migrant recruitment from cambodia and laos into...

Migrant recruitment from Cambodia and Laos into Thailand

Premjai Vungsiriphisal Samarn Laodumrongchai Nattapol Eksaengsri Paul Ruengrojpitak Pairin Makcharoen Waranya Jitpong

Asian Research Center for Migration. Institute of Asian Studies, Chulalongkorn University.

International Labour Organization (ILO)

Migrant recruitment from Cambodia and Laos into Thailand First published 2010 Editor : Supang Chantavanich Research team: Premjai Vungsiriphisal, Saman Laodumrongchai, Paul Ruengrojpitak, Nattapol Eksaengsri, Pairin Makcharoen and Waranya Jitpong, Publish by : Asian Research Center for Migration. Institute of Asian Studies, Chulalongkorn University. Prajadhipok-Rambhi Barni Building, Chulalongkorn University. Phyyathai Rd., Bangkok 10330, Thailand www. arcm.ias.chula.ac.th Cover Design : Waranya Jitpong Publish at : Sriboon Computer-Printing Ltd., 338/3-4 Chula 40 Rama IV Rd., Wangmai, Pratuwan, Bangkok 10330. Thailand

i

Preface

Research report on

“Migrant Recruitment from Cambodia and Laos into Thailand”

Owing to the impacts of illegal influx of migrant workers from neighbouring countries such as Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar on its society and economy, Thailand decided to invite Laos and Cambodia to sign Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) on International Employment Cooperation during the period of 2002-2003 and started recruiting workers from their countries of origin in 2005.

The Asian Research Center of Migration (ARCM), Institute of Asian Studies, Chulalongkorn University, has conducted research on “Migrant Recruitment from Cambodia and Laos into Thailand” with funding support by the International Labour Organization (ILO). The issues and themes covered by the research include the management legal framework; the comparison of the patterns of worker recruitment and job placement, insofar as these involve, among other things, the costs incurred, the duration of these activities, and the arrangements for workers transportation; and the migrant workers’ comments

ii

on the employment process as provided for in the MOU and other related matters, as well as the responsible officials on the part of both the Thai public and private sectors and the countries of origins of the workers. The details of all these matters are fully incorporated in this report.

Those findings will lead to an improvement of legal recruitment of migrant workers into Thailand for more sustainable economic and social development based on good governance.

The team of researchers would like to thank the relevant government agencies of the three countries, the Embassy of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic and the Royal Embassy of Cambodia, employer companies, job placement companies, NGOs, as well as migrant workers for their cooperation in providing information, and Miss Patharin Khaochan for proof reading and language refinement of this research.

Supang Chantavanich

Acting Director

Asian Research Center for Migration

September 2010

iii

Table of Contents

Preface i

Executive Abbreviations xi CHAPTER 1 Introduction 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Objectives 3 1.3 Definitions of key terms 4 1.4 Methodology 6

CHAPTER 2 Current Legal and Policy Framework on Migrant Recruitment and Implementation in Thailand

2.1 International legal framework 15

2.2 Regional legal instruments 19

2.3 National legislation and policy implementation in Thailand 21

CHAPTER 3 Demand for Migrant Workers Recruiting Process and the Roles of Recruitment Agencies

3.1 Demand for Migrant Workers 27

3.2 Determining factors for importing formal migrant workers into Thailand

31

iv

3.3 Recruitment process 34

3.4 Types and roles of recruiters in Thailand 40

CHAPTER 4 Comparison of Formal and Informal Migrant Workers

4.1 Profile of migrant workers 47

4.2 Recruitment 56

4.3 At destination 77

CHAPTER 5 Impact of Current Recruitment Practices on Migrant Workers

5.1 Problems and Challenges 89

5.2 Rights and Protection for Migrant Workers 105

5.3 Future Prospects 120

5.4 Conclusion 126

CHAPTER 6 Conclusion and Recommendations

6.1 Conclusion 129

6.2 Recommendations 144

v

References 144

Annexes_1 A_1

Annexes_2 B_2

Annexes_3 C_3

Annexes_4 D_4

Annexes_5 E_5

vi

List of Table and Map

Map 1 Route of Formal migrant workers to Thailand 7

Table 2.1 Number of Formal Migrant Workers and Nationality Proved Cases as of June 2007

24

Table 3.1.1 Demand for Migrant Workers by sectors (as of January 30, 2007)

28

Table 3.1.2 Demand and number of import formal migrant workers by nationalities (as of January and September 2007)

30

Table 4.1 Number of Formal and Informal Workers by Gender

48

Table 4.2 Number of Formal and Informal Workers by Age 49 Table 4.3 Number of Formal and Informal Workers by Work

Sector 50

Table 4.4 Education 51 Table 4.5 Who made the decision for you to migrate to

Thailand? 52

Table 4.6 Why did you decide to migrate? 53 Table 4.7 Were you aware of the risks and dangers involved

in migrating through an informal recruiter? 54

Table 4.8 If yes, how did you know? 55

vii

Table 4.9 Who is your recruiter? 58

Table 4.10 How were you recruited? 59

Table 4.11 What types of services did your formal recruiter provide? (3 primary reasons)

61

Table 4.12 How much did you pay your recruiter? 62

Table 4.13 Did you loan money to pay the recruiter? 64

Table 4.14 Was your salary deducted in order to pay the recruitment fee?

65

Table 4.15 Before leaving for Thailand, did your recruiter provide clear and adequate information on what to expect?

67

Table 4.16 Orientation/training before departure to Thailand 68 Table 4.17 Did you sign a contract with your recruiter? 69 Table 4.18 Did you sign contract with your employer? 72

Table 4.19 Who kept the contract? 73

Table 4.20 From the time of deciding to migrate, how long did it take for you to start work in Thailand?

75

Table 4.21 Was the process of obtaining work in Thailand simple or complicated?

76

Table 4.22 What were your wages? (per day) (Thai baht) 78

Table 4.23 What were your wages? (Per month) (US$/Thai baht)

81

viii


83

Table 4.25 If no, which part of information was different? 84

Table 4.26 Are you satisfied with the services provide by your recruiter?

86

Table 5.1 Opinion of Migrant Workers toward Recruiting Process

91

Table 5.2 Waiting time before starting work 92

Table 5.3 Awareness of risks in using informal agent 94

Table 5.4 Wages per day (US$/Thai baht) 106

Table 5.5 Wages per month (US$/Thai baht) 108

Table 5.6 Period of Full Deduction by month 111

Table 5.7 Period of Partial Deduction by month 111

Table 5.8 Migrant workers’ freedom of movement 113

Table 5.9 The person who restricted migrant workers’ freedom of movement

114

Table 5.10 Migrant workers’ freedom of communications 115

Table 5.11 Holding of own original ID documents whilst working in Thailand

116

Table 5.12 The person who held migrant worker’s ID 116

ix

document

Table 5.13 Workers’ Knowledge on change of job or employer 117

Table 5.14 Information on working and living conditions in Thailand the same as what was promised by recruitment agency

118

Table 5.15 Information not the same as what was promised by recruitment agency

119

Table 5.16 Worker satisfaction with the services provided by recruiter

121

Table 5.17 The country where the workers expected to work in the future

122

Table 5.18 Future channel which migrant workers expected when they travel again to work in Thailand

123

Table 5.19 Reason for using recruitment agency in the future 124

Table 5.20 Reason to come in future by themselves 125

xi

Executive Summary

The study on Migrant Recruitment from Cambodia and Laos into Thailand has the objectives to examine current legal framework governing recruitment practices for migration including the implementation of the MOU on Cooperation in the Employment of Workers, to understand the migrant recruitment process, to compare the services, cost and satisfaction with formal versus informal recruitment processes and to identify the impact of recruitment practices on migrants. The study was undertaken in Cambodia and Laos as countries of origin of migrant workers and in Thailand as destination. It included 177 formal workers and 160 informal workers in the interview. In addition, employers, recruiters and officials possible for recruitment were also interviewed the fieldwork was conducted in early 2007.

The implementation of the formal recruitment was done within the national and regional legal framework. At the national level, Cambodia issued Sub-decrees to set criteria on sending Khmer workers abroad while Laos also issued its Decrees to manage the flows of Laos emigrant workers. As for Thailand, apart from the existing Immigration Law and the Employment of Aliens Law, the government issued the guideline for Migrant Worker Management and the guideline of Procedure of Formal Recruitment 2007. The regional legal framework was based mainly on the MOU on Cooperation in the Employment of Workers. There is also the ASEAN Declaration on the Protection and

xii

Promotion of the Rights of Migrant Workers which was launched in early 2007. The international legal framework relevant to formal recruitment includes the ILO Conventions No.97, 143 and 181, the ILO Multilateral Framework on Labour Migrant (2005), the Guide to Private Employment Agencies: Regulation, Monitoring and Enforcement (2007), the UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights of Migrant Workers and Member of their Families (ICPRMW 2000) and the UNIFEM Covenant of Ethnical Conduct and Good Practices of Overseas Employment Service Providers (2005)

Conclusion

Regarding the impact of Cambodian and Lao migrant worker, major challenges and obstacles are a complex recruitment procedure, delays in workers’ handover, also there is excessive expense and no boundary in expenses. Furthermore, government officers are still confused and gain only limited understanding in worker import procedure. Additionally, the recruitment companies take advantage from legal loopholes, conceal themselves into the system to deceive prospective migrant workers. Employment contracts between employer and migrant workers are vague, as they do not contain details about job description, job category and comprehensible welfare. These loopholes are exploited by recruitment companies to deceive most of the migrant workers.

xiii

From research we found that the wage factor is the main concern for migrant workers, as Cambodian and Lao workers who were imported to work in various area will gain minimum wages rate according to the particular area, for example the minimum wage rate in Bangkok and peripheral is 191 Baht, while working in Ratchaburi will gain 154 Baht, and these differences of minimum wage cause the concern. However, some migrant workers gain salary, which is higher than minimum wage rate due to the employers’ satisfaction about their labour skill.

Although, migrant workers get the same rate as Thai workers, some untold variable expense may be deducted from their wage, which leads to some migrant worker’s displeasure, for example accommodation fee, social and health insurance. Mostly migrant workers have been told from the agency that their employer will deduct the pre paid expense from their wage by monthly installments over 10-12 months; this will give workers an opportunity to save some wages.

Regarding working environment and labour protection, we learnt that migrant workers are freely allowed to travel in their free time. Generally, these workers will not go far away, they likely go to the local retail shop for foods and utilities. However, some Cambodian workers are not allowed to travel due to the employer restricting their workers not to leave the workplace. Communication is widely allowed, only 4 Cambodian and Lao workers were found not allowed to communicate with outsiders. Personal documents will be kept by employers or sometimes by the recruitment company, though there were 7 workers

xiv

who were allowed to keep their own personal documents. Furthermore, research found that most of the migrant workers were aware of the right to change their job while working in Thailand.

Regarding welfare issue, most of the migrant workers get incorrect information; 47 formal workers gained the wrong information mostly concerning wages issue, then the quality of living, mismatched work description, risky and dangerous work as well as overtime working.

On future expectation issue, generally, migrant workers are pleased with recruitment company service. For working prospects, half of the Cambodian workers would like to go back to work in Cambodia while most of Lao workers are willing to continue their work in Thailand. Both Cambodian and Lao workers who still want to work in Thailand are determined to choose recruitment service as the main reason is that it is legal and safe; secondly, the recruitment company can ensure their welfare and is more reliable. Meanwhile some migrant workers who decide to search for their own job in the future without recruitment company, gave the reason that they are experienced in working in Thailand, and need less time to process with less expense as well as having the flexibility to change employers.

1

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

1.1 Background

Cross-border movements of workers in the Asian region are for the most part organized by commercial interests or the so-called fee-charging recruitment agencies. Labour-short countries have been reluctant to enter into state-to-state agreements on the admission of foreign workers and have adopted temporary or guest-worker programmes that are essentially market-driven. For this reason public-employment offices in the region hardly play any role in recruitment of foreign workers. These policies have led to the growth of “irregular” movements, including smuggling and trafficking. Also, a good part of the expected gains of individual migrants from migration end up in the pockets of commercial job brokers or intermediaries, in the form of fees Recruitment fees have sometimes amounted to as much as a third of expected wages for a whole year, and even more for some preferred destinations. Origin states have taken measures to regulate the recruitment market, but these measures have very modest impact in the absence of counterpart measures in the states of employment.

The case of labour movement from Cambodia and Lao PDR to Thailand needs some kind of organized legal recruitment, given the long porous borders and ease of movement between border provinces of

2

neighboring countries. Many migrants from Laos and Cambodia enter Thailand illegally and look for employment independently, through brokers or other kinds of social networks.

During 2002-2003 Thailand signed an MOU on cooperation in the employment of workers with the two origin states of Laos and Cambodia to regulate the flows of undocumented migrants and to agree on an official recruitment system to bring formal workers to come and work in Thailand. The MOU is expected to respond to the challenges on how to regulate migration processes so as to protect migrant workers against fraud and the risks that go with working in foreign countries.

The International Labour Organization (ILO) and its tripartite constituents have long recognized the need to protect workers employed in countries other than their own. In addition to the two ILO conventions that specifically refer to migrant workers, the ILO Governing Body recently adopted a new multilateral framework on labour migration. The ILO has invited governments, employers’ and workers’ organizations, as well as relevant international organizations, to promote and respect the contents of the convention, which provide a platform for promoting and protecting the rights of migrant workers.

The multilateral framework on labour migration is comprised of 15 principles covering key dimensions of international migration. Two of the principles focus specifically on the migrant recruitment process, within which many migrant workers experience exploitation and abuse.

3

Against this background, the current research is proposed as the first step in seeking a more detailed understanding of migrant recruitment practices and addressing exploitative elements. The reason for focusing on Cambodia, Laos and Thailand relates to the recent development of recruitment regulations in the two sending states and the ongoing implementation of the MOU on Employment Cooperation with Thailand. The Asian Research Center for Migration at the Institute of Asian Studies, Chulalongkorn University cooperated with ILO to conduct the study in Thailand. Two other concurrent studies on formal recruitment were also undertaken in Cambodia and Laos to provide a complete understanding of the whole process in both sending and recruiting countries.

1.2 Objectives

(a) To examine current legal framework governing recruitment practices for migration, including the implementation of the MOU on Employment Cooperation

(b) To develop a detailed understanding of migrant recruitment processes and practices

(c) To compare the services, costs and satisfaction with formal vs. informal recruitment processes, and

(d) To identify the impact of current recruitment practices on migrants and their conditions of employment.

4

1.3 Definitions of key terms

In this study there are terms which are used regularly. To have a common understanding of such terms, the following definitions are agreed upon.

• Formal recruiter: Any natural or legal person or enterprise, licensed by the State to provide one or more of the following labour market services:

° Services for matching offers of and applications for employment, without the private employment agency becoming a party to the employment relationship which may arise therefrom.

° Services consisting of employing workers with a view to making them available to a third party.

° Other services related to job seeking, determined by the competent authority after consulting the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations, such as the provision of job-related information, that do not set out to match offers and applications for employment.

• Informal recruiter: Any natural or legal person or enterprise, not licensed by the State to provide one or more of the above labour market services. An informal recruiter may include any of the following sub-categories:

° Unlicensed private employment agencies

5

° Informal broker

° Social networks

Social networks can be a person or persons who provide labour market services with or without renumeration. Sometimes, friends or neighbours can give information to jobseekers without being paid. They are considered as “helpers” rather than “recruiters”.

• Migrant worker: According to the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (1990), the term “migrant worker” refers to ‘a person who is to be engaged, is engaged or has been engaged in a renumerated activity in a State of which he or she is not a national’ (art. 2.1).

• Employer of Foreign Workers: A natural or legal person or enterprise whose primary place of employment is located outside the State of the migrant worker and who seeks to hire or employ migrant workers.

• Formal recruitment: services for job seeking and job placement provided by formal recruiters.

• Informal recruitment: services for job seeking and job placement provided by informal recruiters.

6

1.4 Methodology

This research sought to understand the process, working and living conditions of Cambodian and Laotian migrant workers who migrate to work in Thailand. Targeted interviewees were 61 Laotians formal migrants and 59 Cambodians formal migrants; 10 Laotian and 10 Cambodian informal migrants were also interviewed. The general findings were supplemented with lengthier and more probing interviews of particular migrants and their recruiters, as well as government officers and NGOs on migration concerns.

1.4.1 Geographical coverage

All interviews were conducted in the central and southern parts of Thailand. The research team carried out the survey with both formal and informal migrant workers in ten provinces: Bangkok, Nonthaburi, Samutsakorn, Samut Prakarn, Chachoengsao, Chonburi, Ratchburi, Nakhon Pathom, Nakorn Sri Thammarat and Trang (see map1). Interviews with brokers and helpers were also conducted during fieldwork. The provinces were chosen for the following reasons. Firstly, they have been identified by the Ministry of Labour as provinces which recruite formal workers. Secondly, there are a significant number of irregular migration cases to Thailand in these targeted provinces. Finally, the research team could interview informal migrant workers in these provinces with key informants and brokers who were cooperative to the study.

7

Map 1 Route of Formal migrant workers to Thailand

ARCM©copyrigth2007

8

List of Provinces in Thailand

Cambodian workers

Lao workers

Both nationalities

1 Bangkok 6 Chonburi

2 Samut Sakorn 7 Ratchburi

3 Nonthaburi 8 Nakhon Pathom

4 Samut Prakarn 9 Nakorn Sri Thammarat

5 Chachoengsao 10 Trang

Cambodian workers’ route

Lao workers’ route

1.4.2 Identified work sectors

This research focuses on the recruitment of Cambodian and Laotian workers in the construction, manufacturing and food processing sectors in Thailand. The research team interviewed 47 migrant workers in the construction sector, 62 migrant workers in manufacturing and 31 migrant workers in food processing. They are the sectors which employed the majority of formal workers.

1.4.3 Research team

The research team consisted of two teams: The first team was responsible for collecting data with Cambodian workers and the second

9

team with Laotian workers. Both researchers and assistant researchers were responsible for carrying out the survey and conducting the in-depth interviews in Khmer and Lao language. The Cambodian team was assisted by two Cambodian students (currently they are studying in Chulalongkorn University) who acted as interpreters. The second team did not have any problem with the Lao language and did not need interpreters.

The research used a combination of quantitative and qualitative tools. A structured questionnaire was developed to interview migrant workers. All the interviews were conducted face to face and in Khmer and Laotian languages. The questions were designed to allow the respondents to complete the questionnaire within a timeframe of around 20-30 minutes. A total of 140 migrant workers were surveyed in the field. They can be divided into 120 formal migrant workers and 20 informal migrant workers

For the In-depth interviews, guideline questions were designed and used to obtain data and information from some migrant workers, brokers, private recruitment agencies, government officers, NGOs, employers, Cambodia and Lao Embassy officers. Each interview took around 2 hours. The interviews were organized at the workplace of the respondents so as to allow the research team to use a tape recorder to record their answers and to observe related activities to formal recruitment.

