration policy which would recognize, legalize, and protect imported migrant workers. Absent such enlightenment, however, more accurate enumeration and description of this population can be accomplished if bilingual and bicultural census workers are trained to patiently and repeatedly approach their households and unconventional dwellings using ethnographic research methods. Under current conditions, this will require a radical redefinition of the terms "residence" and "household" in the context of the census. And, although the timing of the national census is not ideal for identification of the largest number of migrant farm workers, follow-up studies should be performed at peak employment periods. Such surveys, thoroughly performed, would yield rich rewards in information about the farm-working population as well as provide an essential cross-check to standard census data.

- ; Since the 2004 EU enlargement established one European common labour market, a large number of Eastern Europeans have taken up seasonal employment as hired farm workers in Norwegian agriculture. Much attention in the public has been given to the potential for 'social dumping' of these migrating workers, as they are considered prone to exploitation by farmers looking for cheap and docile labour, and subject to low-wages and poor labour conditions. In response to these threats, Norway implemented labour regulations ('transitional rules') that established minimum standards for wage levels and labour conditions, combined with registration and supervision of the incoming labour force. Nevertheless, reports from the field indicate that many of the westward migrating labour force experience work conditions that are far poorer than prescribed by the labour regulations, as these are not implemented at the farm level. In this paper, we discuss the social processes that result in this mismatch between state regulations (e.g. transition rules) and the actual experiences of migrant workers building on dual labour market theory. Analysing qualitative in-depth interviews with 54 farm migrants, we argue that there are two sets of factors underlying the poorer working conditions observed on the farms: Firstly, the structural disempowerment of migrant workers, which gives them weak negotiating positions vis-à-vis their employers (farmers); and secondly, the migrant workers' frame of reference for wage levels, in which poor payment levels by Norwegian standards are found acceptable or even good when judged by Eastern European wage levels. While a number of works have described the exploitation of farm migrant labour, we demonstrate in this paper how national immigration and agricultural histories, structures and present policies configure the labour–capital relations at farm level in the Norwegian case.

This article examines how non-traditional labor organizations, also known as "alt labor," can improve the working conditions of migrant farm workers in the United States and Canada. I consider the work of three labor organizations — the Agricultural Workers Alliance (Canada) ("AWA"), Justice in Motion (U.S.) ("JIM"), and the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (U.S.) ("CIW") — by focusing on the variety of "legal engagements" that these organizations have to create better working conditions for migrant farm workers. I argue that labor organizations engage with the law in numerous ways, including: improving the rights consciousness of workers; supplementing the work of regulators to increase compliance; undertaking private enforcement of their own; instituting new rights and entitlements through court challenges; building and coalescing social movements; and designing and implementing private regulatory system. I find that the AWA and JIM perform important work to build the rights consciousness of workers and improve compliance with existing legal standards in ways which public regulators are unable to do. However, most workers do not bring forth claims because they fear employer retaliation. The CIW, on the other hand, has devised a private regulatory system that overcomes some of the limitations of public regulatory systems, for example, by allowing farm workers to vindicate their rights regardless of their migration status. Most importantly, the CIW's private regulatory system requires business entities at the top of the supply chain to take responsibility for working conditions on farms. This system engages with the political economy of the food system because those businesses at the top of the supply chain are best positioned to effect working conditions. I conclude by suggesting that labor organizations actively trying to achieve justice on our fields, like the AWA, JIM and CIW, may point the way for a rejuvenated labor movement.

Despite the Seasonal Agricultural Worker and Temporary Foreign Worker programs existing under federal legal jurisdiction, provincial authority with respects to health, housing and labour codes encroaches upon many issues that are relevant to the lives of migrant workers. The asymmetrical standardization of various jurisdictions exacerbates a huge cleavage in the Canadian human rights regime in relation to migrant workers. Using an array of reports—that vary in their respective source bases from labour unions to academic and government publications—this paper examines inter-provincial differences in the aforementioned areas of issues to demonstrate that the federal/provincial division of powers acts as an impediment for the development of rights for temporary migrant workers under the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program and Temporary Foreign Worker Program. To advance this argument, this paper also illustrates how various provincial governments have interacted with the Governments of Canada and Mexico to limit access to healthcare, housing and collective bargaining. It then promotes the notion that, in the absence of federal uniformity, the dispersed jurisdiction in these areas of issues allows the provinces leverage to experiment with different labour relations regimes; it asserts that although provinces are given room to differ from one another, some of them have attempted to systematically restrict the rights of migrants to housing, healthcare, training, and collective representation.Malgré les programmes pour les «travailleurs étrangers temporaires et les travailleurs agricoles saisonniers » qui existent sous la compétence fédérale, les autorités provinciales ayant trait à la santé, le logement, et les codes du travail empiètent sur plusieurs questions pertinentes à la vie des travailleurs migrants. La standardisation asymétrique d'un grand nombre de juridictions aggrave la grande scission dans le régime canadien des droits de l'homme vis-à-vis des travailleurs migrants. En consultant une grande variété de rédactions provenant de sources diverses telles que des syndicats et des publications académiques et gouvernementales, cet essai examine les différences interprovinciales afin de démontrer que la division de pouvoir entre le niveau fédéral et provincial agit comme obstacle pour les travailleurs migrants sous le programme. Pour avancer cet argument, cet essai illustre comment les gouvernements provinciaux ont collaboré avec les gouvernements du Canada et du Mexique pour limiter l'accès aux médicaments, au logement et à la négociation collective. On promeut ensuite la notion que l'absence d'uniformité fédérale et la dispersion de juridiction permet aux provinces d'expérimenter avec différents régimes de relations de travail; bien que les provinces aient la chance de varier leurs normes, plusieurs d'entre elles ont tenté de limiter systématiquement les droits des travailleurs migrants au logement, aux médicaments, à l'entraînement et à la négociation collective.