Metropolis Policy Research Seminar on Temporary Migration:“Should I Stay or Should Go?”

Ottawa, March 12, 2008

‘Should I Stay or Should I Go?’ It depends.

Elements of Good Practice in Managing Temporary Foreign Workers

Jobst KoehlerResearch and Publication Division

IOM, Geneva

Outline

1) IOM and Labour Migration

2) Temporary Foreign Worker Programmes (TFWPs) and their Admission Policies

3) Making TFWPs Feasible:

4) Making TFWPs Development-Friendly

5) Conclusion

• Ensuring return• Guaranteeing fair treatment

What is IOM?

• An intergovernmental, non-profit organization

established in 1951, IOM is committed to the principle that

humane and orderly migration benefits migrants and

society

•122 Members and 91 observers including 20 States and

71 global and regional Intergovernmental organizations

and Non-Governmental Organizations.

IOM’s purpose in labour migration is to facilitate the development of policies and programmes that can individually and mutually benefit the concerned governments, migrants and society by:

– Providing effective protection and services to labour migrants and their dependants;

– Promoting economic and social development;

– Promoting forms of labour mobility as an alternative to resorting to irregular migration.

IOM and Labour Migration

IOM Services facilitating labour migrationIOM Services facilitating labour migration

2 Database and

Registration of potential workers

3Recruitment

Order

4Selection

5Pre-departure

Services

6Travel and

Transit Assistance

7Reception, Post Arrival & Emp.

8Return and

Reintegration

1Information

dissemination

LABOUR MIGRATION LABOUR MIGRATION OPPORTUNITIESOPPORTUNITIES9.

M o n i t o r i n g

Scope of Labour Migration Activities GloballyScope of Labour Migration Activities Globally

• The Labour Migration Division currently has 47 active labour migration projects as of February 2007

• Labour migration projects exist to cater to the needs of countries of origin, destination and migrants

• Globally, the majority of IOM projects are located in Asia (Colombo process), South America, and Europe.

• Addressing the labour migration needs for Africa is a key objective of the Labour Migration Division

• Policy tools relating to labour migration (e.g. Handbook on Establishing Effective Labour Migration Policies in Countries of Origin and Destination)

Temporary Foreign Worker MigrationTemporary Foreign Worker Migration

Working Holiday Makers

Seasonal Workers Other Temporary Workers

2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005

France 14.6 15.7 16.2 10.2 10.0 10.5

Germany 309.5 324.0 320.4 43.9 34.2 21.9

Italy 0.1 0.3 0.4 68.0 77.0 70.2

Japan 143.7 146.6 110.2

Republic ofKorea

7.2 8.3 11.9

New Zealand

20.7 21.4 29.0 2.9 40.3 43.7 44.3

United Kingdom

46.5 62.4 56.6 19.8 15.7 98.0 113.4 111.2

United States[1]

29.9 31.8 31.9 192.5 221.8 218.6

Source: OECD (2007: 52), compiled from residence and work permit data

Temporary Worker and TFWPs

Categories of temporary workers Admission programmes

Frontier Workers

Seasonal Workers

Contract Workers

Guest Workers

Professional and technical workers

Intra-Company Tansferees

Working Holiday Makers

Occupational trainees/Apprentices

Entertainers/Athletes

Service providers/sellers

Self-Employed

Students

Au Pairs

Trainees and apprentices

Seasonal agriculture

Youth or student programme

Working holiday makers

Points System

Priority occupations

Special sector

Facilitated entry

Intra-company transferees

TFWPs: Admission Policies (I)

Temp.

Worker

Admiss. Program

Pre-entry Control

Selection Variables

Condition Other controls

Occupational Trainees/apprentices

Bilateral Agreements (BLA)

Country of Origin (CoOs)

Industry

Training

Max no

Allowance

Accom-

modation

Return

No change of status

No family

Seasonal Workers

Seasonal Agri-culture

Youth/

student Program

Quotas/

BLAs

LM Tests

No.

CoOs

Age

Education

Wage

Housing

Med Insur.

Return

No family

Abella 2006

TFWPs: Admission Policies (II)

Temp.