10

1.4.4 Overview of interviewees and sample size

Targets / informants Sample size

Migrant workers from 3 sectors:

Construction (47 migrants) Manufacturing (62 migrants) Food processing (31 migrants)

Survey: 140 migrant workers (120 formal workers: 61 Cambodians, 59 Laotians) ( 20 informal workers : 10 Cambodians, 10 Laotians) In-depth interviews: 10 migrant workers (5 Cambodians workers and 5 Laotians workers)

Recruiters All recruiting into 3 sectors: Construction/ Manufacturing/Food processing

Survey: 6 recruiters (4 Cambodian recruiters and 2 Laotian recruiters) In-depth interviews: 5 recruiters

Employers All employing into 3 sectors : Construction / Manufacturing / Food processing

Survey: 13 employers who employ formal workers from

Construction 3 cases

Manufacturing 8 cases

Food processing 2 cases Government officials ( includes Ministry of Labour, Ministry of interior, Provincial authorities,

Interviews: 6 key informants Samutsakorn Employment Service officer

11

Targets / informants Sample size

Embassy representatives Trang Employment Service officer

Chonburi Employment Service officer

Ministry of Labour officer Cambodia Embassy staff in Thailand

Lao Embassy staff in Thailand

Key stakeholders : Representatives (NGOs, migrant community leaders, etc.)

Interviews: 2 stakeholders Center for AIDS Rights (CAR) Raks Thai Foundation field officer

1.4.5 Data collection

The quantitative and qualitative field work was carried out between May and June 2007. Both research teams finished the sampling size and made appointments with all respondents for the exact dates. The research team gave to respondents the right to decide whether to answer to the interview or to refuse any questions. It was hard to find collaboration from employers who employed migrant workers, especially the informal ones.

12

(1) Migrants

At the preparation stage, the research team asked for information from the Ministry of Labour about formal workers’ recruitment into Thailand. The data from the Ministry of Labour was limited and did not cover formal recruitment at the provincial level. However, the MOL could provide researchers with a list of employers who employ formal workers. Therefore, the research team decided to contact provincial labour officers and employers directly. The team made appointments with employers to ask for permission to allow the research team to interview their migrant workers. Formal workers were very cooperative in the interviews. Each interview lasted approximately 20-30 minutes. Data collection started in Bangkok and vicinities. Then the team continued the interviews toward the East (Chonburi) and to the South of Thailand (Trang and Nakorn Sri Thammarat).

In terms of sector of employment, we found that employers of formal workers usually employed migrant workers according to nationality and workplace. They did not mix workers from different nationalities to work together.

(2) Brokers and recruitment agencies

The research team tried to find brokers and recruitment agencies which brought migrant workers from Lao and Cambodia to Thailand. It was quite difficult to find them because they are only a representative to Cambodian and Laotian recruitment agencies. Some of them refused to be interviewed. Finally, the teams could conduct in-

13

depth interview of 6 Cambodian recruiters and 2 Lao recruiters; 4 of them are informal individual brokers and 2 are registered consulting companies in Thailand.

(3) Employers

The research team sought cooperation from employers in the three sectors. Most employers had a new experience with this group of formal migrant workers because formal recruitment was a new process for Thailand’s migrant workers employment situation. We could interview 3 employers in construction, 8 in manufacturing and 2 in food processing. We found that it was hard to have access to employers of informal workers. Fortunately, we had some connection with local NGOs and key informants who helped identify some of them for interview.

(4) Stakeholders

The research team interviewed two NGOs who worked with migrant workers. They were the Center for AIDS Rights (CAR) and the Raks Thai Foundation. Since there was no community of formal workers, no leader was identified for interview.

15

CHAPTER 2

Current Legal and Policy Framework on Migrant Recruitment and Implementation in Thailand

Before and after the signing of the MOU between Thailand and the origin states, i.e. Cambodia and Laos, there are some legal frameworks regarding recruitment practices. Some of them are national laws or decrees, some are bilateral agreements. This chapter will examine such legal and policy frameworks and their implementation in Thailand.

2.1 International legal framework

At the international level, there are many policy frameworks on formal recruitment of migrant workers. The ILO has played a vital role in promoting the migrant workers’ rights protection. The major ILO conventions addressing such protection and focusing on formal recruitment are ILO Conventions no.97 on Migration for Employment, no. 143 on Migrant Workers and no. 181 on Private Employment Agencies.

Convention no. 97 contains provisions to assist migrants for employment while Convention No. 143 deals with migration in abusive conditions and with equality of opportunity and treatment.

16

ILO Convention no.181 on Private Employment Agencies is the most relevant international legal framework for the analysis of the recruitment of migrant workers. It recognizes that private employment agencies can contribute to the functioning of the labour market and sets general parameters for the regulation, placement and employment of workers recruited by private employment agencies. It encourages member states to govern the operation of private employment agencies through licensing, certification, national law or practice. It also requires that steps should be taken to protect rights of workers employed by such agencies and investigation mechanisms should be developed. It encourages states to prevent abuses and fraudulent recruitment practices through bilateral agreements.

At present neither Thailand, Cambodia nor Laos has ratified the three ILO conventions.

Other ILO instruments related to recruitment include the ILO Multilateral Framework on Labour Migration adopted in 2005 consisting of some principles on international labour standards in labour migration policy making, migrant associations on labour migration policy, migrant workers’ rights protection and prevention of abusive practices and irregular labour migration. The latter part deals with licensing and supervising recruitment and placement services for migrant workers.

The Guide to Private Employment Agencies: Regulation, Monitoring and Enforcement is the latest ILO guidance to national legislators in drafting legal frameworks in line with ILO Convention no.

17

181 adopted in 2007. It indicates details in codes of practice for overseas recruitment agencies as follows:

Minimum qualification of personnel and managers;

Disclosure of all charges and terms of business to clients;

Private agents should obtain all information about the job (responsibilities, wages, etc) before advertising the positions.

Private agents should not knowingly recruit workers for jobs involving undue hazards, risks, abuse or discrimination.

Workers should be informed about terms and conditions of employment in a language that they understand.

Private agents should not ‘bid down’ wages of migrant workers.

With due respect for privacy, agents should maintain a register of all migrants they recruit and make the relevant details available to the authorities for inspection.

The ILO Multilateral Framework on Labour Migration and the Guide to Private Employment Agencies are both non-binding principles and guidelines for a rights based approach to labour migration. Although the three states under study have not signed the conventions, they can make use of such guidelines to improve their national legislations on this matter.

18

Apart from the ILO, there are also some UN conventions related to labour migration. Here, we shall mention two instruments: the UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights of Migrant Workers and Members of their Family (ICPRMW) and the UNIFEM Covenant of Ethical Conduct and Good Practices of Overseas Employment Service Providers.

The ICPRMW (2000) sets standards which create a model for the laws and the judicial and administrative procedures of individual states. It establishes that persons who qualify as migrant workers under its provisions are entitled to enjoy human rights regardless of their legal status. Cambodia has been signatory to the ICPRMW since September 2004 but it has not yet ratified the convention.

The UNIFEM Covenant of Ethical Conduct and Good Practices of Overseas Employment Service Providers adopted in 2005, with Lao PDR and Cambodia among nations represented at the Symposium on the same topic, emphasizes the protection of female migrant workers. It encourages states to provide and promote the standards of quality of training and orientation programs to foreign migrant workers, to ensure their medical fitness, to campaign against illegal recruitment and to adhere to the principle of fairness, gender equality and non-discrimination in the treatment, selection, and placement of migrant workers. It also provides specific recommendations to Lao PDR to develop capacity-building for employment/ recruitment agencies on employment management and worker protection and to encourage recruitment agencies to set up an association.

19

As for these two instruments, Cambodia signed the ICPRMW, and Cambodia and Lao PDR signed the UNIFEM Covenant of Ethical Conduct. Thailand did not sign either of them.

2.2 Regional legal instruments

The most significant regional legal instrument for this study is the MOU on Cooperation in the Employment of Workers signed between Lao PDR and Thailand, and the one signed between Cambodia and Thailand in 2002 and 2003 respectively. The objectives of the MOUs are to manage external labour migration from neighbouring countries into Thailand and to control irregular cross-border migration (Huguet, 2005). Article I-IX of the MOU covers the content on formal recruitment and the process of facilitating formal workers from Cambodia and Laos to come to work in Thailand. Article V indicates that the authorized agencies shall inform their counterparts of job opportunities, number, period, qualifications required, conditions of employment, and remuneration offered by employers.

Article VI of the MOU continues to specify the procedures that the authorized agencies (which means the formal recruitment agencies) shall provide their counterparts with lists of selected applicants for the job including their ages, permanent addresses, reference persons, etc., while Article VII lists the requirements for applicants to fulfill for immigration and job placement, especially employment contracts

20

between employers and workers. Article VIII focuses on the administration of the list of workers permitted to work from the beginning to the termination of employment period as the responsibility of the recruitment agencies. In Article IX, the period of two years is set for the employment of workers, with the possibility to extend to another two years. Article XI indicates that workers must make a monthly contribution of 15 percent of their monthly salary to the saving or deportation fund set up by the authorized agencies in the host country. Workers are entitled to the same wage and benefits as local worker in accordance to Article XVIII. It should be noted that there is no article mentioning about recruitment fee either in the MOU with Lao PDR or with Cambodia. The MOU calls for the protection of workers’ rights under the domestic laws of the receiving countries.

Another important regional legal framework for the employment of migrant workers is the ASEAN Declaration on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Migrant Workers. This declaration has just been launched in January 2007. The declaration acknowledges the legitimate concerns of the receiving and sending states over migrant workers and the need to adopt appropriate and comprehensive migration policies on migrant workers. It also recognizes the need to address cases of abuse and violence against migrant workers. The declaration includes the obligations of receiving countries as well as sending ones. On the receiving states’ side, it emphasizes the protection of migrant workers’ human rights and the facilitation to workers in terms of information, training, education, access to justice and social welfare

21

services (Section 5, 7 and 8). It also mentions the fair and appropriate protection of wages and working and living conditions. On the sending state’s side, the declaration specifies that the state will set up policies and procedures to facilitate migrant workers, including recruitment, preparation for deployment overseas and protection of the migrant workers when abroad (Section13). It also emphasizes the establishment and promotion of legal practices to regulate recruitment of migrant workers and to adopt mechanisms to eliminate recruitment malpractices through legal and valid contracts, regulation and accreditation of recruitment agencies and employers, and the blacklisted negligent / unlawful agencies (Section 14). The declaration was signed by the leaders of all ten ASEAN nations. Nonetheless, the declaration is a non-binding instrument of the region.

2.3 National legislation and policy implementation in Thailand

Each of the three countries under study has its own legal system to address the formal recruitment policy. Most of the legal framework comprises of regulations or decrees which follow the MOU on the Cooperation in the Employment of Workers plus the existing laws on immigration and labour laws.

For Thailand Prior to the signing of MOU, Thailand used three major laws to oversee labour migration. They are the Immigration Law (1979), Employment of Aliens Law (1978) and Labour Protection Law

22

(1998). The three laws state the status of immigrants who enter the country and look for employment, the types of jobs permitted to alien workers and the protection of all workers regardless to their nationality. The Immigration Law states that all immigrants who enter the country without visa and/or act in breach of the law are illegal and may be deported and penalized (Chantavanich, Vungsiriphisal and Laodumrongchai, 2007). But Section 17 of the Immigration law provides the Minister of Interior with discretion in applying/not applying the strictures of the Act. It is a window for exempting informal workers from being deported. The Employment of Aliens Law states that a work permit is required for a foreign worker to work in Thailand. Aliens are only allowed to work in activities designated by law (Section 12). The Royal Decree of 1979 listed 39 activities prohibited to aliens, but the law provides flexibilities for the authorities to allow migrant workers to work temporarily in some sector as conditioned by the laws and cabinet decision. The Labour Protection Law ensures that the protection measures of the Thai law are consistent with the international standards (Vitit Muntarbhorn, 2005).

With such major laws, after the signing of the MOU in 2002 and 2003, the Thai government initiated more legislation to comply with the MOU. Eight Cabinet Resolutions related to labour migration and formal recruitment were passed during 2003-2007. The cabinet approved the Ministry of Labour’s proposal to recruit workers from neighbouring countries through the proper channels in May 2005 and later in January 2007 it agreed to execute a pilot project of formal recruitment.

23

At the ministerial level, MOL is the executor of the policy. From 2004-2007, MOL submitted two proposals to the cabinet: one on Guideline for Migrant Worker Management and the other on the Comprehensive Migrant Worker Management System and the Implementation Plan of the MOU, both in 2004. The MOL also held three significant meetings in 2004-2005: the first two meetings with the Cambodian and the Lao Government separately to define practical guidelines following the MOU; the second was a follow-up meeting of the first one focusing on nationality identification and the procedure of formal recruitment. A year later, in 2006, it conducted a meeting with the Myanmar government on the same issue as the one with Cambodia and Laos. The MOL also coordinated with employers who expressed their needs to hire formal workers through formal recruitment in 2005. Lastly, in March 2007, it published and disseminated a Guideline of Procedure of Formal Recruitment 2007 to facilitate employers who want to hire formal workers and to enable government officials from MOL and related ministries to perform according to the regulations and the MOL.

Since the signing of the MOU between Lao PDR and Thailand in 2002 and Cambodia and Thailand in 2003, senior officials from all countries have had five conferences at the senior officer level and two conferences at the ministerial level to discuss practical guidelines on the implementation of the MOU. After the fourth senior officer level meeting in April 2006, a system was established for the formal recruitment of Lao and Cambodian workers in September 2006, and licensed recruitment agencies started to bring Cambodian and Lao workers to Thailand. As

24

of June 2007, 3,628 Cambodians have been recruited and sent to Thailand under the MOU. The majority of them work in the southern part of Thailand (1,634) and the Bangkok Metro (1,130). For Lao workers, 3,164 persons were recruited: 1,440 in Bangkok Metro and the central region and 1,371 in the south.

Table 2.1 Number of Formal Migrant Workers and Nationality Proved Cases as of June 2007

Formal Workers according to the MOU between October 06 – June 07

Proved-nationality migrant workers who gained work

permit

Region

Laotian Cambodian Total Laotian Cambodian Total

Bangkok Metro 440 1,130 1,570 19,465 9,951 29,416

Central 1,000 834 1,834 8,879 10,385 19,264

Northern 2 0 2 1,160 3,488 4,648

North Eastern 351 30 381 3,928 34 3,962

Southern 1,371 1,634 3,005 1,050 249 1,299

Total 3,161 3,628 6,792 34,482 24,107 58,589

Source: Department of Employment, Office of Foreign Workers Administration 2007

25

On the issue of licensing recruitment agencies in Thailand who want to cooperate with counterparts in Cambodia and Laos in bringing migrant workers, the government of Thailand is revising another important law, i.e. the Act on Employment Agencies and Job Seeker Protection (1985). In this law, private recruitment companies who sent these workers abroad registered and paid a deposit of five million baht to MOL as a surety deposit. The revised law will require private agencies who want to bring in foreign workers into the country to follow the same recruitment. At present, this law is under the parliamentary revision process. Current agencies which are now facilitating Thai employees and migrant workers in Thailand are registered as consulting companies under the Act on Employment Agencies and Job Seeker Protection (1985).

27

CHAPTER 3

Demand for Migrant Workers Recruiting Process and the Roles of Recruitment Agencies

3.1 Demand for Migrant Workers

The formal recruitment according to the MOU had started in late 2005 when the first group of Lao workers arrived in Thailand, followed by Cambodian workers in early 2006. Findings from this study show that the total demand of employers for migrant workers is over 1.7 million in 2007. The majority of these demands were filled by informal migrant workers. Though the demand for formal migrants is rising, it is still low, approximately 7%, compared to total demand because of the high expense the employers have to pay in advance. From the migrant workers’ side, there is the long waiting period, the complex procedure and high recruitment fees which make the supply of formal migrants approximately only 10-12 % of the total demand.

Statistics from the Ministry of Labour (Table 3.1.1) stated that the highest demand for migrant workers was in agriculture, followed by construction, domestic work, fishery related jobs, and labour work in other sectors. Though the figure was considered higher than the actual vacancies, it still reflected the huge demand for migrant workers in the Thai labour market.

28

Table 3.1.1 Demand for Migrant Workers by sectors (as of January 30, 2007)

Sectors Total demand of migrant worker

(as of Jan, 2007)

Number of registered migrant

workers

(as of February 2008)

Number of Recruited formal

migrant

(as of June, 2007)

Agriculture 338,391 18,494 422

Construction 333,862 24,723 1,038

Domestic work 181,962 13,332 12

Fishery 98,951 2,084 -

Fishery related work

153,450 17,757 136

Others 666,733 56,598 6,747*

Total 1,773,349 132,988 8,355

Source: Ministry of Labour

*Formal workers are employed in manufacturing work under the category “others”.

The required number of migrant workers was mainly filled by informal migrant workers who were already working illegally in Thailand; some had registered and held temporary work permits.

29

The registered number of migrants in September 2007 came to 535,732 respectively. Under the MOU, Thailand and neighbouring countries had set up the nationality proof scheme to legalize these migrants so as to change their illegal status. Only Cambodia and Laos started to implement this procedure to grant nationalities to their workers. As of June 2007, the number of migrants who had been granted nationalities was 58,589 and rose to 80,596 in September 2007.

Considering the working sectors where there are formal migrants, no formal migrant workers have been imported for the fishery sector. Only some formal migrants worked in fishery related sectors while a small number worked in domestic jobs, and the highest number worked in manufacturing and other labour work under the category “Others” (which includes manufacturing, services, etc). The number of workers in the construction sector was also high. The statistics showed that formal migrants have been employed not only in unskilled work but also semi-skilled work (see Table 3.1.1)

In mid-2007, the highest number of formal Cambodian workers worked in southern Thailand, and the highest number of Lao workers was in the central area according to the requirements from working sectors in those areas. Later in September 2007, the number of formal workers from Laos became 5,452 and Cambodia 6,204.

Though the requirement for formal workers is gradually growing, the proportion is still small compared to the overall size of total

30

demand. The supply of workers was even smaller and could reach only 10 - 15 % of demand (Table 3.1.2).

Table 3.1.2 Demand and number of import formal migrant workers by nationalities (as of January and September 2007)

Cambodia Laos Year

2007

Total

Demand

Total

imported migrants

Demand Imported number

Demand Imported number

January 77,370 8,355 22,076 2,833 55,294 5,522

September 101,104 10,591 39,010 6,143 62,094 4,448

Source: Ministry of Labour

The statistics indicated the gap between the supply of migrant workers and the demand, and shows that the supply was still far below the demand.

31

3.2 Determining factors for importing formal migrant workers into Thailand

The determining factors in recruiting formal migrant workers through importing channels varies; different groups such as migrants, employers, sending countries officers, and Thai government officers state their own reasons.

3.2.1 Determining factor according to migrant workers

According to migrant workers, coming through the legal channel gave them self- confidence, courage, and expectation for better protection; as a migrant stated:

“…I feel good coming as a formal worker, don’t have to hide like a prisoner, … can go anywhere freely and won’t be arrested..”

[Cambodian female migrant in a food processing industry]

The feeling of safety and less risk was another reason that determined formal migrants and ensured them to come through the importing recruitment compared to other channels:

“….didn’t have to risk when traveling, no need to hide and safer when I stayed in Thailand..”

[Cambodian male migrant in construction site, Bangkok]

32

3.2.2 Determining factors according to employers

The main reason that employers recruit formal migrants was their need for workers. The other reason was to guarantee they have workers to do the tasks for a certain period, as the formal worker has to be bound with any particular employer for two years according to the working contract. As an employer stated:

“…Our business couldn’t wait, we need to fulfill our customers’ order, Thai workers have choices and often quit their jobs, we wanted to make sure we had workers to finish our production…”

[Manager of a garment factory, Samutprakarn]

Another reason for employers to hire formal migrants was to ensure the workers’ background whose criminal history could be traced more easily when they are coming through the legal channel.

