Migrant Worker Women Advancing Gender Equity through the USMCA

Men only, 1835 years old. 

In 2021, seeing a job posting with those words is startling. Shocking even. But more than a year into a world-changing pandemic that has pushed millions of women out of paid work, U.S. employers continue to discriminate against women, posting ads like that one. To evade legal consequences, U.S. businesses discriminate in Mexico, hiring men to work in the United States with temporary H-2 guestworker visas while turning women away. Other U.S. businesses discriminate by hiring women but channeling them into lower-paying jobs with poorer conditions than those they hire men for. Although the U.S. government knows that H-2 employers discriminate against women, it has done little to stop them. 

For more than fifteen years, since I founded Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, Inc. (CDM)—the first transnational workers’ rights organization based in Mexico and the United States—I have heard from women in Mexico about patterns of abuse in the U.S. H-2 programs. Migrant women have courageously spoken out about blatant discrimination in H-2 recruitment and hiring, sexual harassment and other violence against women at work, unfair pay, and unlawful working conditions. Women report discrimination in industries ranging from Maryland’s blue crab processors to fruit and vegetable sorting. Sex discrimination persists in H-2 labor supply chains even though U.S. law prohibits employers and labor recruiters from discriminating against women. Laws prohibiting discrimination protect all women who work in the United States, even if businesses hire them outside of the country.

Today, migrant women continue the fight for gender justice. In March, in honor of Women’s History Month, CDM and workers’ rights organizations across North America joined migrant women in filing the first viable state-to-state complaint under the new United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement (USMCA). The USMCA’s labor chapter, Article 23, requires the United States to enforce its anti-discrimination laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In failing to root out discrimination in H-2 recruiting, hiring, and employment and neglecting to ensure gender equity in the program, the United States is violating Article 23. 

In the complaint, we collectively make three demands:

  1. The U.S. government must end sex discrimination in the H-2 guestworker programs once and for all.
  2. The government must ensure that all workers have access to Legal Services Corporation-funded civil legal services. (Without lawyers working in solidarity with them, it is nearly impossible for migrant women to access justice through U.S. courts.)
  3. The government must investigate discrimination complaints from women in the H-2 program under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, rather than ignoring or summarily dismissing them.

And to increase pressure on the Administration, we are filing a supplemental complaint with Professor Sarah Paoletti, a Practice Professor of Law and the Director of the Transnational Legal Clinic at the University of Pennsylvania School of Law. The supplement will address the U.S. government’s obligations under the ILO and international human rights law to end discrimination in the H-2 program.

We have reasons to be hopeful that the USMCA can serve as a tool to improve access to transnational justice for migrant workers. Unlike NAFTA—the old trade agreement with its toothless labor side accord—the USMCA has a mechanism for migrant workers and their advocates to push governments to comply with labor and employment laws—or face sanctions. Concretely, this means that the U.S. government may face sanctions if it maintains the status quo and ignores the grave abuses that the petitioners report in the H-2 program. It means that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission must end its practice of failing to investigate and meaningfully respond to migrant women’s discrimination complaints. And it means that the U.S. Departments of Labor and Homeland Security must stop allowing H-2 employers to discriminate without consequences. In receiving and reviewing our petition, the governments are legally responsible for showing us that they meant what they said about protecting migrant workers’ and women’s rights when they signed the agreement. 

The historic process for the migrant women petitioners began in Mexico, where we filed the USMCA complaint with the Mexican government. Mexico formally accepted the complaint and is now investigating discrimination and other abuses in the agricultural and protein processing industries, the industries in which the petitioners work. Earlier this month, Mexico asked the United States to honor its obligations under the USMCA and invited cooperation in doing so. And now the Biden-Harris Administration has the opportunity to make good on the promise of the USMCA and proactively address the urgent issues we raise in the complaint.

For too long, U.S. businesses have used the H-2 programs to bypass our civil rights and labor laws. Left without government oversight, H-2 employers have enacted their sexist, racist, and ageist ideas about the kinds of workers who maximize profitability. Sex discrimination in the H-2 program harms not only migrant women from Mexico but also U.S.-based workers. 

Over the next year, as we rebuild the U.S. economy for a sustainable and equitable recovery, justice for migrant women must be at the fore of the government’s labor and employment policies and practices. And next Women’s History Month, we look forward to celebrating meaningful, sustainable reforms in the H-2 program that will end discrimination against migrant women and promote access to justice. 

