This paper examines the promise and limitations of seasonal work permits. It looks at the current H-2A and H-2B programs in the US, as well as recent changes to the seasonal labor regime in the European Union, compares these to the now infamous Bracero program in the US, and explores the proposals for reform pushed by immigrant advocacy organizations. In particular, it explains the politics behind Europe’s step forward in regulatory improvements and the relative US lag in this area.
Seasonal work permits have long been defended as providing a legal and potentially more protective regime than that afforded to unauthorized / undocumented immigrants. However, many of the same problems that bedevil workers on seasonal permits as do undocumented workers, particularly in areas considered “low-skill” such as agriculture and hospitality / hotels. Frequent forms of employer abuse include wage theft, compensation below the minimum wage, unsafe working conditions, and forced, uncompensated or undercompensated overtime. In addition, violations of provisions specific to seasonal permits, such as housing that meets minimum standards provided at a reasonable cost (in the case of agricultural workers), are also common. Because traditional seasonal permits are tied to a single employer, the ability of a worker to leave a poor employment situation was often extremely limited – leaving meant either falling out of legal status or returning to one’s home country empty-handed or still in debt to brokers.
This paper analyzes the problems with seasonal work permits as well as various proposals for reform. It closes with an analysis of why Europe has made more progress in enacting change than the US, even though the identified problems and proposed solutions are quite similar on both sides of the Atlantic.