3.2.3 Determining factors according to sending countries

Information gathered from interviews with Cambodia and Lao Embassy officers in Bangkok, Thailand, confirmed the same determining factors that they expect more protection for their workers when they are coming through the legal channel. According to the MOU, formal migrant workers would be protected by Thai labour laws in terms of

33

protection and enjoy the same benefits as Thai workers. With the recruiting system, the embassies in Thailand could also follow up the resolution to any complaints placed by workers and negotiate for better protection for them. With the working contract, the employers could be traced more easily and the juridical system can also be used for the cases of abused migrant workers.

3.2.4 Determining factors according to Thai government

For Thailand, the factors that determine the recruitment of formal migrants were to solve the shortage in the labour market, strengthen the legal recruitment system, and protect maltreatment of migrant workers as stated in MOL Policy Paper on migrant workers submitted to the Cabinet in 2006.

In conclusion, there were many factors that determine hiring formal migrants: the employers’ demand for labour especially in certain sectors, the Thai government’s solution toward labour shortage problems as well as the need to protect migrant workers from maltreatment and exploitation. The governments of sending countries expected their workers to have labour protection and benefit according to Thai labour laws which were the same expectations of formal migrant themselves. Coming through formal channels gave migrants more courage and self confidence and allowed them to enjoy more freedom of movement.

34

3.3 Recruitment process

There are two channels for any migrants to come to work in Thailand, legal and illegal. There were various reasons for migrants who decided to migrate; some wanted to gain some experience working abroad, some were tempted to see a much more prosperous country such as Thailand and some have a much simpler reason, to be with their families. Most importantly, majority of them hope to seek for higher salary and the betterment in their life.

The interviews showed that before they migrate, sources of information about job opportunities in Thailand were varied. The formal Cambodian workers learnt from public media more than any other mode of information, followed by learning from representatives of recruitment, from friends or relatives, and from the agencies’ notices. The formal Laotian workers learnt from the recruiting agencies’ representative the most, followed by learning from friends or relatives and not much from notice boards.

For informal workers, they also learnt about the jobs from personal sources such as friends, relatives, words of mouth, and brokers.

It reflected that the workers learnt about employment opportunity in Thailand from personal sources more than other sources and at the same time we can see that the information dissemination could reach workers better through outreach activities.

35

3.3.1 Informal recruiting channel

Once they learnt about the opportunity, some migrants chose to come through the illegal channel because there was no requirement in terms of waiting time, traveling documents or any recruitment procedure. If the migrants migrated for the first time, there was nothing to worry because they did not have any bad experience and the information they received were mainly positive. It depended on the situation they faced and thus gave them the facts to judge for future migration. For some migrants, they realized the difficulties coming through the informal channel and when they had to hide from authorities.

“…It was not an easy route; we had to get off the bus, walking and hiding in the jungle to avoid the authority, and it was not a pleasant journey at all…”

[Cambodian Migrant in construction sector who experienced informal migratory channel]

It took only a few days or less than a week after making the decision to come to Thailand for migrants to make their departure. Normally, the informal migrants did not travel alone; they travelled in a small group, with four or five other workers from the same village or other areas. They traveled with the broker who escorted them to the border, mostly to Poipet-Aranyaprathet for Cambodian workers. Some brokers had enough experience to take migrants to the workplace. The traveling inside Thailand was done during the day time but sometimes

36

also at night, arranged by the brokers. In some cases, the informal migrants passed the border illegally without any documents and traveled only at night.

The research also found facilitators who were relatives of migrants and whose experience of staying and working in Thailand made them capable enough to take the informal migrant across the border and to the workplaces with not much difficulty.

3.3.2 Formal recruiting channel and procedure

(a) Recruitment procedure

For formal recruitment, any employer who requires formal workers from Cambodia and Laos has to apply to the Department of Employment at the Ministry of Labour for approval to hire migrant workers. They can submit applications to the Employment Offices in Bangkok or at the provinces where the work venue is located. Construction companies are required to get permission only at the province where the head offices are located. The MOL will grant them a quota as requested or a lower number as MOL considers necessary.

After the Thai employer gets the written approval from the ministry, their names will be sent to the Ministry of Labour in the two countries. The employer then appoints recruiting agencies, issues the agencies the Demand letters and Power of Attorney documents to allow them to act as their representatives to recruit workers. The appointed recruiting agencies will start the recruiting procedure, and information

37

about job placements will be disseminated through the agencies’ representatives or brokers at provincial and town levels or through public media. Then they will select workers, sometimes with employer’s staff from Thailand, for the criteria required. The lists of selected workers will be sent to the employer to apply for migrants’ work permit and confirm particular checkpoints where migrants would enter Thailand. The recruiting agencies will facilitate workers to get traveling documents, and apply for visa. The recruiting agencies are normally responsible for sending workers to the border or sometimes to the workplace in Thailand. Some orientation or short training course may be given prior to the workers’ departure to Thailand. After the migrant workers arrive at the workplaces, the employer will send them for health checkup within 3 days and submit a work permit which takes them another 30 days after arrival. In some factories, the workers will be given orientation and training for a short period before starting to work.

(b) Recruitment in practice

Findings from the study indicated that the formal recruiting procedure will take not less than 5-6 months, or could be even longer after the employer applies for the quota. The length of time may be shorter to get informal workers but some employers prefer to wait and choose the legal channel:

38

“….I prefer to wait, don’t want to be blamed for hiring informal workers; it is risky for my reputation and credibility, though we face difficulties,it’s better to follow the laws…”

[Manager of food processing factory in southern Thailand]

The procedure of applying for quotas to hire migrant workers and appointing recruiting agencies did not have any problems and did not take too long. Most employers appointed individual or consulting agencies to carry out the task for them. Regarding the recruiting of formal migrant workers, there were fewer problems for unskilled workers criteria, such as construction and general labourers; there were more difficulties in recruiting semi-skilled migrants to work in some factories like garment factories. The waiting duration and difficulties in getting documents were problems to most migrants.

To get travel documents was a problem to some of the Cambodian migrant workers because of the corrupt officers:

“…another friend of mine paid some money and soon had his passport, I applied a month before but I had no money to pay extra...”

[Cambodian migrant in construction sector, Bangkok]

39

“…the fee is the same in countries of origin but there are normal and fast track, you need some money to make the system faster, pay different amount, you get different result…”

[Thai Recruiting agency staff]

The problem of Lao migrant workers came from the lack of identification documents which they had to obtain and it took them a longer time before they could apply for their passports. Formal Cambodian migrants had to go for health check up.

There were more problems in terms of the quantity of migrant workers as most employers normally received much fewer workers than they required, which was also caused by the long waiting period the migrant workers had to spend. The long waiting period was partly because some migrants did not have any identification documents and they had to apply for them first before applying for traveling documents and visa.

40

3.4 Types and roles of recruiters in Thailand

Among all the actors in the recruiting process, the recruiters play a very important role. The recruiters can be divided into formal recruiters and informal recruiters.

(A) Formal Recruiters in Thailand

Although the bilateral agreement (MOU) has been signed between Thailand and neighouring countries, the governments do not act as recruiters. The task falls on the hands of private sectors instead. Currently Thailand does not issue any laws which permitted registration to any agencies for recruiting migrants from neighbouring countries. However, companies are registered in other status. There are different kinds of registration: some are registered as licensed companies sending Thai migrants abroad, and have been appointed as representive or consultant to the employer in recruiting migrant workers from Cambodia and Laos. Some agencies are registered as labour consultant agencies. In practice, these consultant agencies facilitate the recruiting of migrant workers from both countries but some only concentrate on one country, Laos or Cambodia. There is no specific number of these kinds of consultants because of their mixed role.

In this study, the term “labour consultant agencies / consultant agencies” will be used for the formal Thai recruitment agencies.

Findings from the study showed that the recruitment procedure is time consuming for paper work and working steps, so these

41

consultant agencies were responsible to do the paper work because of their familiarity with the bureaucratic system from their past experiences. Their services included representing the employer in contacting with the government, preparing paper work, some also contacting recruitment agencies in sending countries and to facilitate the formal migrants’ journey.

These consultant agencies operated in two ways:

1) Contacted the employer for the demand of migrant workers or the employer contacted the consultant agencies and placed the order. Once the consultant agencies received the order and had been appointed as the employers’ representative, they ran the whole recruitment process, starting from applying for quota or at other steps that were appointed. The consultant agencies could not recruit migrants in sending countries themselves but placed the order to recruitment agencies in Cambodia or Laos for the number and qualification of workers required. In this way, the Cambodian or Laos recruitment agencies are subcontracted by the Thai consultant companies.

2) On the other hand, the Thai consultant agencies cooperated with recruitment agencies in those two countries and worked as partners. The consultants went there to recruit workers or left the recruitment to the recruiter there. They sometime oriented the migrants about the working and living conditions, using CD or video showing the workplaces and accommodation. But there no other information in the orientation and this caused false expectation on the part of the migrants

42

later. Normally the workload and responsibility were divided among partners: recruitment agencies in sending countries were responsible for all arrangements before departure and the Thai consultant agencies were responsible in transferring the migrants to the workplaces and monitoring them.

The recruitment expenses and service fees were sometimes charged to the employers, either the whole amount, or the consultant agencies and recruitment agencies shared partially with the employers. But some employers would pay service fees to the consultant agencies as soon as the migrants arrived at the workplace. In the former case, the amount the consultant agencies prepaid for migrants would be collected from the migrant’s pay/salary with an agreement made with employers. In general, the migrant’s wages deduction was made for the service fees. The “profit” or service fee was shared among the agencies, calculated from the number of migrants sent to Thailand. Information gathered from consultant agencies indicated that the service fee was 2000-4000 baht per worker.

There was no criterion for the consultant agencies, but an employer stated:

“…we just use the service as trial, normally they had to bring us workers for a second time so we could decide to continue or not, depending on their services…”

43

There were criteria for recruitment agencies in sending countries as follows:

“…experience in sending workers to other countries…”

“…availability of networks and representatives of the company in provincial and community levels for better coverage in recruiting workers…”

“….reliability of management, and representatives of the company to follow up on the migrant….”

“…lower fees compared to other companies…”

“…competency in recruiting workers in large numbers or as needed…”

“…selection of competent workers who are able to start working as soon as possible and ability to find a replacement when a worker leaves his or her job…”

(B) Informal recruiters in Thailand are the individuals who facilitate migrants to find jobs in Thailand. They could be migrants’ relatives, someone known to the migrant, or anyone who plays the role and can be Thai or other nationalities. The informal recruiters were:

1) Individual brokers who worked independently to facilitate individual migrants to find jobs in Thailand informally. Finding from this study showed that this kind of broker had good connections at provincial

44

level to recruit workers and good ability to facilitate workers to Thailand. Some of them had long experience working in Thailand before. Some were only facilitators but had experience sending migrants to work in Thailand. They normally charged their services to the employer and did not follow up.

2) Individual brokers who represent the employers in recruiting migrants. This kind of broker had good connection with recruitment agencies in sending countries and good negotiation skills. In this study, this kind of informal recruiter works in particular areas that they are familiar with and had limitation in finding migrants.

3) Individual brokers who represents the recruitment agencies in sending countries (Cambodia, Laos). They may or may not have a branch office counterpart with Cambodia and Laos recruiting agencies. This kind of broker would follow up the migrant, collect the prepaid service fees, receive migrants’ complaints and contacted relevant groups or organizations to solve their problems.

45

Summary of Process Of Formal Recruitment in importing Workers

1 The employer applies for the quota to hire migrant

workers

2 The employer assigns a Thai consultant recruitment

company to be their representative in recruiting migrant workers

3 Recruitment company in Cambodia and Laos

announces for the job placement, selects the worker and obtains passport and visa for the workers

4 The employers apply for workers’ work permit and get

permission to import the worker into Thailand

5 The workers arrive at the workplace, take medical

check-up and request for work permit

6 MOL follow up the implementation of the employment

contract

47

CHAPTER 4

Comparison of Formal and Informal Migrant Workers

This chapter focuses on comparison between formal and informal recruitment workers. Thus, comparison between nationalities, Cambodian and Laotian, are stated only in some parts which are significant. This chapter begins with the profile of migrant workers, the recruitment process, and migrant workers at destination. Data about formal workers will be presented in both number and percentage. But data about informal workers will be presented only in numbers because of the small number of workers interviewed (20 cases).

4.1 Profile of migrant workers

The research team conducted the study from the sample group of 120 formal migrant workers, of whom 61 persons are Cambodian, and 59 persons are Laotian. Within the group, 73 are male, while 47 are female. The sample group of 20 informal migrant workers also included in this study, of whom 10 persons are Cambodian and another 10 are Laotian. The research team interviewed the sampling of migrant workers who worked in Thailand’s Central area: Bangkok, Nonthaburi; Eastern area: Chachoengsao, Chonburi; and Southern area Nakhonsithammarat, and Trang. As for the birthplace of these migrant workers, most of the

48

Cambodians came from Kampongcham while most of the Laotians came from Vientiane.

Table 4.1 Number of Formal and Informal Workers by Gender

Cambodian Laotian Total Legal status Gender

% N % N % N

Male 24.17 29 36.67 44 60.83 73 Formal workers Female 26.67 32 12.50 15 39.17 47

Total 50.83 61 49.17 59 100.00 120

Male 6 7 13 Informal

workers Female 4 3 7

Total 10 10 20

From Table 4.1, we can see that the proportion of sampling for both formal and informal workers was not much different compared to that for Cambodian workers, but there were more male than female Laotian workers. However, we could not conclude that either males or females migrate more, as in some sectors like garment factory and food processing, the majority of migrants were female migrants, while in some sectors like construction there were both males and females.

49

Table 4.2 shows the majority of the formal workers sample included adolescents and was between 17-35 years of age, the same as the majority of informal migrants.

Table 4.2 Number of Formal and Informal Workers by Age

Cambodian Laotian Total Legal status

Age % N % N % N

17-25 years 24.17 29 29.17 35 53.33 64

26-35 years 22.50 27 15.83 19 38.33 46

More than 35 years 4.17 5 4.17 5 8.33 10

Formal

workers

Total 50.83 61 49.17 59 100.00 120

17-25 years 3 5 8

26-35 years 4 5 9 Informal

workers More than 35 years 3 0 3

Total 10 10 20

50

Table 4.3 Number of Formal and Informal Workers by Work Sector


Sector % N % N % N

Manufacturing 18.33 22 23.33 28 41.67 50 Formal workers Food processing 15.83 19 10.00 12 25.83 31

Construction 16.67 20 15.83 19 32.50 39

Total 50.83 61 49.17 59 100.00 120

Manufacturing 4 8 12 Informal

workers Construction 6 2 8

Total 10 10 20

The sample groups worked in manufacturing sectors consisting of rubber factories, garment factories, steel industries, sanitary ware industries and plastic factories. Other two sectors were food processing and construction. These three sectors have quite a high rate of foreign workers employed due to a shortage of Thai labour especially in construction works, and employers’ need to reduce the cost of production and time factor by hiring migrant workers.

51

Table 4.4 Education


Education % N % N % N

never go to school 2.50 3 0.83 1 3.33 4

grade 1- 6 25.83 31 8.33 10 34.17 41

grade 7-9 18.33 22 23.33 28 41.67 50 Formal workers

grade 10 and higher

4.17 5 16.67 20 20.83 25

Total 50.83 61 49.17 59 100.00 120

never go to school 2 1 3

grade 1- 6 6 2 8

grade 7-9 2 6 8 Informal

Workers grade 10 and higher

0 1 1

Total 10 10 20

Most of the formal Cambodian migrants finished primary education but some finished secondary education and higher. Primary and secondary education is free for all Cambodian children, but there were a few formal Cambodian migrants who did not attend school. For the formal Laotian migrants, the majority of them had secondary

52

education background and higher and only one had not attended school. The education background of informal migrants was the same pattern. Overall, Laotian migrants had higher education background than Cambodian migrants.

Table 4.5 Who made the decision for you to migrate to Thailand?


Decisions to work in Thailand % N % N % N

Himself/Herself 46.67 56 42.50 51 89.17 107

Spouse 0.00 0 0.83 1 0.83 1

Parents 2.50 3 4.17 5 6.67 8

Brothers/sisters 0.00 0 0.83 1 0.83 1

Formal workers

Recruiter 0.83 1 0.00 0 0.83 1

Others (friend) 0.83 1 0.83 1 1.67 2

Total 50.83 61 49.17 59 100.00 120

Himself/Herself 9 10 19 9 Informal

workers Brothers/sisters 1 0 1 1

Total 10 10 20 10

53

The majority of the sample groups of formal migrants made the decision to come to Thailand by themselves. For the rest of the formal migrants, their parents played a major role for their decision-making; spouse, sibling and friend also had some influence in migrants’ decision (Table 4.5). Almost all informal migrants decided to migrate by themselves. It is possible that formal recruitment took more time and more arrangement, thus needed more consideration and consultation with their families, compared to informal migrants who did not have many things to consider and could decide in less time.

Table 4.6 Why did you decide to migrate?


Reasons for the decision to migrate

to Thailand % N % N % N

Economic reasons 45.83 55 44.17 53 90.00 108 Formal workers Personal 15.83 19 20.00 24 35.83 43

Family 11.67 14 17.50 21 29.17 35

Social network 16.67 20 9.17 11 25.83 31

Economic reasons 9 10 19 Informal

Workers Family 3 8 11

Personal 3 5 8

54

Unsurprisingly, economic reasons, including land problems, unemployment and debts, were the main factors which pushed the migrants to migrate to Thailand. The other reasons were their wanting to gain some experiences and adventure, reunion or travelling with family or friends, poor relationships or conflict in the family, fleeing from risk and dangers such as from natural disasters, etc.

Table 4.7 Were you aware of the risks and dangers involved in migrating through an informal recruiter?


Type of information % N % N % N

Yes 41.67 50 39.17 47 80.83 97

No 8.33 10 10.00 12 18.33 22 Formal workers

Do not answer 0.83 1 0.00 0 0.83 1

Total 50.83 61 49.17 59 100.00 120

Yes 6 9 15 Informal

Workers No 4 1 5

Total 10 10 20

When asked about their awareness, the majority of the workers were aware of the risks in migrating through the informal channel (Table

55

4.7). Most of them were informed by the returnees who lived in the same village, their friends or relatives (Table 4.8). However, there were some workers who were not aware of any risks; may be they did not have enough information or they had no alternative choice with regard to risk for a better chance in life.

Table 4.8 If yes, how did you know?


Key Informant, on risks abused by

unregistered agents % N % N % N

Recruiter informed me 6.67 8 4.17 5 10.83 13 Formal workers Someone in village

informed me 19.17 23 18.33 22 37.50 45

From media reports 0.00 0 5.00 6 5.00 6

Friend, relatives 15.00 18 10.83 13 25.83 31

Does not apply 8.33 10 10.83 13 19.17 23

Do not answer 1.67 2 0.00 0 1.67 2

Total 50.83 61 49.17 59 100.00 120

Someone in village informed me

3 5 8 Informal

workers NGOs informed me through awareness

1 0 1

56


Key Informant, on risks abused by

unregistered agents % N % N % N raising activities

From media reports 0 2 2

Friend, relatives 2 2 4

Does not apply 4 1 5

Do not answer 10 10 20

Total 3 5 8

4.2 Recruitment

This section represents the recruitment process, information received from recruitment agents, expenses in finding work, services provided by recruitment agents, and incentives for migrant workers to use recruitment agents. We can see that formal migrant workers from both nationalities received information prior to travelling to Thailand, on average in the same amount and in similar areas. As for the expenses, all workers have to pay some amount, but there are different forms of payment.