We would be grateful for your support in standing with migrant worker women to fight against discrimination. Please email me (rachel@cdmigrante.org) to join the supplemental complaint on the U.S. government’s obligations under the ILO or to submit an amicus in support of migrant worker women. 

Cuba’s Terror Designation – Major Shift or Symbolic Step?

Following the December, 2014 announcement of a major U.S. policy shift towards Cuba, President Obama has formally submitted to Congress the Administration’s intent to rescind Cuba’s State Sponsor of Terrorism (SST) designation.

Cuba was listed on the SST roster in 1982 pursuant to three laws:

  1. Section 6 (j) of the Export Administration Act;
  2. Section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act; and
  3. Section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act.

Once designated, a country remains on the list until the designation is rescinded. The Administration’s review presented to Congress determined that Cuba had not engaged in terrorist activity in the past six months and relied on assurances that Cuba will not support terrorism in the future. Following a 45-day review period, Cuba will be removed from the SST list unless blocked by a joint resolution of Congress.

Iraq, Libya, North Korea, and South Yemen have all had their previous designations rescinded in this manner, though there has been some movement in Congress to have North Korea re-designated on the SST list. This also follows the March announcement by the Treasury Department that 59 individuals and entities would be removed from the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list under the Kingpin Act. This list, administered by the Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC), designates individuals and companies that are subject to asset blocks and prohibitions from dealings with U.S. persons.

Most importantly, while this does represent another step towards increasing liberalization in U.S. policy towards the island nation, it does not affect the main embargo currently in place. Further action by the relevant agencies including OFAC and the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) will be needed to alter the current status of sanctions and export control restrictions.

For more on this topic, see related articles by yours truly here and fellow Grrl Andrea M. Ewart here as well as agency guidance from the Treasury Department’s FAQ on Cuba.

 

The Gender Agenda in Trade

In many developing countries, the informal economy is at least as important as that economy which can be more easily captured in a country’s GDP measurements. For a number of families in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean,

Women selling in market(IITA Image Library)

Women selling in market
(IITA Image Library)

the informal sector is what has allowed them to survive, despite a world economic crisis and sinking national economies.

Women in Informal Employment: Globalizing and Organizing (WIEGO), a global action/research/policy network conducting research on this sector has defined the informal economy broadly to include the range of activities, enterprises and workers that are not regulated or protected by the state. This definition encompasses the vendors of products and services who conduct their business on busy city streets as well as producers and service providers who work from their homes.

In the developing world, the overwhelming majority of these informal workers are women. Sixty percent or more of women workers in the developing world are in the non-agricultural informal sector, reports WIEGO. Of these, a significant subset is involved in cross-border trade. The gender agenda in trade is incomplete without policies and strategies that address this group of women.

Cross-Border Traders

In the Caribbean, informal traders — known as “hucksters” in Dominica or traffickers in St. Vincent — ply an inter-island route on boats carrying produce to other islands. “Higglers” in Jamaica are both the backbone of the island’s agricultural marketing system as well as the “informal commercial importers” of cheap products from all over the world. While years ago they could be seen on flights between Aruba, Miami, or Panama, today’s favored source is China.

Data on cross-border informal traders is understandably hard to come by, but here are some compelling statistics:

  • In sub-Saharan Africa, 60% of the self-employed women working outside of the agricultural sector were involved in some aspect of cross-border trade (ILO, 2004)
  • The average value of informal cross-border trade in the 15 countries of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) was US$ 17.6 billion per year and 70% of informal cross-border traders are women.
  • In West and Central Africa, women informal cross border traders “employ” 1.2 people in their home businesses.

Challenges

These women traders frequently operate in the shadows with inadequate recognition and support from the formal economy.

A USAID summary Women in Cross-Border Agricultural Trade highlights the discrimination that women face in the border process:

  • Women in India wait 37% longer than men to see the same customs official.
  • In East Africa, women cross-border traders are forced to pay larger bribes than their male counterparts or to provide sexual favors to border officials who detain the trader or confiscate her goods.
  • In Central Africa, customs officials commonly perceive those who trade in small quantities as “smugglers,” even when they pay the appropriate duties.

The very informality of their operations is also a challenge: Continue reading