Worker

Admiss. Program

Pre-entry Control

Selection Variables

Condition Other controls

Contract/

Project Workers

Work

Permit

BLA;

Contract.

Regulation

LM test

CoOs

Industry

Project

Employee of Contractor;

No Change of Employer

Financial Security Bonds;

Employer responsible for return

Unskilled Work Permit

Working Holiday

Makers

Quotas/

BLAs;

LM Tests

No.

CoOs

Duration of Stay

Return

Foreign Workers levy;

No change of status;

BondsAbella 2006

Making TFWPs Feasible

Two issues need to be resolved:

Ensure return

Guarantee fair treatment of temporary

o Need to avoid labour market distortions and structural dependence

Making TFWPs Feasible: Ensuring Return (I)

Policies for encouraging and enforcing return

Carrots Sticks

• Prospect of permanent residency/employment

• Options for re-entry (Reporting

obligations)

• Quota systems

• Financial Security Bonds

• Mandatory saving schemes

• Strict enforcement of immigration laws

Making TFWPs Feasible: Ensuring Return (II)

“Carrots”:

•Granting flexibility for obtaining longer worker permits e.g. Italy- after two years of seasonal employment, 3 years work permit; Spain’s “T” permit- after 4 years in total.

•Option of re-entry can help migrants to maintain networks e.g. Swiss Seasonal Worker Schemes- 70% return.

• Re-entry on conditions of reporting to consulate authorities(e.g. Spain)

• Sponsor rating according to compliance with reporting obligations and immigration conditions (e.g. UK’s Points-based

System)

•Quota systems as incentive for sending countries to cooperate on return of visa overstayers: e.g. “privileged

nationality” quota in Italy and UK former Sector-Based Scheme.

Making TFWP Feasible: Ensuring Return (III)

“Sticks”:

• Employers are required to purchase security bond which is confiscated if migrant labour employees overstay permit

e.g. Greece, Israel, Malaysia, Singapore and Taiwan.

• Migrant workers are required to pay a proportion of their earnings into a fund redeemable upon return (special saving accounts):

e.g. in Taiwan and selectively UK.

• Standard methods of enforcing “temporariness” are expulsion: e.g. EU granting “period of voluntary return” with possibility of re-entry.

Making TFWPs feasible:Ensuring Fair Treatment

• Facilitated travel to destination country and on return to the country of origin;

• Minimum wage guarantees and safe working conditions;

• Access to health care and social protection; the provision of suitable accommodation;

• Monitoring or inspection mechanisms to ensure that the promised employment and living conditions are being met.

Making TFWPs Development-Friendly (I)

Development-sensitive approach to recruitment:

• Targeting the poor and low-skilled in Country of Origin (CoOs);

• Developing skills through pre-departure orientation and training;

e.g. regional authorities in Spain, France, and Italy provide “training abroad”

schemes where workers are trained before accessing labour market.

• Sensitive to CoOs own seasonal demand for labour.

Making TFWPs Development-Friendly (II)

Leveraging remittances and encouraging productive return:

• Dissemination of information on remittance services and options via pre-departure orientation and in Migrant Resources Centres established in countries of destination

• Matching investment of remittances in livelihoods and businesses with training, credit and

advicee.g. IOM/UNDP project in Tajikistan:

business and agricultural loans were extended to labour migrant households investing in matching amount from remittances.

Conclusions (I)

• Many types of temporary labour migration programme:• Those that admit temporary workers to fill temporary jobs• Those that admit temporary workers to fill year- around/permanent jobs• Those that admit probationary immigrants.

• Some TFWPs allow for greater fexibility in determining periods of stay

• Greater experimentation with economic incentives of return or offering attractive investment opportunities in CoOs.

• Policy incentives may not have significant impact on decision-making of migrants if information on policies is not accessible for the target population.

Conclusions (II)

• Cooperation with CoOs is necessary for effective implementation of TFWPs.

• Important to bear in mind that policy interventions are only one of a number of factors considered by migrants to return (e.g. conditions in home and destination country, personal characteristics).

• Better understanding of benefits of TFWPs through monitoring, evaluation and research.

Conclusions

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!

Queries to: JKOEHLER@iom.int