Regarding the contract, some migrant workers signed two kinds of contracts. One contract was signed with recruitment agencies in the country of origin. Details and terms of agreement varied according to

57

the recruitment agents. For example, a migrant has to sign a contract with a recruiting agency to work for two years and if he or she leaves the work before the contract ends, the migrant will have to pay back a sum of money, but the contract is sometimes made with the migrant’s family which has to take such responsibility.

Another kind of contract was the employment contract made with employers in Thailand. Findings from migrants’ answers indicated that they signed contracts with the recruitment agents in countries of origin more than signing contracts with employers in Thailand. However, according to MOU, it is a requirement that the employment contract must be signed between employer and formal migrant workers. Findings reflect that migrants had not had the terms of the contract explained clearly to them. Most workers usually did not keep copies of any kind of contracts. Rather, it is either the employers or recruitment agents who keep copies of the contract.

In their perception of the recruitment process, most of the Cambodian and Laos migrants answered that recruiter agencies were their recruiters, which means that the agencies’ role as employers’ representative was obvious and understood by most migrants. It also shows that the Cambodian agencies had used someone known to the migrant as “brokers” (see definition in Chapter 3) as their agents in recruiting the formal migrants and some of these brokers were not strangers but someone known to the migrants. It was different with Laotian migrants where the brokers were not significant in the recruitment process (see Table 4.9).

58

4.2.1 Process of recruitment

Table 4.9 Who is your recruiter?

Cambodian Laotian Total Legal Status

Type of recruiter according to workers % N % N % N

Formal workers

Someone known to you (the worker) and family

5.83 7 0.83 1 6.67 8

Broker in Cambodia/Laos

19.17 23 0.00 0 19.17 23

Recruiting company 22.50 27 46.67 56 69.17 83

Employer 1.67 2 1.67 2 3.33 4

Others 1.67 2 0.00 0 1.67 2

Total 50.83 61 49.17 59 100.00 120

Someone known to the worker and family

3 6 9 Informal

Workers

Broker in Cambodia/Laos

5 1 6

Broker in Thailand 1 1 2

Others 1 2 3

Total 10 10 20

59

The channels of information about job placements are varied. Most of the workers, 25.83% of Cambodians, learnt about the jobs from the public media (through the job advertisements in radio or television) while 10.83% learnt from representatives of recruitment companies who approached them directly at village level. The rest learnt from friends and relatives or from notice boards of the company. As for the Laotian workers, 32.50% of them were informed about the jobs from representatives or agent of the company, 8.33% learnt from friends or relatives, while 2.50% learnt from notice boards of the company, the same as learning from words of mouth and the public media. Informal workers learn about the jobs from personal sources such as friends, relatives, word of mouth, and brokers (see Table 4.10).

Table 4.10 How were you recruited?


Channels of information % N % N % N

Newspaper/radio/TV ads (mass media) 25.83 31 2.50 3 28.33 34

Worker agents 10.83 10 32.50 39 43.33 52 Formal workers

Friend or relatives 6.67 8 8.33 10 15.00 18

Word of mouth 5.00 6 2.50 3 7.50 9

Notices 2.50 3 3.33 4 5.83 7

Total 50.83 61 49.17 59 100.00 120

60


Channels of information % N % N % N

Friend or relatives 4 2 6 Informal

Workers Word of mouth 3 4 7

Worker agents 2 3 5

Own knowledge 1 1 2

Total 10 10 20

This study reflected that the formal migrant workers learnt about employment opportunity in Thailand from the agents and the media more than from other sources. Informal workers learnt more from personal sources. It also showed that the information dissemination could reach workers better through outreach activities.

61

4.2.2 Services

Table 4.11 What types of services did your formal recruiter provide? (3 primary reasons)


Service % N % N % N

Job placement 45.00 54 41.67 50 86.67 104 Formal workers Making of travel and/or

ID documents 41.67 50 38.33 46 80.00 96

Safe travel across border and to destination 8.33 23 10.83 15 19.17 38

Table 4.11 illustrated that the top three services provided by the recruitment agents were finding jobs, facilitating the application for documents and travelling arrangements. Moreover, other services included preparation training prior to travelling, follow up services and providing some support like providing free or cheap accommodation during recruitment procedure.

4.2.3 Recruitment expenses

The recruitment expenses comprise of government fee for travel document, visa, travel expenses and service fees. Most formal migrants did not pay these amounts before they migrated. All expenses were paid by employers or shared between employers and recruitment

62

agents. There were some migrants who paid part of the total amount and a few who paid the whole amount by themselves.

For the majority of Cambodian migrants, the recruitment expense, including service fees, was prepaid by the employers. In some cases, part of the overall expenses was prepaid by recruiting agencies. But in other cases, they had to pay service fees and part of the expenses themselves. For Laotian migrants, nearly all did not pay for the recruitment expenses prior to their departure, apart from one worker who paid for all expenses before travel to Thailand (see Table 4.12).

Table 4.12 How much did you pay your recruiter?

Cost Cambodian Laotian Total Legal status US$ THB % N % N % N

Nothing Nothing 28.33 34 47.50 57 75.83 91 Formal workers Not sure Not sure 6.67 8 0.83 1 7.50 9

Do not answerDo not answer 1.66 2 0.00 0 1.66 2

< 20 < 700 0.83 1 0.00 0 0.83 1

21 – 100 735 – 3,500 10.00 12 0.00 0 10.00 12

101 > 120 3,535 – 4,200 1.66 2 0.00 0 1.66 2

> 120 > 4,200 1.66 2 0.83 1 2.49 3

Total 50.83 61 49.17 59 100.00 120

63

Cost Cambodian Laotian Total Legal status US$ THB % N % N % N

Nothing Nothing 4 2 6 Informal

Workers < 20 < 700 0 0 0

21 – 100 735 – 3,500 5 8 13

101 > 120 3,535 – 4,200 0 0 0

> 120 > 4,200 1 0 1

Total 10 10 20

For formal migrants who paid part of the recruitment expense, the amounts varied between less than US$ 20 to over US$ 120, the highest amount that one Cambodian migrant paid was US$ 429 (15,000 baht). In the sample group of informal migrant workers, they paid mostly between US$ 21-100 (735-3,500 baht).

To pay the service fees or recruitment expenses prior to their departure, formal migrants had to take out a loan to pay the amount. Table 4.13 showed that 23.34 % (14 Cambodian and 14 Laotian migrants) of formal migrants took the loan. For informal migrants, there were 5 Cambodian migrants who borrowed money to pay the expense. The rest used money from their family to support their expenses. None of the informal Laotian migrants borrowed any money to pay for their expenses.

64

The responses to the question about sources of the loan indicate that apart from the banks, money lenders, migrants’ friends and the recruiting agents also play the role of money lenders.

Table 4.13 Did you loan money to pay the recruiter?


Loan % N % N % N

Yes 11.67 14 11.67 14 23.34 28 Formal workers No 39.17 47 37.50 45 76.67 92

Total 50.83 61 49.17 59 100.00 120

Yes 5 0 5 informal

workers No 4 10 14

Do not answer 1 0 1

Total 10 10 20

The prepaid recruitment expense had put migrants into debt which they had to pay back. Part of the migrants’ wages or salaries would be deducted to reimburse for the prepaid recruitment expenses. Table 4.14 demonstrated that recruitment expense had been deducted from 96.67% of formal migrants’ wages and salaries. There were three Cambodian migrants who agreed to have 1-2 months of their pay cut in

65

full to pay back the debt, so they received full pay only after that period. In the case of Laotian migrants, the one who paid all expenses also received full pay. Information from employers’ interview shows they had to pay at least THB 15,000 – 20,000 to import a formal Cambodian migrant and THB 15,000 to import a Laotian migrant. The length of payment deduction varied according to the amount agreed. Mostly, the deduction lasted about 10-12 months to pay back the debt; some migrants paid back the debt in 9 months while some took almost 2 years. The reasons between these two cases were the former case wanted to pay the debt faster and have their pay in full earlier. The later case preferred to have smaller deduction and had more remittance sent back to their families.


Cambodian Laotian Total Legal status Salary deduction

% N % N % N

Salary deducted 48.33 58 48.33 58 96.67 116 Formal Workers No salary deduction 2.50 3 0.83 1 3.33 4

Does not apply 0.00 0 0.83 1 0.83 1

Total 50.83 61 49.17 59 100.00 120

66


% N % N % N

Salary deducted 5 5 10 Informal Workers No salary deduction 5 5 8

Total 10 10 20

4.2.4 Pre departure information and orientation

Information is very important and helpful for migrants to make their decision to migrate. Information about working and living conditions at destination can ensure migrants their determination and better prepare them to face the conditions in Thailand. More than 85% of formal migrants received information in every area that is important before travelling to Thailand. Most of information received concerned health care services, working hours, nature of work and conditions of work. The least information they received was about the living conditions (see Table 4.15).

For informal migrant workers, they received the most information regarding living conditions, number of working hours and wages, followed by termination of employment and healthcare services.

67

Table 4.15 Before leaving for Thailand, did your recruiter provide clear and adequate information on what to expect?



Nature of work 48.33 58 43.33 52 91.67 110 Formal workers Wages 45.83 55 41.67 50 87.50 105

Number of working hours

49.17 59 46.67 56 95.83 115

Living conditions 46.67 56 40.00 48 86.67 104

Healthcare services 50.00 60 46.67 56 96.67 116

Termination of employment

47.50 57 42.50 51 90.00 108

Nature of work 7 3 10 Informal

Workers Wages 4 3 7

Number of working hours

4 4 8

Living conditions 5 3 8

Healthcare services 2 3 5

Termination of employment

3 3 6

68

Concerning the preparation training which is one of the conditions agreed in the MOU of labour cooperation, it was found that more than half or 55.83 % of the sample group of formal migrant workers did not receive the preparation training before travelling to work in Thailand. More than half of Cambodian migrants did not receive any training prior their migration nor did 19.17 % of Laotian migrant workers, as shown in Table 4.16. Most formal migrant workers who answered they had received a training actually had been provided 1-4 hours or one-day orientation. There were some formal Cambodian migrants who received were trained for longer than one day, while Laotian migrant workers did not receive any training longer than a day. There was no orientation given to informal migrants.

Table 4.16 Orientation/training before departure to Thailand


Duration of pre-departure

Orientation/training % N % N % N

No orientation/training 36.67 44 19.17 23 55.83 67 Imported workers 1 - 4 hours 0.00 0 29.16 35 29.16 35

1 day 5.83 7 0.83 1 6.67 8

2 - 7 days 5.84 7 0.00 0 5.87 7

Does not answer 2.50 3 0.00 0 2.50 3

Total 50.83 61 49.17 59 100.00 120

69

The answers reflect that the preparation for formal migrant workers was not enough, considering the time that recruitment agents spent for them. Besides, the information provided during the orientation regarding working condition, regulation, payment, is not so much to prepare migrants as to allow them to adapt themselves to the new environment and new culture more easily. In addition, false information about better working and living conditions had been given to migrants to motivate them to come to Thailand.

4.2.5 Signing of contracts

It was found that there were two kinds of contract(s) that formal migrants had signed. One was the contract made by recruitment agents in the country of origin and the other was the contract(s) made by employers in Thailand. Signing of the contract is another condition stated in the MOU.

(1) Signing Contract(s) with recruitment agents in Laos and Cambodia

Table 4.17 Did you sign a contract with your recruiter?


Contract made with Recruitment

agents % N % N % N


Total 50.83 61 49.17 59 100.00 120

70

The signing of contract(s) with recruitment agents in the country of origin for formal migrant workers is not included in the MOU. Details of the contract(s) varied according to the recruitment agents. Interviews with formal migrants found that contracts made between formal migrants and the recruitment agents include duration of work which was agreed as 2 years and if the migrants fail to complete the duration term, they will be fined, or their land can be confiscated, for example. In the case of some Cambodians, the agreement had been made between their families and recruitment agents to be responsible for compensation if the migrant workers could not fulfill the contract.

The practice of the recruitment agents may come from the responsibilities they had toward the employers. The recruitment agents have to sign contract(s) with employers to replace formal migrant workers if any of the migrants left before the contract ends. Therefore the recruitment agents used the second contract as their mechanism to force migrant workers to work for a certain period.

On the other hand, if formal migrants experience problems in Thailand, for example, regarding the type of work, working conditions, or accommodation being different from what they expected or what was promoted by recruitment agents, there was no responsibility or compensation made to the migrants. The migrants had to keep to the contract, no matter how different from their expectation or understanding, and would be punished if they failed to do so. But the recruitment agents who malpractice by providing false information, were not punished. Many of these migrants found difficulty adjusting themselves

71

to the conditions in Thailand, but could not break the binding contract as one Cambodian migrant worker mentioned:

“…Before coming to work, the recruitment agents mentioned that the worker was to work at a factory processing canned fish, but when the worker arrived; it was an industrial factory… with foul smell, “suffering” condition. The worker wanted to return home, but could not because the recruitment agents asked the worker to commit to a contract. If the worker broke the contract, there would be charges, and the worker’s house would be confiscated…”

[Migrant in rubber factory, southern Thailand]

Statements of the migrants indicated that certain contracts made with recruitment agents in the country of origin becomes a binding commitment, which makes it easier for recruitment agents to control the migrants. However, not all migrants had to sign or make this kind of agreement. From the data collected in this study, it was found that 93.33 % of the sample group of migrant workers signed contracts with recruitment agents in the country of origin and the majority, 87.50 %, who responded received explanation and details of the contract.

72

(2) Working contract made with employer in Thailand

Working contracts between employers and formal migrants must be signed, as agreed in the MOU.

Table 4.18 Did you sign contract with your employer?


Contract made with Employers in Thailand % N % N % N


Does not answer 5.00 6 0.00 0 5.00 6

Total 50.83 61 49.17 59 100.00 120

In the case of the working contract to be signed with employers, only 54.17 % of workers made contract(s) with employers, 31.67 % of Cambodian migrant workers and 24.17 Laotian workers within the total sample group of migrant workers. There was 38.33 % of formal migrants who answered they did not sign contract(s) with their employers. Table 4.18 indicates that the workers have lack of understanding about signing contract(s). Nonetheless, contract(s) with employers were required. Even the Ministry of Labour requires submission of the contract to the ministry, which is equivalent to having verification for every employer to sign contract(s) with employees.

73

Following the condition and verification set out by the ministry, contracts made while still residing in the country of origin or the contract that workers made with recruitment agents, were done to facilitate employers or alternatively, workers came along with work contract(s). This means that 38.33 % of workers who did not sign contract(s) with employers in Thailand may have made contract(s) prior to being in Thailand, for example, recruitment agents may have made the contract(s) for the workers before they came into Thailand (see Table 4.18).

Actually, the contracts signed with recruitment agents in the country of origin could be working contract(s) that have to be made between employers and formal migrant workers but the high proportion of migrants who answered that they signed contracts with recruitment agents reflected that there was no clear explanation of the contract details as said or the migrants did not have full understanding of the contract’s details.

Table 4.19 Who kept the contract?


Keeping

Copy of Contract % N % N % N

Worker 1.67 2 0.83 1 2.50 3 Formal workers Employer 24.17 29 22.50 27 46.67 56

Recruiter 2.50 3 0.83 1 3.33 4

74


Keeping

Copy of Contract % N % N % N

Broker 1.67 2 0.00 0 1.67 2

Don’t know 0.00 0 0.83 1 0.83 1

Other 0.83 1 0.00 0 0.83 1

Does not apply 15.00 18 24.17 29 39.17 47

Does not answer 5.00 6 0.00 0 5.00 6

Total 50.83 61 49.17 59 100.00 120

In keeping copies of work contracts that migrant workers made with employers, it is found that in most cases, employers keep the contract(s) (46.67%) regarding both Cambodian and Laotian migrant workers, followed by recruitment agents and workers who keep the contract(s), as shown in Table 4.19. As 39.17% are under the category that keeping working contract does not apply to them, it may be the case that these workers have the contract kept by employers without their knowing. The information from the Unskilled Foreign Workers Employment System Administration Division, Ministry of Labour who is in charge of formal recruitment showed that mostly, working contracts were signed between workers and employers. But workers signed many documents and they were not aware what they had signed. The contract was thus left with employers.

75

4.2.6 Time taken and overall process

Table 4.20 From the time of deciding to migrate, how long did it take for you to start work in Thailand?

Cambodian Laotian Total Legal status Duration

% N % N % N

Less than 1 month 0.00 0 0.83 1 0.83 1 Formal workers 1-3 month(s) 20.01 24 22.50 27 42.51 51

4-6 months 28.33 34 19.17 23 47.50 57

7-9 months 1.67 2 4.99 6 6.66 8

10-12 months 0.83 1 0.83 1 1.66 2

24 months 0.00 0 0.83 1 0.83 1

Total 50.83 61 49.17 59 100.00 120

Less than 1 month 8 8 16 informal

Workers 1-3 months 2 1 3

36 months 0 1 1

Total 10 10 20

76

After formal migrants decided to come to work in Thailand, they had to wait for months or even a year before they could start working. In general, 55.74% of all migrant workers waited for more than three months before they departed to Thailand, while 42.51% waited between 1 – 3 months, and 9.15% waited for more than 6 months. Only 1.69% or only one migrant worker waited for less than a month.

As for informal workers, most of the sample workers answered that the recruitment process was less than one month, as shown in Table 4.20.

Half of the formal migrants found the procedure complicated while the other half found the procedure simple; some of the informal migrants also found the procedure complicated and the rest found it was not (Table 4.21).

Table 4.21 Was the process of obtaining work in Thailand simple or complicated?



Complicated 60.66 37 50.85 30 55.83 67 Formal workers Simple 39.34 24 49.15 29 44.17 53

Total 100.00 61 100.00 59 100 120

77



Complicated 6 5 11 Informal

workers Simple 4 5 9

Total 10 10 20

4.3 At destination

The majority of migrant workers in the sample group had worked in Thailand for less than one year. This is 91.67 % (110 persons), of which 50.83 % (61 persons) were Cambodian, and 40.83 % (49 persons) were Laotian. The next highest group is the sample group of migrant workers who had worked in Thailand between 1-2 years, comprising 5.83 % (7 persons). As for the sample group who worked in Thailand for 2-5 years, it was 0.83 % (1 person) who is Laotian. Finally, in the sample group who worked in Thailand for more than 5 years, it was 1.67 % (2 persons), both of whom are Laotian.

As for the sample group of Laotian migrant workers in Thailand who said they had worked in Thailand between 2-5 years, and those workers who had worked in Thailand for more than 5 years, these responses seem to be due to misunderstanding of the question by the workers as the first recruitment of migrant workers from Laos started only on 7 December 2005. These migrant workers may have lived and

78

worked in Thailand before the signing of the memorandum of understanding (MOU). Following the MOU, they returned to their country to pursue the formal process, and came back to Thailand once again as formal migrant workers.

According to the study of sample group of informal migrant workers, it is found that half the number (10 persons) had worked in Thailand for 2-5 years, of whom 6 were Cambodian and 4 were Laotian. The rest is the sample group of those who have worked in Thailand for less than a year. Of the 3 persons belonging to this group, all are Cambodian. For the sample group of migrant workers who have worked in Thailand between 1-2 years, there were altogether 7 workers, made up of 1 Cambodian and 6 Laotians.

4.3.1 Salaries

Table 4.22 What were your wages? (per day) (Thai baht)

Cambodian Laotian Total Province

(minimum wage)

Wage received N % N % N %

Formal workers

145-190 4 3.3 2 1.6 6 4.9

191 22 18.3 5 4.2 27 22.5

More than 191 3 2.5 12 10.0 15 12.5

1. Bangkok, Nonthaburi,Samut prakarn,Samut sakhon

(191 Baht) Does not apply 12 10.0 4 3.3 16 13.3

Total 41 34.1 23 19.1 64 53.7

79


(minimum wage)


180 0 0 8 6.7 8 6.7

200 0 0 9 7.5 9 7.5

2. Chonburi (172 Baht)

Does not apply 0 0 2 1.6 2 1.7

Total 0 0 19 15.8 19 15.8

180 0 0 1 0.8 1 0.8 3. Chachoengsao

(160 Baht) Total 0 0 1 0.8 1 0.8

154 0 0 13 10.8 13 10.8

200 0 0 1 0.8 1 0.8

4. Ratchaburi

(154 Baht)

Does not apply 0 0 2 1.6 2 1.6

Total 0 0 16 13.2 16 13.2

152 9 7.5 0 0 9 7.5 5. Trang

(152 Baht) Total 11 9.1 0 0 11 9.1

148 9 7.5 0 0 9 7.5 6. Nakhon Si Thamarat (148 Baht) Total 9 7.5 0 0 9 7.5

Total 61 50.8 59 49.2

120 100.0

80


(minimum wage)


Informal workers

145-190 7 1 8

191 0 3 3

More than 191 0 1 1

1. Bangkok, Nonthaburi, Samut prakarn, Nakhon Pathom,

(191 Baht) Does not apply 3 3 6

Total 10 8 18

191 0 1 1 2. Chachoengsao (160 Baht) Total 0 1 1

More than 191 0 1 1 3. Ratchaburi

(154 Baht) Does not apply 0 0 0

Total 0 1 1

Total 10 10 20

Note: Currency exchange rate is 1 US$ = 35 Thai Baht

81

According to the MOU, formal migrants will receive the same minimum wage as Thai workers. The wages are varied according to the province where they work. Most of the formal labour receive minimum wage or higher. Only 4.9 % of the sample received lower wage than minimum wage (see Table 4.22).

As for informal workers, 12 workers from the sample of 20 received minimum wage or higher, the rest (8 persons) received less payment.

Table 4.23 What were your wages? (Per month) (US$/Thai baht)


US $ Thai Baht % N % N % N

114.29 4,000 0.00 0 1.67 2 1.67 2 Formal workers 114.86 4,020 0.83 1 0.00 0 0.83 1

137.17 4,800 0.83 1 0.00 0 0.83 1 142.86 5,000 0.83 1 0.83 1 1.67 2 171.43 6,000 4.17 5 0.83 1 5.00 6 174.29 6,100 0.83 1 0.00 0 0.83 1 204.86 7,170 0.00 0 0.83 1 0.83 1 217.14 7,600 0.00 0 0.83 1 0.83 1 219.00 7,665 0.00 0 0.83 1 0.83 1 222.86 7,800 0.00 0 0.83 1 0.83 1 228.57 8,000 0.83 1 0.00 0 0.83 1 251.43 8,800 0.83 1 0.00 0 0.83 1

82


US $ Thai Baht % N % N % N

342.86 12,000 0.83 1 0.00 0 0.83 1 Does not apply

(wage per day) 40.83 49 42.50 51 83.33 100

Total 50.83 61 49.17 59 100.00 120 142.86 5,000 7 7 14 171.43 6,000 1 1 2

Informal workers

Does not apply (wage per day)

2 2 2

Total 10 10 20

Note: Currency exchange rate is 1 US$ = 35 Thai Baht

Table 4.23 shows that the formal Cambodian migrants earn on average THB 6,000 monthly. Most of the formal Lao migrant workers earned between THB 5,000 and 7,000 a month. But in practice, their wages would be deducted partially for the recruitment fees and prepaid expenses (travel and brokerage charges). The deducted amount varied according to the agreement. In some cases, there would be more deductions for the accommodation and social security fund.

83



% N % N % N

Salary deducted 48.33 58 48.33 58 96.67 116 Imported workers No salary deduction 2.50 3 0.83 1 3.33 4

Does not apply 0.00 0 0.83 1 0.83 1

Total 50.83 61 49.17 59 100.00 120

Salary deducted 5 5 10 Illegal

Workers No salary deduction 5 5 8

Total 10 10 20

Table 4.24 demonstrated that almost all formal Cambodian migrants’ wages were partially deducted but there were three of them who received full pay after they agreed to have their first one to two month’s pay deducted. Formal Laotian migrants’ wages were deducted for the prepaid recruiting expense by employers. Most employers paid at least THB 15,000–20,000 to import one formal migrant from Cambodia, and THB 15,000 to import one Laotian worker.

84

Regarding the duration of payment deduction, 47.50% had their wages partially deducted for 10-12 months while 18.33% had theirs deducted for 1-9 months.

4.3.2 Conditions at workplace

When analyzing false information, most samples pointed to living condition and wage payment differences. Only formal Lao migrants claim that they received true and exact information on working hours. More Cambodian migrants suffer from incorrect information than Laotians: 21.67% on wage differences, and 20% on accommodation condition. Lao workers barely have this problem. Sample groups also claimed some recruiters did not have sufficient knowledge about workplaces and condition in Thailand as they never experience or visit the places themselves. They were unable to tell the workers what was the real situation out of their own ignorance (see Table 4.25).

Table 4.25 If no, which part of information was different?


The information which did not match the real situation as promised % N % N % N

Nature of work 8.33 10 4.17 5 12.50 15 Formal workers Salary 21.67 26 6.67 8 28.33 34

Working hours 2.50 3 0.00 0 2.50 3

85


The information which did not match the real situation as promised % N % N % N

Overtime work 9.17 11 3.33 4 12.50 15

Day off 4.17 5 0.83 1 5.00 6

Living condition 20.00 24 5.83 7 25.83 31

Risk and danger 1.67 2 6.67 8 8.33 10

Others 1.67 2 0.83 1 2.50 3

4.3.3 Satisfaction with recruiter’s services

Experience and satisfaction of the formal workers brought to Thailand by recruitment agencies reflected future expectation whether these migrants would like to go back to work their own country or prefer to continue working in Thailand. There are various reasons why migrant workers who would like to work in Thailand choose the channel of entering such as recruitment agency. There were some migrants who choose to work in Thailand but they would come on their own instead of using recruiters. The reason is they want to save on costs and consider that it is less expensive if they come by themselves.

86

Table 4.26 Are you satisfied with the services provide by your recruiter?


Satisfied with the services % N % N % N

Satisfied 39.29 55 37.86 53 77.14 108 Formal workers Not satisfied 10.00 14 5.00 7 15.00 21

Do not answer 0.71 1 0.00 0 0.00 1

Does not apply 0.71 1 6.43 9 7.14 10

Total 50.71 61 49.29 59 100.00 120

Table 4.26 demonstrated that there were some migrants (15%) who are not satisfied with recruitment agents’ services but the majority (77.14%) were satisfied.

4.3.4 Rights and protection (safety and welfare)

According to the MOU, formal migrants are protected by Labour Protection Bill 1998 (BE 2541). This means that these migrants are equally protected and enjoy the same benefit as Thai workers. Most of these formal migrants work in working sectors that few Thais are willing to work in, i.e. in 3-D jobs. They had to work at night or on late night shifts. This showed that the formal Laos and Cambodian migrants, though they have the same opportunities as the Thai, were put in more difficult working conditions and have fewer choices than the

87

Thai. They received the same benefits in terms of payment, overtime pay, freedom of communication to their friends and families back home through mobile phone. Information from interviews indicated that some of them also enjoy freedom of movement, going shopping, contacting friends but there were some who did not enjoy doing these, not because they were forbidden but because they were tired out by their workload.

The protection mechanism is the follow up by the recruitment agents. One reason was there was the debt collection in a way but at the same time it gave migrants some support that there was someone to whom they could put up their complaints. There is no protection mechanism set up for migrants’ complaints in the Labour office, but they could place their complaint to the normal monitor channel that covers all workers. This may be the weak point and needs to be considered as there will be problems of communication, language barrier and less access for migrants to approach the protection mechanism.

Information from a Thai government officer in the Labour protection sector shows that there has been a budget provided to hire interpreters to help communication with migrants but this is still limited to certain areas. This was a good initiative and should be promoted more.

For healthcare services, the formal migrants are put under the social welfare scheme but they have to wait for three months before they can enjoy their benefit.

89

CHAPTER 5

Impact of Current Recruitment Practices on Migrant Workers

5.1 Problems and Challenges

5.1.1 Problems and Challenges for the migrant workers

(A) Insufficient and inaccurate information, working and living conditions not as promised

Laotian and Cambodian workers mentioned that false and unclear information are part of the problems. Cambodian workers were usually misinformed on the number of working hours, the lower wages, the living conditions, accommodation, welfare, and types of work; for example they were told that they would come to work for a fish cannery but it turned out to be a rubber processing factory. They got a small bedroom with shared bathroom instead of a single bedroom with bed linen, sofa, and electric fan. Lao workers were not informed at all on the type of prospective work which they need to face right after they took on the journey. According to the MOU, workers should be informed about conditions of employment and renumeration offered by recruitment agencies in their country of origin. The ILO guide to Private Employment Agencies also indicates such requirement.

90

(B) Long and complicated recruitment process

Before the journey, Cambodian and Lao workers faced problems such as high expense, the long waiting period, and complicated and difficult procedures in the same manner.

The documentation and processes were seen as difficult by workers. From the opinion survey on Cambodia and Lao workers on steps and processes of recruitment, 60.66% of Cambodian workers and 50.85% of Lao workers find it difficult to process. The rest, 39.34% of Cambodian workers and 49.15% of Lao workers, considers that it is not complicated. Among Lao workers, there is only little difference between those who consider the documentation and the process of import are complicated and difficult, and those who do not.

Even though those legally imported workers already find the process is complicated, those illegal ones also find the smuggling process or dealing with the illegal agent is equally difficult.

91

Table 5.1 Opinion of Migrant Workers toward Recruiting Process

Cambodian Laotian Total Legal status Opinion

% N % N % N

Complicated 60.66 37 50.85 30 55.83 67 Formal workers

Simple 39.34 24 49.15 29 44.17 53

Total 100.00 61 100.00 59 100 120

Complicated 6 5 11 Informal Workers

Simple 4 5 9

Total 10 10 20

(C) Long waiting time for job placement

After workers decided to travel to work in Thailand, the problem was to wait for months or up to even a year before the start. In general, 55.74% of Cambodian workers wait for more than three months before the jobs, while 39.34% waited for more than 1 – 3 months, and 4.92% waited for more than 6 months. 45.76% of Lao workers, the majority, waited for 1 – 3 months, while 39.98% waited 3 – 6 months, and 13.57% waited for more than 6 months. There were only 1.69% of workers waiting for less than 1 month which is only one person out of 120 interviewees. When compared to those migrant workers entering Thailand through informal recruitment, the findings showed that most did not need to wait for a long time, which is less than one week after the

92

decision to start a journey to the job. The minority waited longer than 4 weeks.

Table 5.2 Waiting time before starting work


Waiting Time % N % N % N

Less than 1 month 0.00 0 1.69 1 0.83 1 Formal

Workers 1 - 3 months 39.34 24 45.76 27 42.50 51

3 - 6 months 55.74 34 38.98 23 47.50 57

More than 6 months 4.92 3 13.57 8 9.17 11

Total 100.00 61 100.00 59 100.00 120

Less than 1 month 7 7 14 Informal

Workers 1 - 4 months 2 1 3

More than 4 months 1 2 3

Total 10 10 20

Information gathered from entrepreneurs and migrants showed that the waiting period was one factor as one migrant pointed out:

93

“… I had to wait almost 4 months, some waited 6 or longer before getting all the papers, so my friend couldn’t wait and went with brokers informally, it only took him a week, not long before he went off…”

[Formal migrant worker in construction area, Bangkok]

(D) Cost of expense

The expense of recruitment was another factor which migrants considered costly for them:

“…Though I don’t have to pay for the cost at once, I have to work to repay the expense; it took me many months before I had some savings to send back home…”

[Formal migrant worker in food processing factory]

(E) Awareness of risk in informal recruitment

Besides the various complaints, migrant workers who chose to come through the formal recruiting channel were aware of higher risk involved in coming through illegal or informal channel. This is reflected from their answers about risk awareness in coming through informal agents. The majority of workers, 41.67% of Cambodians and 39.17 of

94

Lao, recognized the risk while 8.33% of Cambodian and 10% of Lao do not recognize the risk involved (see Table 5.3).

Out of 20 informal migrant workers, about 6 of the Cambodians and 9 of the Lao migrant workers realized the dangers of migrating to work via an illegal agent.

Table 5.3 Awareness of risks in using informal agent


Awareness % N % N % N

Aware 81.97 50 79.66 47 80.84 97

Unaware 16.39 10 20.34 12 18.33 22

Do not answer 1.64 1 0.00 0 0.83 1

Formal

workers

Total 100.00 61 100.00 59 100.00 120

Aware 6 9 15 Informal

workers Unaware 4 1 5

Total 10 10 20

95

(F) Employment contract not widely signed / not knowingly signed

Only 54.2% of formal workers reported that they signed an employment contract with their employers. Actually, signing an employment contract is compulsory, according to the MOU, the Thai law and the ASEAN Declaration. The ILO convention no.181 also states that it is compulsory. But the new formal recruitment process did not include this important step in its undertaking. Partly, it may be the lack of understanding of both employers and workers. On the other hand, some workers may not be aware that they had signed such contracts since they left their country and the contract was kept by either the recruitment agency or the employer without their knowledge.

(G) Minimum wages renumeration not fully practiced for all

Although the majority of formal workers could receive a remuneration according to the minimum wages as stated in the Thai labors law, a small number of them still received a salary lower than the minimum wage (145-152 baht per day). Formal recruitment is supposed to guarantee minimum wage payment, but some employers did not follow the law and the monitoring system was not efficient enough to protect workers.

(H) Salary deduction

The recruitment service fee was deducted from formal workers’ salaries up to one year or even two years during their employment in

96

Thailand; 96.7% of workers had deductions from their salaries, with 47.5% whose salary was deducted up to 12 months and 30% up to 24 months. Such deductions of 1500 – 2000 baht per month made workers unable to save their money. This is against ILO guidelines and practices in most countries too. A mutually agreeable percentage of salary deduction should be set up to replace the arbitrary one.

5.1.2 Problems and Challenges for Employers

(A) Complicated and hierarchical process of formal recruitment

The problem stemming from bureaucracy is the complicated and difficult hierarchy of processes taking a rather long period of time, making it difficult to keep up with the production demand. One of the personnel staff of the employer company gave a similar opinion that:

“…The process is not indeed difficult but takes too long with different processes in different areas. Some provinces do not need governor’s approval while others require it which takes even longer...”

[Manager in garment factory, Samut Prakarn]

97

(B) High cost of recruitment services to employer

In terms of cost, it costs drastically more from THB 3,800 to THB 15,000 – 20,000 to recruit a formal worker. This is suffered by enterprises importing both Cambodian and Lao workers. Employers who had paid for such high costs still took the risk that workers might run away from them. At the moment, recruitment agencies still do not have measures to monitor the runaway of workers.

(C) Inadequate and unclear public relations about formal recruitment

In terms of public relations of the government, some employers fail to learn the updated news on legal import of workers. One personnel staff in Samut Sakhon claimed that:

“… The public relations campaign is not sufficiently clear, publicity is not good enough. A handbook explaining procedure, process and different laws should be provided…”

[Personnel staff of an employer in Samut Sakhon]

The understanding of government officers over this matter is at times inconsistent and insufficiently clear, especially regarding the police who mistakenly arrested formal registered Cambodian workers thinking

98

they were illegal ones. This is the problem met by employers of Cambodian workers.

(D) Lack of pre-departure training

Employers’ problems with recruitment agents are the issues about the lack of training before the journey to work, such as the livelihood in Thailand, the type of prospective job, the necessary expenses and so on.

Particular characteristics of formal workers are intrinsically troubling to employers in managing the workers, i.e. employers found that Cambodian workers are not familiar with working according to the scheduled timeslot arranged by employers, and cultural and linguistic differences often led to misunderstandings and miscommunication, and even more difficulties. While employers of Lao workers found no linguistic difficulties, but there was the lack of courage in working or being feeble and impatient. These led the workers to leave their jobs prematurely, some even fled the jobs. It resulted in interruption in the workplace.

99

“…Many workers never worked in Thailand before, so they cannot cope with certain kinds of work and workload, or they had no knowledge about the prospective job. Some stayed for a week and quit, or returned home. We cannot earn back what we paid earlier to get workers because workers do not have money. Even now, we get neither replacement workers nor the refund…”

[Plant manager, rubber factory, Nakhon Srithammarat]

The adjusting to the working environment was another problem for migrants in some manufacturing jobs like latex factory. The migrants were not familiar with the work and have difficulties adjusting themselves as one migrant indicated:

“…I couldn’t stand the bad smell; it made me sick for a week. Al though I’m used to the smell now, if I had the choice I wouldn’t take this job…”

[Migrant in rubber plantation, southern Thailand]

100

(E) Lack of/slow replacement of workers who left prematurely

The recruitment agents cannot fulfill the requested number of workers. The employers of Lao workers found delays in the work of recruitment agents. On the new recruitment and replacement of the workers who left prematurely, sometimes there was no replacement. Some companies waited as long as 4 months without replacement. The agents claimed that the problem was in process or Ministry of Labour had not approved yet. These problems were frequently encountered by employers.

(6) Irregularity of employment for formal workers

Employers or companies are also with limitations due to the nature of work, some of which are seasonal or irregular, such as construction. The formal worker expects to work for one to two years which is difficult to uphold for small construction companies which do not have hiring contracts all the time, so sometimes they need to absorb the cost during vacant months. Otherwise, they have to lay off workers prematurely.

5.1.3 Problems and Challenges for Government Officers

(A) Serious delay in job placement due to complicated recruitment procedures

The Samut Sakhon job placement officers thought that formal recruitment involves complicated procedures and takes a long time

101

which, in turn, posed a great impact on Thai officers as they need to speed up their work to match the needs of Thai employers’. Such delays are one of the problems the Office needs to address, and it should clarify to companies and employers that the delays are indeed caused by many factors.

(B) Thai employers requested for high quotas but kept workers only for a short period

Some Thai employers cancelled the employment term before the term ended as the employers exaggerate the quota. Workers were left unemployed at an early stage. The premature cancellation can cause poor relations between Thailand and the states of origin.

(C) Protection mandate for formal and informal workers is under another, separate office

According to the Thai law, the jurisdiction of the Office of Labour Recruitment is only to register and examine the workplace, only when cases of worker smuggling or forced labour or slavery workers are reported, then the officer can pay a visit to the premises. In terms of protection on welfare, wages, and workplace condition it is the Provincial Welfare Office who is in charge. But coordination between the two offices is still minimal.

The Chonburi office found no such problem as the number of formal Lao workers is still rather low when compared with the informal counterparts. Most informal workers had no certificate of identity, so

102

they did not dare file any complaints against employers. Neither could they call by phone to complain due to the language problem. Those who could access government service were really limited.

(D) Embassy Staff in Thailand needs more authority and coordination to protect workers

Regarding the processing of formal recruitment in rural areas, the Embassy cannot examine the status of the consulting agent in Thailand as they have no law to serve that. The Embassy found that the job description does not match with what workers were informed about earlier. The contacts between those consulting agents and Laos PDR Embassy in Thailand were minimal. The lack of authority in helping and supervising the formal Lao workers obstructed them from help and work in full. Lao embassy officers could only check documents like the demand letter and details of the demand. The Lao government plans to send an authorized officer (Labour Attache’) to be in charge but so far no one has been sent for this job.

Another key obstacle is the poor internal coordination among Lao government agencies. These documents are delayed in being sent from Laos. For example, at the time of the research, the Lao Embassy in Bangkok had not yet received any of the lists of identified Lao nationals from the MOLSW in Vientiane.

The Royal Cambodian Embassy in Thailand faced many problems on the misinformation given to Cambodian workers which is mostly on wages, working hours, job description and job type. Their

103

suggestion was that the 2-year work permit is too short and the renewal process cost is very high for Cambodian nationals.

5.1.4 Problems and challenges for recruitment companies in Cambodia and Laos and consulting companies in Thailand

(A) Complicated recruitment process and regulations

At the beginning of the MOU implementation of formal recruitment, a number of steps required approvals by Thai and Lao authorized officers before recruitment could be processed. The documentation process would require workers to journey back and forth between Thailand and Laos to be recruited into an employment. Finally after the Thai approval, the visa would be sent to the Royal Thai Embassy in Laos to grant valid entry visa to Lao workers. This long process made employers severely complain on the long delay of the formal recruitment according to the MOU. It seems to them that the first few lots were quicker and later badly delayed. Some lots had waited for 2-3 months, and eventually many cancelled their application as they could not wait.

(B) Workers leave prematurely

Most problems faced by recruitment agents and consulting companies are the premature departure of the workers. They claim that they have to work too hard; they have no related work experience; or it is difficult to live and work at their workplace, for example. This happens more with Lao workers who once worked in agricultural sectors. Their

104

lives were drastically different compared to the condition they meet at the workplace in Thailand. Often they did not want to work hard on something difficult. Some claim to be paid too little. The Lao recruiting agent who dealt with Lao workers told us that if they leave prematurely, they will need to repay all expenses.

“…Formal Lao workers have a lot of problems because they are not satisfied with the living and work conditions. Sometimes they want to return home after only one week, and we cannot force them to stay but send them back. Some simply fled without notifying the employers. The remaining debt or expense, we try to collect from the workers who fled and the Lao recruiting agent needs to be responsible for this. To our knowledge, they cannot pay back because it was a big sum that the employers paid in advance...”

[Thai Consulting Company for Lao formal workers]

(C) Few job seekers are interested to be recruited

The last problem is the difficulties in finding workers to come to Thailand. They gave the reason that the wage is not worth the sum they need to pay during processes required even if the employers pay those fees in advance for them. The most important thing is that there are too

105

many deductions in Thailand – health check fee, accommodation, food and so on.

5.2 Rights and Protection for Migrant Workers

There are direct and indirect impacts of Lao and Cambodian labour migration caused by the MOU, in the workplace and daily life in Thailand, especially on remuneration, welfare obtained from working and the expectation towards working.

5.2.1 Salary according to minimum wages of the Thai law

Migrant workers through the labour import system earned their wages directly from employers. The wage would be as earlier agreed with the employer. The difference of wages depends on the area and type of work. So the imported Lao and Cambodia workers did not earn the same level of wages as shown in Table 5.4 where we can see that most samples of formal workers from Lao and Cambodia earned the minimum wages set by law at THB 191 per day in Bangkok. 15% of the interviewed Lao workers earned the most wages at THB 200 per day while 13 % earned the local minimum wages at THB 154, i.e. Lao workers in Ratchaburi province. About 14% earned THB 180 per day in Chonburi, which is the local minimum wage. Beyond that, some formal Lao workers earned more than legal minimum wages, for example those skilled workers such as carvers (see Table 5.4).

106

Table 5.5 presents the wages by month which shows the Cambodian samplings earned on average at THB 6,000. Most formal Lao workers earned between THB 5,000 and THB 7,000. But in fact they will not earn these amounts in full due to wages being deducted for some expenses such as job seeking fee (travel and brokerage charges). Some will also deduct the accommodation rent and social security (see Table 5.7).

Table 5.4 Wages per day (US$/Thai baht)


Thai Baht

US $ % N % N % N

145 4.14 0.83 1 0.00 0 0.83 1

148 4.23 7.50 9 0.00 0 7.50 9

150 4.28 1.67 2 0.00 0 1.67 2

Formal workers

152 4.34 7.50 9 0.00 0 7.50 9

154 4.40 0.00 0 10.83 13 10.83 13

170 4.86 1.67 2 0.00 0 1.67 2

180 5.14 0.00 0 11.67 14 11.67 14

190 5.42 0.83 1 0.00 0 0.83 1

191 5.46 18.33 22 1.67 2 20.00 24

200 5.71 1.67 2 15.00 18 16.67 20

Thai minimum wages per day

in various provinces

280 8.00 0.00 0 0.83 1 0.83 1

107


Thai Baht

US $ % N % N % N

300 8.58 0.83 1 0.00 0 0.83 1

314 8.97 0.00 0 2.50 3 2.50 3

Does not apply (wage per month)

10.00 12 6.67 8 16.67 20

Total 50.83 61 49.17 59 100.00 120

150 4.28 2 0 2 informal workers

160 4.57 1 0 1

170 4.86 1 0 1

180 5.14 2 2 4

185 5.29 1 0 1

191 5.46 0 3 3

200 5.71 0 2 2

Does not apply (wage per month)

3 3 6

Total 10 10 20

Note: Currency exchange rate is 1 US$ = 35 Thai Baht.

108

Table 5.5 Wages per month (US$/Thai baht)


Thai Baht

US $ % N % N % N

4,000 114.29 0.00 0 1.67 2 1.67 2 Formal workers 4,020 114.86 0.83 1 0.00 0 0.83 1

4,800 137.17 0.83 1 0.00 0 0.83 1

5,000 142.86 0.83 1 0.83 1 1.67 2

6,000 171.43 4.17 5 0.83 1 5.00 6

6,100 174.29 0.83 1 0.00 0 0.83 1

7,170 204.86 0.00 0 0.83 1 0.83 1

7,600 217.14 0.00 0 0.83 1 0.83 1

7,665 219.00 0.00 0 0.83 1 0.83 1

7,800 222.86 0.00 0 0.83 1 0.83 1

8,000 228.57 0.83 1 0.00 0 0.83 1

8,800 251.43 0.83 1 0.00 0 0.83 1

12,000 342.86 0.83 1 0.00 0 0.83 1

Does not apply (wage per day) 40.83 49 42.50 51 83.33 100

Total 50.83 61 49.17 59 100.00 120

109


Thai Baht

US $ % N % N % N

5,000 142.86 7 7 14 Informal workers 6,000 171.43 1 1 2

Does not apply (wage per day)

2

2

2

Total 10 10 20

Note: Currency exchange rate is 1 US$ = 35 Thai Baht.

The wage of formal workers is calculated by using the legal minimum wage as a baseline. According to the MOU, the wage is set at the same level as local Thai workers. Each locality has a different legal minimum wage. The highest local wage is THB 191, in Bangkok, Nonthaburi, Samut Prakarn, and Samut Sakhon. Among these areas, some employers offer lower than legal minimum wage, i.e. in Nonthaburi and Samut Prakarn, at THB 145, 170, 180, and 190. Among the samples, 4 Cambodians and 3 Lao workers earn lower than minimum wage.

The second highest is Chonburi which is at THB 172 but labourers usually earn more than minimum wage. The Chachoengsao minimum wage is at THB 160 where most workers earn THB 180. The Ratchaburi minimum wage is at THB 154 and all Lao workers earn the

110

minimum wage except one who earned THB 200. In Trang the minimum wage is at THB 152, and all earn the minimum wage except for 2 Cambodians who earn THB 150 which is lower than the minimum wage. Nakhon Sri Thammarat minimum wage is at THB 148, and most Cambodian workers earn the minimum wage. To conclude, the formal recruitment gave the chance to most workers to earn the minimum wages but some still earned lower than that.

5.2.2 Excessive and long salary deduction

Table 5.6 demonstrates that Cambodian wages were partly deducted, but three workers earned wages in full as they allowed employers to deduct the full amount of their wage in the first one or two months. Formal Lao workers’ wages were deducted for the advanced brokerage expense of employers. There was only one worker who paid this expense by himself in advance. From the interviews with 5 employers, all of them paid some expenses to the Laos recruitment company due to high job seeking expenses set by Thailand. Most employers paid at least THB 15,000 – 20,000 per person to formal Cambodian workers, and THB 15,000 per person from Laos. After formal workers start working, the wages will be deducted as agreed earlier. One worker allowed his wage to be deducted all at once in the first month, while 43.33% allowed their wages to be partially deducted for more months, 47.50% allowed the same amount to be deducted in 10 – 12 months and 18.33% in 1 – 9 months (see Table 5.7).

111

Table 5.6 Period of Full Deduction by month


Period of Full deduction by month % N % N % N

1 month 0.83 1 0.00 0 0.83 1 Formal workers Does not apply 50.00 60 49.17 59 99.17 119

Total 50.83 61 49.17 59 100.00 120

2 months 2 0 2 Informal workers


Total 10 10 20

Table 5.7 Period of Partial Deduction by month


Period of Partial deduction by month % N % N % N

1-9 months 10.00 12 8.33 10 18.33 22 Formal workers 10-12 months 18.33 22 29.17 35 47.50 57

13-20 months 7.50 9 7.50 9 15.00 18

21-24 months 10.83 13 3.33 4 14.17 17

Does not apply 4.17 5 0.83 1 5.00 6

Total 50.83 61 49.17 59 100.00 120

112


Period of Partial deduction by month % N % N % N

1-9 months 3 5 8 Informal workers Does not apply 7 5 12

Total 10 10 20

5.2.3 Inaccurate and insufficient information in relation to workplace

According to the MOU, formal workers will be protected by the Labor Protection Act 1998 (BE 2541). This means that these workers will be equally protected as Thai workers, although these formal workers will take on jobs shunned by Thai workers, i.e. 3-D jobs. Most are in late night shifts. From in-depth interviews of a number of workers, they are placed in night shift from 22.00 hrs or 23.00 to 07.00 hrs or 08.00 hrs with overtime working, and the shift will end at 10.00 in the morning. This showed that the formal Lao and Cambodian workers have the same work chance as Thais. But they were uncertain about the job as the broker or recruitment Company never told them what job they would take on, only told them that it is an easy job with good pay.

Apart from working, most workers can travel freely during personal time. Table 5.8 claims that most workers had free personal life and were free to travel. From in-depth interviews, formal workers would

113

not take a long journey but only a short one to somewhere close to the workplace. The favorite places include markets, grocery, and convenience store and so on.

In the case of workers stating their freedom to travel was limited, especially some Cambodian workers, 19.17% said they cannot travel freely as they were limited by employers, 2.50% by police. This demonstrates that employers play vital roles in controlling the personal life of formal Lao and Cambodian workers. Lao workers barely had this restriction on freedom (see Table 5.9).

Table 5.8 Migrant workers’ freedom of movement

Cambodian Laotian Total Legal status Freedom of movement % N % N % N

Freedom 27.50 33 49.17 59 76.67 92 Formal workers

Non freedom 23.33 28 0.00 0 23.33 28

Total 50.83 61 49.17 59 100.00 120

Freedom 8 9 17 Informal workers

Non freedom 2 1 3

Total 10 10 20

114

Table 5.9 The person who restricted migrant workers’ freedom of movement


Person who restricted freedom % N % N % N

Employer 19.17 23 0.00 0 19.17 23 Formal workers Policeman 2.50 3 0.00 0 2.50 3

Myself 0.83 1 0.00 0 0.83 1

Others 0.83 1 0.00 0 0.83 1

Does not apply 27.50 33 49.17 59 76.67 92

Total 50.83 61 49.17 59 100.00 120

Employer 1 0 1 Informal workers Policeman 1 1 2


Total 10 10 20

5.2.4 Freedom in Communication

In terms of freedom to communicate, the findings suggest that most samplings have freedom to communicate with anyone, and only four were controlled in communication. In fact, the Labour Protection Act

115

1998 (BE 2541) does not state anything over this matter (see Table 5.10).

Table 5.10 Migrant workers’ freedom of communications


Freedom of communications % N % N % N

Freedom 49.17 59 47.50 57 96.67 116 Formal workers Non freedom 1.67 2 1.67 2 3.33 4

Total 50.83 61 49.17 59 100.00 120

Freedom 10 10 20 Informal workers Total 10 10 20

5.2.5 Migrants’ rights protection according to the law

In terms of holding of certificate of identity document, the study showed that most workers, 45% of Cambodian and 35.88% of Lao workers, did not hold documents issued from country of origin such as passports. 72.50% of employers and 8.33% of job brokers hold such documents for their workers (see Table 5.11 and 5.12). This shows that employers had power to keep workers’ own identity card to prevent workers fleeing or changing to other work or returning home without permission. This is a grey area where the Labour Protection Act does

116

not give authority to the employer to do so but also does not set any penalty for such action.

Table 5.11 Holding of own original ID documents whilst working in Thailand


Holding of own original

ID documents % N % N % N

Hold 5.83 7 13.33 16 19.17 23 Formal workers Do not hold 45.00 54 35.83 43 80.83 97

Total 50.83 61 49.17 59 100.00 120

Table 5.12 The person who held migrant worker’s ID document


The person who held ID document % N % N % N

Employer 41.67 50 30.83 37 72.50 87 Informal workers Recruitment

agency 3.33 4 5.00 6 8.33 10

Does not apply 5.83 7 13.33 16 19.17 23

Total 50.83 61 49.17 59 100.00 120

117

In terms of knowledge on changes of job or employers, 90.83% think they cannot change jobs or employers while only 9.17% think they can change. This shows the formal workers have good knowledge on this matter and are possibly aware of the punishment of violating the bill (see Table 5.13).

Table 5.13 Workers’ Knowledge on change of job or employer


Knowledge of change in their

job % N % N % N

Can change 6.67 8 2.50 3 9.17 11 Formal workers Cannot change 44.17 53 46.67 56 90.83 109

Total 50.83 61 49.17 59 100.00 120

On welfare and labor protection, the study indicated that both formal Laos and Cambodian workers relatively received welfare according to the Social Welfare and Labor Protection Act 1998 at almost the same level as Thai workers. Some fell short in areas such as accommodation, work period, overtime wages and so on. Some recruitment company took part in misleading formal workers. As a result, sometimes workers arrived at the workplace and did not receive what they had believed they would get from the workplace. This dissatisfied formal workers and some requested to return home after a short period

118

of work. Table 5.14 shows that 39.17% of samplings were misinformed by their brokers and there were three Lao workers receiving no information at all.

Table 5.14 Information on working and living conditions in Thailand the same as what was promised by recruitment agency


Same as promised % N % N % N

Same as promised 27.50 33 30.83 37 58.33 70 Formal workers Not same as

promised 23.33 28 15.83 19 39.17 47

No description given/ promised

0.00 0 2.50 3 2.50 3

Total 50.83 61 49.17 59 100.00 120

When analyzing those who claimed false information, most formal workers claimed that the described information did not perfectly match what they had been told. Only formal Lao workers claimed that the recruitment agency gave the exact and true information on working hours. Cambodian workers suffered more incorrect information than Laotians: 21.67% about wages, and 20% regarding accommodation. Lao workers barely had this problem. Formal workers also claimed

119

some recruitment agencies do not sufficiently know about workplaces in Thailand, so the given information did not match the reality (see Table 5.15).

Table 5.15 Information not the same as what was promised by recruitment agency


The information which did not match the

situation as promised % N % N % N

Nature of work 8.33 10 4.17 5 12.50 15 Formal workers Salary 21.67 26 6.67 8 28.33 34

Working hour 2.50 3 0.00 0 2.50 3

Overtime work 9.17 11 3.33 4 12.50 15

Day off 4.17 5 0.83 1 5.00 6

Living condition 20.00 24 5.83 7 25.83 31

Risk and dangerous 1.67 2 6.67 8 8.33 10

Others 1.67 2 0.83 1 2.50 3

From in-depth interviews, we learnt that most formal workers did not know what would be deducted from their wages. Some inconsistency from reality was told by the job broker:

120

“…When I signed the deal in Lao, the job broker told me that it is an easy job, good money, free accommodation, and I can choose the job. When I came to work for the company, my wages were deducted to pay various expenses, and no free accommodation. I was charged THB 300 per month. They told me it is for utility bill, social security, and health insurance expenses; he (presumably Lao recruitment Company) did not tell me that this will be deducted...”

[Formal Lao worker in manufacturing sector, aged 22, male]

5.3 Future Prospects

The experience and satisfaction of the formal workers brought to Thailand by recruitment agency service reflect future expectations and needs about whether these workers would like to go back to working in their own country or are willing to continue working in Thailand. There are various reasons for most workers who choose to re-enter Thailand through the same formal recruitment process.

From the satisfaction survey on recruitment agency service, 39.29% of Cambodian workers and 37.86% of Lao workers were satisfied with the service of their agency while the rest which is 10% of Cambodian workers and 5% of Lao, was unsatisfied (see Table 5.16).

121

Table 5.16 Worker satisfaction with the services provided by recruiter


Satisfied with the services % N % N % N

Satisfied 39.29 55 37.86 53 77.14 108 Formal workers Not satisfied 10.00 14 5.00 7 15.00 21

Do not answer 0.71 1 0.00 0 0.00 1

Does not apply 0.71 1 6.43 9 7.14 10

Total 50.71 61 49.29 59 100.00 120

The future prospect survey shows that 27.5% of the Cambodian workers still would like to work within their own country while 22.5% would like to be workers in Thailand and 0.83% refused to join the survey. For Lao workers, 36.60% of the workers desire to work in Thailand and 12.50% would like to work in Laos (see Table 5.17).

122

Table 5.17 The country where the workers expected to work in the future


The country which was expected % N % N % N

Home country 27.50 33 12.50 15 40.00 48 Formal workers Thailand 22.50 27 36.60 44 59.10 77

Do not answer 0.83 1 0.00 0 0.83 1

Total 50.83 61 49.10 59 100.00 120

Home country 5 0 5 Informal workers Thailand 5 10 15

Total 10 10 20

Regarding means of entering to work in Thailand, most (40%) of the Cambodian workers and also 40% of Lao workers decided on legal access and through the recruiter. Nonetheless, 8.33% of Cambodian workers and 9.17% of Lao chose to find their own way and 0.83% of Cambodian workers settled with illegal recruitment company. The remaining 1.67% refused to answer.

123

Table 5.18 Future channel which migrant workers expected when they travel again to work in Thailand


The channel through which the worker will

come to work in Thailand

% N % N % N

Recruitment agency 40.00 48 40.00 48 80.00 96 Formal workers By myself 8.33 10 9.17 11 17.50 21

Informal recruiter 0.83 1 0.00 0 0.83 1

Do not answer 1.67 2 0.00 0 1.67 2

Total 50.83 61 49.10 59 100.00 120

Recruitment agency 2 5 7 Informal workers By myself 8 4 12

Informal recruiter 0 1 1

Total 10 10 20

Legal status and wellbeing were utmost reasons for selecting the recruitment company for future work in Thailand, for 41.67% of Cambodian workers, and also 40% of Lao workers agree on that. While 34.17% of Cambodian workers and 33.33% of Lao workers prefer better security benefits, 31.67% of Cambodian workers and 22.50% of Lao workers choose to use recruitment service due to the reliability also;

124

8.33% of Cambodian workers and 0.83% of Lao workers had faced terrible experiences with illegal agencies.

Table 5.19 Reason for using recruitment agency in the future


Reason to choose recruiter % N % N % N

Legal and safe 41.67 50 40.00 48 81.67 98

More protection 34.17 41 33.33 40 67.50 81

Formal workers

Trust in recruiter 31.67 38 22.50 27 54.17 65

Bad experience with

recruitment agencies 8.33 10 0.83 1 9.17 11

Note: Respondents answered more than 1 choice

There are several reasons for Cambodian migrant workers choosing not to utilize the recruitment company. The main reason in deciding to come to work on their own without the assistance from the agency is due to their previous experience of coming into Thailand by themselves, which reflects in 20% of sampling workers. 16.67% consider that it is faster than coming through the recruitment company, while 10% are cost-concerned and think that the cost is be lower than using the service. Another 10% revealed that it is more flexible for them in order to change their employer.

125

As for Lao workers, the reasons for not utilizing recruitment service are in this order: 34.17% stated that they have experienced of migrate to Thailand by themselves; 14.17% said it costs less than going through the recruitment process; and 12.50% think that without the recruitment process, it is more flexible for them to change employer.

Table 5.20 Reason to come in future by themselves


The reason why they choose to come by themselves % N % N % N

I have an experience in coming to work in Thailand by myself

20.00 24 34.17 41 54.17 65 Formal workers

Faster 16.67 20 16.67 20 33.33 40

Cheaper 10.00 12 14.17 17 24.17 29

Flexibility 10.00 12 12.50 15 22.50 27

I have an experience in coming to work in Thailand by myself

6 8 14 Informal workers

Faster 6 6 12

Cheaper 5 5 10

Flexibility 4 3 7

Note: Respondents answered more than 1 choice

126

5.4 Conclusion

Regarding the impact on Cambodian and Lao migrant workers, major challenges and obstacles are the complex recruitment procedure, delays in handover of the workers; also there is excessive expense and no limit in expenses. Furthermore, government officers are still confused and have gained only limited understanding in worker import procedure. Additionally, the recruitment companies take advantage from legal loopholes, and are able to conceal themselves in the system to deceive prospective migrant workers. Employment contracts between employer and migrant workers are vague, as they do not contain details about job description, job category and comprehensive welfare. These loopholes are exploited by recruitment companies to deceive most of the migrant workers.

From research we found that the wage factor is the main concern for migrant workers, as Cambodian and Lao workers who were imported to work in various areas will gain minimum wage rates according to the particular area, for example the minimum wage rate in Bangkok and peripheral area is 191 Baht, while working in Ratchaburi will gain 154 Baht, and these differences in minimum wage cause concern. However, some migrant workers gain salary which is higher than minimum wage rate due to the employers’ satisfaction with their labor skill.

Although migrant workers get the same rate as Thai workers, some untold variable expense may be deducted from their wages, which

127

leads to some migrant workers’ dissatisfaction, for example accommodation fee, social and health insurance fee may be deducted. Mostly, migrant workers have been told by the agency that their employer will deduct the pre-paid expense from their wage by monthly installments over 10-12 months; this will give workers an opportunity to save some wages.

Regarding working environment and labor protection, we learnt that migrant workers are freely allowed to travel in their free time. Generally, these workers will not go far away, they will likely go to the local retail shop for foods and utilities. However, some Cambodian workers are not allowed to travel due to the employer restricting their workers and not allowing them to leave the workplace. Communication is widely allowed, only 4 Cambodian and Lao workers were found not allowed to communicate with outsiders. Personal documents will be kept by employers or sometimes by the recruitment company, though there were 7 workers who were allowed to keep their own personal documents. Furthermore, research found that most of the migrant workers were aware of the right to change their job while working in Thailand.

Regarding welfare, most of the migrant workers get incorrect information; 47 formal workers gained the wrong information mostly concerning wages issue, then the quality of living, mismatched work description, risky and dangerous work as well as overtime working.

On the future expectations issue, generally, migrant workers are pleased with the recruitment company service. For working

128

prospects, half of the Cambodian workers would like to go back to work in Cambodia while most of Lao workers are willing to continue their work in Thailand. Both Cambodian and Lao workers who still want to work in Thailand are determined to choose the recruitment service as the main reason is that it is legal and safe; secondly, the recruitment company can ensure their welfare and is more reliable. Meanwhile some migrant workers who decide to search for their own job in the future without recruitment company service, gave the reason that they are experienced in working in Thailand, and need less time to process with less expense as well as having the flexibility to change employers.

129

CHAPTER 6

Conclusion and Recommendations

6.1 Conclusion

6.1.1 Policy and Legal Framework

Recruiting the migrant workers from Laos and Cambodia is the Thai government’s policy toward reducing the number of informal migrant workers and to improve the whole system of migrant worker management. According to the memorandum of understanding with both countries, formal recruiters started to recruit migrant workers in 2006, parallel with identifying the nationality of illegal migrant workers who had previously worked and lived in Thailand. The government supported this policy by a cabinet resolution between 2003 and 2006 to sign a memorandum of understanding to accelerate the recruiting of migrant workers both at the border (for seasonal work and day-to-day work) and by yearly contract to recruit workers. Besides, the registration fee was reduced from 2000 Baht to 500 Baht in order to decrease the expenses of migrant workers. At the beginning, there was an intention to recruit 10,000 Lao workers and 10,000 Cambodian workers to Thailand. The Ministry of Labor collaborated with the Lao and Cambodian Embassies to prepare the procedure since June 2007. Up to 2007, there were no laws regarding recruitment agencies which recruit migrant workers into

130

Thailand except the Act on Employment Agencies and Job Seekers Protection (1985) which has been revised.

Thailand in collaboration with its neighboring countries, Cambodia and Laos has already started the formal recruitment policy to solve the labor shortage in Thailand and to promote better protection for formal migrant workers from these two countries. As there is no regulation regarding monitoring the recruiters’ responsibilities in sending countries nor in Thailand, the Thai government has attempted to systematize the recruiters’ role and regulate their responsibilities.

6.1.2 Recruitment Procedure and Role of the Recruitment Agencies

There are 5 steps in order to recruit migrant workers. These are:

(1) State the number of migrant workers needed by employers and get the quota to hire migrant workers,

(2) Submit the notification to bring migrant workers into Thailand,

(3) Recruit migrant workers,

(4) Apply for work permit for migrant workers and Bring migrant workers to the workplace.

131

The Government agencies are involved in the recruitment procedure at different levels. At the national level the Unskilled Foreign Workers Employment System Administration Division, Department of Employment, Ministry of Labor is responsible for setting regulations for recruitment of migrant workers, issuing work permits, and coordinating with government agencies and embassies of the sending countries. At the local level the Provincial Employment Office is responsible for considering the entrepreneurs’ requests and approving the quota for hiring migrant workers. The list of entrepreneurs will be sent to the Ministry of Labor and Thai embassies in sending countries which handle the issuing of visas for the migrant workers.

The entrepreneurs who need to hire migrant workers have to apply for their quota from the Ministry of Labor, and select the recruitment agency in the sending country to recruit workers once the permission is granted. With the issue of the permission, the recruitment agency will then proceed with the visa application for the workers at Thai Embassy. Once the workers migrate into Thailand, the entrepreneurs or their representatives have to pick them up the workplace. The next process is getting workers to have medical check-up as well as applying for their work permit

From this study, it was found that there were three types of brokers and recruitment agencies involved in the recruiting procedure:

132

1. Individual brokers: their roles include working as entrepreneurs’ representatives in applying for certain recruiting steps or to recruit workers;

2. Recruitment agencies in Laos and Cambodia, registered in 2007;

3. Recruiting agencies in Thailand, registered as labor consultants in 2007 (7 recruitment agencies responsible in sending workers from Laos and 11 responsible in sending workers from Cambodia)

In practice, many entrepreneurs hired individual brokers to work for them during the recruiting procedure apart from appointing recruitment agencies in sending countries to recruit workers.

6.1.3 Factors affecting formal recruitment and its process

These factors are the government’s obligation to have a better system and management concerning formal recruitment of migrant workers from Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar, and the need of Thai employers to solve their labor shortage problem. Another factor is the governments of the sending countries require labor protection for their workers regarding appropriate wages, exploitation and maltreatment problems which are often suffered by informal migrants.

Background of Formal Workers and Process of Recruitment

As of June 2007, the number of formal migrant workers in Thailand was 6,792; consisting of 3,164 Laotians and 3,628 Cambodians

133

working in Thailand. From the survey sample, they were in nine provinces which were Bangkok, Nonthaburi, Samut Prakarn; Central and Eastern Thailand: Samut Sakorn, Chonburi, Ratchaburi, Chacherngsao; and Southern Thailand: Nakorn Si Thammarat and Trang. Most of the employing sectors were construction sector, food industry, manufacturing and factory work.

Most of the respondents were in Thailand for less than 1 year as the first recruitment just began in January/February 2006. From 120 survey samples, we found there were more males than females and the average age was between 17 and 35 years, consisting of more single workers than married workers. The majority of Cambodian workers came from Kampong Cham, Battambang, Kampong Chnang, Kampong Thom, Kandal and Takéo, while the majority of Lao workers came from Vientiene and Bolikamxai. The educational level was between primary and secondary education. The main reasons to migrate were because of economic hardship: lack of land, unemployment and debt; the other reason was personal such as seeking experience, wanting to reunite with their families. They entered into recruitment either by contacting recruitment agents or former migrant workers.

6.1.4 Job seeking, recruiters’ services and fees

Information from the study reflected that both the formal and informal migrants learnt about employment opportunities in Thailand from information sources that reached them more easily, like personal

134

sources or public media, rather than seeking for information by themselves.

To motivate more workers and compete with other agencies, exaggerated information was sometimes given by brokers or recruiters. The services of recruitment agencies provided for the migrants include application for identity card and travel document which many migrants did not hold at all. The agencies also arranged for traveling to the border to the workplaces.

Once they were recruited, almost all formal Laotian migrant workers did not pay for their traveling expense beforehand as Thai employers covered all the expenses while some of the Cambodian workers had to pay part of the expenses before departure; the amount they paid was between less than 20 to 429 USD which they had to borrow from their family, bank or recruitment agents. In order to obtain full wage, one formal Laotian migrant paid all expenses including recruitment fee prior his departure though he had to get a loan to pay the amount. The recruitment expense that the formal migrant had to pay comprised the expense for identity and traveling documents which most of the migrants did not have, traveling cost and recruitment fees.

In comparison, the informal workers paid a lower recruiting expense: the total amount they paid was between 21-100 USD. The informal migrants waited less than 1 week before they could start to work in Thailand while over half of formal migrants had to wait longer than 3 months; among them 9 % had to wait longer than 6 months of

135

recruiting process. In spite of the high expense and long waiting period, the main reasons that formal migrants choose recruitment agencies were reliability and safety while informal migrants choose informal brokers because of the lower recruitment expense and the broker’s reputation.

The services of formal recruiting agents for formal migrants include facilitating migrants to obtain travel documents, visa, and to arrange for safe traveling. The formal recruiters’ services lasted up to the post-migration period as while they collected their fees, they also played a protection role and received migrants’ complaints and negotiated with employers at destination in Thailand. There was also some employers’ requirement for recruiters to take on the role of solving migrants’ problems, especially in adjusting themselves to working conditions. In comparison, informal brokers’ services were limited: there was no guarantee of migrant safety during traveling or across the border, no negotiation for wages and welfare, nor did they provide any protection to informal migrants at the workplaces.

6.1.5 Labor contract and pre-departure training

According to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), the working contract has to be signed between formal migrant worker and the employer, and each of them will keep a copy of the contract. The study found that only slightly more than half of migrants answered that they had signed a contract, while the rest had not. The number of Lao workers who signed the contract was almost double Cambodian workers.

136

Among the workers who signed the contract, only a very small number of them (2.5%) did keep a copy of the contract, some of their contracts were kept by recruitment agencies or brokers, and most of the contracts were kept by the employers.

Though almost half of the migrants answered that they did not sign a working contract, it was possible that they signed it without knowing or understanding the details. As the finding indicated that almost all formal workers (93%) signed contracts with recruitment agencies, so these contracts could be working contracts. But there was sometimes a second contract which some recruiting agencies had made with the workers or their families. This kind of contract aimed to bind workers as they had to pay back money or their collateral would be taken if they failed to finish their working term. Different from the first contract, the study shows that the details of this second contract were clearly explained to most of the migrants. Only a small number answered that they were not informed. This contract was mostly kept by recruitment agencies (87%) and about one fourth (27%) of migrant workers kept the copies.

Pre-departure training is another condition stated in the MOU. The training must be provided to the formal migrants prior to their departure. This training aims to prepare the workers for the jobs undertaken and so they can adjust themselves to conditions at the destination. But the research showed that more than half of the formal migrants did not receive any proper training. The longest training that was provided to some migrants was 3 days, while half of formal

137

migrants were provided a few hours or a bit longer orientation training. Over half of formal migrants did not have any orientation at all. Information provided to formal migrants in pre-departure training or orientation was mainly about type of work, working regulations, wages and other fringe benefits such as health care services, holidays. There was no proper training on Thai language or information mentioned regarding formal protection mechanism. There were a few skill training courses such as fish cutting, provided in pre-departure training as mentioned by a small number of respondents.

Lacking of proper pre-departure training and orientation had made these migrants unprepared for working and living conditions and they faced difficulties in adjusting themselves.

It should be noted that the formal migrant workers in this study were found working in some semi-skilled jobs such as sewing, as there was a labor shortage in these sectors as well as in unskilled sectors.

6.1.6 Problems and Challenges of Formal Recruitment

There were many problems and challenges regarding formal recruitment faced by the various groups as follows:

● Formal migrants

Problems that migrant workers faced from formal recruitment were incorrect and unclear information provided to them by recruitment agencies about wages, accommodation and job description. Giving false information was certainly a malpractice of recruitment agencies but

138

there was no compensation given to the formal migrants or any responsibility taken by those agencies.

Such information led to high expectation of formal migrants and difficulty in adjusting themselves at the destination and sometimes made them unable to keep to their working contract. The migrants were the ones who would be blamed for breaking the contracts even though it was caused by being unprepared and improper inadequate training provided. There were no clear penalties applied to the malpractices of the recruitment agencies.

High expenses including recruitment fee, simpler recruiting procedure were other problems that need to be solved. The long waiting period was the most frequent complaint of almost all formal migrants which made some of the migrants choose the informal recruitment channel instead as they need to earn for their living within a shorter period.

● Employers

Employers’ problems were the complexity of the recruiting procedure caused by the bureaucracy system, limited dissemination of information and different practices of government offices regarding the formal recruitment. Though the recruitment expense was almost totally paid by the formal migrants, the employers considered the recruiting expense too high as they had to pay the amount in advance, especially for the large number of formal migrants they hired. Another problem was the supply of migrant workers being less than the demand, and inability

139

of recruitment agencies to replace the number of migrants who broke the contract. The employers also complained about unprepared migrant workers as there was not enough pre-departure training provided to them. In addition there were problems of communication and the difficulties of migrants’ adjustment to working conditions such as working in night shifts, working environment, etc.

● Thai Government officers

The main problem faced by Thai government officers was the lack of protection mechanism for formal migrants. The protection of formal migrants is not prioritized and the monitoring is included in normal inspection procedure which does not meet the needs of migrants who communicate in other different languages. Lack of regulations and laws to control and monitor the recruitment agencies is also another problem that needs addressed by the Thai government sectors.

● Cambodian and Laos Embassy officers

Problems faced by embassies’ officers in Thailand were lack of labor attaché officers. Currently, the formal recruitment was being take care of by embassies’ officers appointed by the embassies. Capacity building training is needed to empower these officers to cope with migrant workers’ problems.

140

● Recruitment agencies

Recruitment agencies faced difficulties in fulfilling demand of employers for formal migrant workers and keeping migrants till the contract ended.

6.1.7 Impact of Formal Recruitment and Future Prospects

● Low supply of formal migrant workers

Considering that the present formal recruitment procedure requires many steps and is time consuming, the services of private recruitment agencies are necessary. The complex procedure, long waiting time and different practices of regulations caused the supply of formal migrants to be much lower than the demanded number.

● Migrant workers’ rights and welfare

Formal recruitment provides migrants with equal rights and welfare as Thai workers. Findings ensured that two thirds of respondents received at least minimum wage and overtime pay according to the labor laws; among them 21% received more than minimum wage. There were some Cambodian migrants (17%) who received less than minimum wage. Most of the migrants had their wages deducted to pay back the recruitment expenses, and the average deduction period was 10-12 months. Most of them had freedom of communication and movement.

There were migrants’ rights which remained unprotected as most of them were not allowed to keep their personal documents

141

including the working contract, and some did not receive appropriate benefits and welfare as stated in the MOU. There was no complaint about changing employers as they understand the contract condition which did not allow them to change jobs before the contract ended.

Though there were some migrants who complained about less overtime work than they expected and they had to pay for shelter, these conditions were hardly considered unprotected rights according to the MOU’s conditions.

● Monitoring and complaint mechanism

The first priority complaint mechanism for formal migrant workers was recruitment agents who collected their fees, followed up the migrant workers’ condition and solved their problems. The formal migrants sometimes brought their complaint to the Embassies in Thailand through the telephone and the Embassy would forward the complaints to relevant Thai organizations: the Ministry of Labor, or recruitment agencies. There is no separate mechanism set up by the Thai Ministry of Labor to monitor migrant workers’ problems but they are included in normal routine labor inspection.

The above information reflects the gap and the lack of a protection mechanism for formal migrant workers who already had to face a communication barrier and difficulty in gaining access to some higher organization for their protection.

142

● Satisfaction with recruiter’s services

The majority of formal migrants were satisfied with the recruiter’s services. The reasons given were safe traveling, better protection and more reliability.

● Future prospects

Most of the formal migrants expressed their satisfaction with formal recruitment and over half of them would like to come to work in Thailand in future and prefer to come through recruitment agencies. There were reasons that some of these migrants, based on their experience, prefer to come on their own in order to save recruiting cost and time, and expected to have more chance to change employers.

The formal recruitment of migrant workers has shown positive impact in providing better protection to migrants in terms of wages, and working and living conditions but a formal monitoring mechanism and sufficient response to solve migrants’ problems on the part of Thai government agencies is still lacking. Due to the current limitation in the government’s manpower and bureaucratic procedure, the private recruiters in sending countries and in Thailand play an important necessary role. The recruiters’ services in providing a safe journey, playing a protection role in negotiating with employers and in some cases solving migrants’ problems while collecting recruitment fees, satisfied most of the formal migrant workers. But there were some malpractices such as false or exaggerated information being provided to formal migrants which was found the most. Currently there are no clear

143

cut regulations or any penalties set out regarding the recruiters’ roles and responsibilities. There was no proper pre-departure training provided to formal migrants although this is stated among the MOU conditions and this caused migrants to be unaware that working conditions would be different from their expectations and they were unprepared to adjust themselves to the situation they faced at the destination. Most formal migrants received their labor rights in term of wages, welfare, freedom of movement and communication but some of their rights such as the right to hold their own personal documents and working contracts remained unprotected. Many of the migrants did not have a clear understanding of working contract details; in addition some formal migrants were made to sign a second contract that bound them to be responsible for breaking the working contract. On the contrary there was no compensation given to them for recruiters’ malpractices or for the working conditions being different from that stated in the contract. High recruiting expenses were required and a long waiting time caused by bureaucratic procedure led to officers accepting bribes or some migrants considered coming to Thailand by themselves or choosing the informal recruiting channel instead. Though it was quite obvious that informal brokers’ services were limited, there was no guarantee of migrant safety during traveling or across border, no negotiation for wages and welfare, or providing any protection to informal migrants at the workplaces.

144

6.2 Recommendations

6.2.1 Recommendation on recruitment policy and procedure

1) The recruitment policy should be made clear to relevant government and labor officers at provincial levels so that there is the same direction in implementation and practice. Allowing some flexibility appropriate to local situations such as working sectors, quota number and approval should be made at local level as they are more knowledgeable to the employers’ need and conditions.

2) The recruitment procedure should be more simplified and disseminated more broadly to encourage more recruitment of formal migrant workers to replace informal ones. Reducing the recruitment cost in both labor sending and receiving countries should be considered.

3) Progressive charges should be made according to quota of hiring migrants.

4) Arrange to set up a labor bank or labor registration in labor sending countries which will allow more supply and avoid competition among recruitment agencies.

5) Consider setting Government to Government bilateral agreements to recruit formal migrants so as to avoid using private recruiters.

6) Set up regulations to include taking care of migrants among the recruitment agencies’ services, not just end their service at countries of origin or at the border.

145

7) Issue the policy to set up a compensation fund for migrant workers.

6.2.2 Recommendations on Labor Protection

1) Provide sufficient and appropriate pre-departure training for migrant workers including information on basic Thai language communication, Thai laws, immigration regulations, common Thai culture and beliefs, work discipline, socialization, family-planning, stress coping, migrant rights, protection services and organizations working to protect their rights. Follow up orientation and skill training should be encouraged and cooperation with employers is necessary to allow formal migrants to join the activities.

2) Setting up formal protection mechanism such as hotline numbers, referral system between non-government, embassies and governments sectors, and schedule for regular monitoring.

3) Allow renewal of work permit for formal migrants who satisfactorily complete their 2 year contract and issue re-entry visa without having to pay recruitment fee.

4) Blacklist the recruitment agencies who offer poor services, provide exaggerated or false information. On the other hand, accredit good practice of recruitment agencies.

5.) Set up a test centre in Thailand or in sending countries for migrants to have their skill tested and certified.

146

6) Set up a compensation fund to compensate formal migrants who are cheated, maltreated or exploited. The amount should be collected from recruitment cost, from employers, recruiters, and governments in both sending and receiving countries.

7) Set up penalty and fine the employers or recruiters who keep migrant workers’ personal documents and contract copy.

6.2.3 Recommendations on Monitoring and Penalties

1) Provide capacity training for Government Officers for better formal recruitment management and monitoring.

2) Provide capacity training for Embassies’ Officers for better coping with migrants’ problems.

3) Blacklist and set up penalty for employers who break the labor laws, ill treat the migrant workers, keep the migrant’s documents or break the contract without reasonable causes. Accredit employers with good practices.

4) Set up regulations for recruiters’ roles, responsibilities and penalty for any maltreatment to migrant workers, breaking agreements, providing exaggerated or false information or purposely cheat employers by providing unqualified migrants. Blacklist bad recruiters and accredit good practice of recruiters.

5) Part of the recruitment fee should be saved for insurance to replace workers for employers in case the migrant worker quit the job.

147

6) Blacklist migrants who quit the job without reasonable causes.

7) Set up an independent organization to monitor and evaluate the recruiters’ responsibility and employers’ maltreatment of migrant workers.

8) Strengthen the cooperation between government and non-government organizations and employers’ organizations to solve recruitment problems.

149

References Chantavanich, S.,Vungsiriphisal, P., Laodamrongchai, S. Thailand

Policies toward Migrant Workers from Myanmar. Asian Research Center for Migration, Institute of Asian Studies, Institute of Asian Studies, Chulalongkorn University, 2006.

Government’s Public Relations Department. Guide book for managing the employment of migrant workers. Bangkok: Government public relations department, 2006.

Muntarbhorn, V. The Mekong Challenge: Employment and Protection of Migrant Workers in Thailand: National Laws/Practices versus International Labour Standards, Bangkok, International Labour Office, 2006.

Office of Foreign Workers Administration, Report of meeting subcommittee for unified systems and foreign workers standards 1/2006.

Office of Foreign Workers Administration, working manual for unified systems illegal workers from Myanmar, Cambodia and Laos, 2004.

Office of Foreign Workers Administration, Report of secretary commission, 2005.

Pearson Elaine, Punpuing Sureeporn and Others. The Mekong Challenge Underpaid, Overwork and Overlooked: The

150

Realities of Young Migrant Workers in Thailand. Bangkok, International Labour Office, 2006.

Report of Royal Thai Embassy in Vientiane, LAO PDR, 4 October 2006.

The Government Public Relations Department and Department of Employment, Guide for Foreign Workers - Unified Systems, 2007.

Transcription of Chief Commission Officer’s Interview, Office of Foreign Workers Administration, 23 July 2007

Transcription of Employer’s Interviews, 20 May 2007 Transcription of Local Staff of Embassy Officer’s Interview, Lao

Embassy in Bangkok, 14 June 2007

A- 1 -

Appendix 1

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF THAILAND AND

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF CAMBODIA ON COOPERATION IN

THE EMPLOYMENT OF WORKERS -------------------------

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF THAILAND AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF CAMBODIA, hereinafter referred to as "the Parties";

RECOGNISING the principles enshrined in "The Bangkok Declaration on irregular Migration of 1999";

BEING CONCERNED about the negative social and economic impacts caused by illegal employment;

DESIROUS of enhancing mutually beneficial cooperation between the two countries;

HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE ARTICLE I

The' Parties shall apply all necessary measures to ensure the

A- 2 -

following: 1) Proper procedures for employment of workers; 2) Effective repatriation of workers, who have completed terms and conditions of employment or are deported by relevant authorities of the other Party, before completion of terms and conditions of employment to their permanent addressed; 3) Due protection of workers to ensure that there is on loss of the rights and protection of workers and that they receive the rights they are entitled to; 4) Prevention of, and effective action against, illegal border crossings, trafficking of illegal workers and illegal employment of workers. This Memorandum of Understanding is not applicable to other existing processes of employment that are already in compliance with the laws of the Parties.

AUTHORISED AGENCIES ARTICLE II

For the purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding, the Ministry of Labour of the Kingdom of Thailand and the Ministry of Social Affairs, Labour, Vocational Training and Youth Rehabilitation of the Kingdom of Cambodia shall be the authorized agencies for the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand and for the Government of the Kingdom of Cambodia respectively.

A- 3 -

ARTICLE III The Parties, represented by the authorized agencies, shall hold regular consultations, at senior official and/or ministerial levels, at least once a year on an alternate basis, on matters related to the implementation of this Memorandum of Understanding. The authorized agencies of both Parties shall work together for the establishment of procedures to integrate illegal workers, who are in the country of the other Party prior to the entry into force of this Memorandum of Understanding, into the scope of this Memorandum of Understanding.

AUTHORITY AND PROCEDURE ARTICLE IV

The Parties shall take all necessary measures to ensure proper procedures for employment of workers. Employment of workers requires prior permission of the authorized agencies in the respective countries. Permission may be granted upon completion of procedures required by laws and regulations in the respective countries. The authorized agencies may revoke or nullify their own permission at any time in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations. The revocation of nullification shall not affect any deed already completed prior to the revocation or nullification.

A- 4 -

ARTICLE V The authorized agencies may through a job offer inform their counterparts of job opportunities, number, period, qualifications required, conditions of employment, and remuneration offered by employers.

ARTICLE VI The authorized agencies shall provide their counterparts with lists of selected applicants for the jobs with information on their ages, permanent addresses, reference persons, education, experiences and other information deemed necessary for consideration by the prospective employers.

ARTICLE VII The authorized agencies shall coordinate with the immigration and other authorities concerned to ensure that applicants, who have been selected by employers and duly permitted in accordance with Article IV, have fulfilled, inter alias, the following requirements:

1) Visas or other forms of entry permission; 2) Work permits; 3) Health insurances or health services; 4) Contribution into savings fund as may be required by the authorized agencies of the respective Parties; 5) Taxes or others as required by the Parties; 6) Employment contracts of employers and workers.

A- 5 -

Contract of the terms and conditions of employment shall be signed between the Employer and Worker and a copy each of the contract submitted to the authorized agencies.

ARTICLE VIII The authorized agencies shall be responsible for the administration of the list of workers permitted to work under this Memorandum of Understanding. They shall keep, for the purpose of reference and review, the lists of workers who report themselves or have their documents certified to the effect that they have returned to their permanent addresses after the end of the employment terms and conditions, for at least four years from the date of report or certification.

RETURN AND REPATRIATION ARTICLE IX

Unless stated otherwise, the terms and conditions of employment of workers shall not exceed two years. If necessary, it may be extended for another term of two years. In any case, the terms and conditions of employment shall not exceed four years. Afterwards, it shall be deemed the termination of employment. A three-year break is required for a worker who has already completed the terms and conditions of employment to re-apply for employment.

A- 6 -

ARTICLE X The Parties shall extend their fullest cooperation to ensure the return of bona fide workers, who have completed their employment terms and conditions, to their permanent addresses.

ARTICLE XI The authorized agencies of the employing country shall set up and administer a saving fund. Workers are required to make monthly contribution to the fund in the amount equivalent to 15 percent of their monthly salary.

ARTICLE XII Workers who have completed their terms and conditions of

employment and returned to their permanent addresses shall be entitled to full refund of their accumulated contribution to the savings fund and the interest by submitting the application to the authorized agencies three months prior to their scheduled date of departure after completion of employment. The disbursement shall be made to workers within 45 days after the completion of employment. In the case of workers whose services are terminated prior to completion of employment and have to return to their permanent addresses, the refund of their accumulated contribution and the interest shall also be made within 45 days after termination of employment.

A- 7 -

ARTICLE XIII Temporary return to country of origin by workers whose terms and conditions of employment are still valid and in compliance with the authorized agencies' regulations shall not cause termination of the employment permission as stated in Article IV.

ARTICLE XIV Procedures and documents required in the application for refund as stated in Article XII shall be set forth by the authorized agencies.

ARTICLE XV The right to refund of their contribution to the savings fund is revoked for workers who do not return to their permanent addresses upon the completion of their employment terms and conditions.

ARTICLE XVI The authorized agencies of the employing country may draw from the savings fund to cover the administrative expenses incurred by the bank and the deportation of workers to their country of origin.

PROTECTION ARTICLE XVII

The Parties in the employing country shall ensure that the workers enjoy protection in accordance with the provisions of the

A- 8 -

domestic laws in their respective country.

ARTICLE XVIII Workers of both Parties are entitled to wage and other benefits due for local workers based on the principles of non-discrimination and equality of sex, race, and religion.

ARTICLE XIX Any dispute between workers and employers relating to employment shall be settled by the authorized agencies according to the laws and regulations in the employing country.

MEASURES AGAINST ILLEGAL EMPLOYMENT ARTICLE XX

The Parties shall take all necessary measures, in their respective territory, to prevent and suppress illegal border crossings, trafficking of illegal workers and illegal employment of workers.

ARTICLE XXI The Parties shall exchange information on matters relating to human trafficking, illegal immigration, trafficking of illegal workers and illegal employment.

A- 9 -

AMENDMENTS ARTICLE XXII

Any amendment to this Memorandum of Understanding may be made as agreed upon by the Parties through diplomatic channels.

SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES ARTICLE XXIII

Any difference or dispute arising out of this Memorandum of Understanding shall be settled amicably through consultations between the Parties.

ENFORCEMENT AND TERMINATION ARTICLE XXIV

This Memorandum of Understanding shall enter into force after the date of signature and may be terminated by either Party in written notice. Termination shall take effect 90 (ninety) days following the date of notification. In case of termination of this Memorandum of Understanding by either Party, for the benefit of the workers, the Parties shall hold consultation on how to deal with employment contracts that are still valid.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being duly

authorised by their respective Governments, have signed this

A- 10 -

Memorandum of Understanding. DONE at Ubon Ratchatani on the Thirty First Day in the Month

of May of Two Thousand and Three of the Christian Ear in English language, in two original copies all of which are equally authentic.

FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF THAILAND THE KINGDOM OF CAMBODIA (Suwat Liptapanlop) (Ith Samheng) Minister of Labour Minister of Social Affairs, Labour, Vocational Training

B- 1 -

Appendix 2

Memorandum of Understanding Between the Royal Thai Government and the Government of Lao

PDR On Employment Cooperation

Both Governments, hereinafter called “the parties” are concerned with the widespread trafficking in human due to common illegal unemployment, and accept the principles in the Bangkok Declaration on Illegal Migration 1999, agree to:

Objectives and Scope Article I

The Parties will take action to realize: 1.1) appropriate procedure in employment 1.2) effective deportation and return of migrant workers who have completed the duration of their work permit 1.3) appropriate labor protection 1.4) Prevention and intervention in

illegal border crossing, illegal employment services and illegal employment of migrant workers. The MOU does not include other measures currently in force in national legal frameworks.

B- 2 -

Authorized Agency Article 2

MOL of Thailand and MOL of Lao PDR are authorized to carry out this MOU.

Article 3

The parties can organize regular high-level meetings at least once a year to discuss matters related to this MOU.

Authority and procedures

Article 4 Employment of workers must be authorized by competent authorities. The competent authorities may cancel work permits issued to individual workers as per the agreement above whenever appropriate within the purview of the parties’ respective national laws. The cancellation will not affect any action already completed prior to the announced date of cancellation.

Article 5

The competent authority of each party can inform its counterpart of labour needs, number of desired workers, duration, qualifications, employment conditions and wages as proposed by concerned employers.

B- 3 -

Article 6 The counterpart competent authority will respond by sending a list of potential workers (name, hometown, reference, education, and other experiences).

Article 7 The competent authorities will work with national immigration services to process: 7.1) visa/other travel document/arrangement 7.2) work permit issuance 7.3) insurance or health insurance 7.4) contribution to the deportation fund 7.5) other taxes as per national regulations

Article 8 Both parties will maintain a list of workers benefited from this MOU. The list will be kept and record the return of the workers until 4 years after the recorded date of return

Return and Deportation Article 9

Unless otherwise specified, each worker will receive a two-year work permit. If renewal is necessary, for whatever reasons, the total term of permit shall not exceed 4 years. Thereafter, the person shall be

B- 4 -

ineligible for work permit. Also, the work permit will expire when the employment of the worker concerned is terminated. Workers who have completed the terms of their work permit can re-apply for work again after three years have passed between the date of the expiration of the first term and date of the reapplication. Exception shall be made when the worker concern had his or her employment terminated under the conditions not of their faults.

Article 10 The parties will collaborate in sending workers home.

Article 11 Workers will contribute 15% of their salary to deportation fund set up by the host country.

Article12 Workers who wish return home can claim their contribution to the fund in full amount with interest. The request must file 3 month before the return date and the money will be paid to the workers within 45 days after the date their employment ends.

Article 13 Home visit during the period of work permit does not end the employment.

B- 5 -

Article 14 The host country will determine the procedure and required documents as per the steps/application mentioned in Article 12.

Article 15 A worker will forfeit his or her right to receive his or her contribution to the deportation fund unless s/he reports him/herself to the designated authority in his/her home country upon his/her return.

Article 16 The competent authority of the host country can use the deportation fund to cover the cost of deportation of workers.

Protection Article 17

The parties will apply national laws to protect the rights of workers (to whom this MOU applies)

Article 18 Workers will receive wage and benefits at the same rate applied to national workers based on the principles of nondiscrimination and equality on the basis of gender, ethnic identity, and religious identity.

B- 6 -

Article 19 Labour disputes will be governed by the host country’s national laws and by its relevant authorities.

Measures on Illegal Employment Article 20

The parties will take necessary measures to prevent and intervene in illegal cross-border labour practices and employment.

Article 21 The parties will share information with regards to human trafficking, undocumented entry, unlawful employment, and unlawful labour practices.

Amendment on the MOU Article 22

Amendment of this MOU requires consultation through diplomatic channels.

Dispute Intervention Article 23

Any conflict arising from this MOU shall be settled through consultation between the parties.

B- 7 -

Enforcement and Cancellation Article 24

The agreements in this MOU are in force upon the date of signing by the representatives of the parties. Cancellation requires written notification and will be in effect 3 months after the date of notification. This MOU is signed at Vientiane, Lao PDR, on 18 October 2002, in the Lao and Thai version. Both versions have similar values.

For the Government of Thailand For the Government of Lao PDR Original Signed Original Signed

Suwat Liptapanlop Sompan Pangkammee Minister of Labour Minister of Labour and Social Welfare Royal Government of Thailand Lao PDR

C- 1 -

Appendix 3

Regulation of the Ministry of Labour in Importing Labour The Legal Employment of Immigrants in Thailand According to the

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

The Employment Department serves and imports immigrants to legally work in Thailand by complying with agreements made between Thailand and other countries. The Employment Department’s role is to be as the center for coordinating in terms of coordination but is not responsible for the direct recruitment of immigrants to work for an employer/establishment in Thailand. Employers/establishments that would like to legally employ immigrants to work in Thailand must proceed as follows: Step 1: Request for Employment of Immigrant (Quota)

1.1 Employers/establishments that would like to legally employ immigrants must hand in their requests to the Employment Office 10 or at the Recruitment office in the province where the establishment is located or the province that the labour will be working. (1) If the employer is a juristic person in the

construction business, the quota must be

C- 2 -

requested using the head office only. If the juristic person is in any business other than construction, the request must be made using the head office of the juristic person or the location where the immigrant will be working that does not hold the same address as the head office.

(2) If the employer is an ordinary person, the request for unskilled labour must be made using the office or the residence in cases of domestic workers.

1.2 Once the employer/establishment is granted permission to hire immigrants, the Department of Employment will issue a quota certification.

Step 2: Submission for Petition in Importing Immigrants into Thailand

2.1 Employers/establishments that have been granted quotas must submit the following documents along with 3 sets of copies (total 4 sets) at the Employment Office 10 or at the Recruitment Office in the Province: (1) Petition for the import of immigrants according

to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

C- 3 -

(2) Copy of permission in employing immigrants (copy of quota)

(3) Copy of the Demand Letter. The employer/establishment must specify the conditions in working

(4) Power of Attorney appointing the recruitment company in the home country to recruit labour for the employer/establishment. The document must specify the name of the recruitment company, in English only. The employer/establishment is responsible for direct coordination of the recruitment

(5) Sample of the filled-in employment contract (6) For juristic persons, documents include copy

of registration, copy of an authorized person’s citizen’s identification card

Documents specified in 2.1(1) (3) (4) and (5) must be filled in by the employer in both Thai and English.

2.2 The Employment Office 10 or at the Recruitment office in the province sends 2 sets of approved documents to the Department of Employment (1 original copy). The employer keeps 1 copy, while the Employment

C- 4 -

Office 10 or at the Provincial Recruitment office in the province keeps 1 copy

2.3 The Department of Employment compiles and checks the documents received from the Employment Office 10 or at the Provincial Recruitment office. The documents are proposed to the Ministry of Labour to issue a notification the the Ministry of Labour in the labour’s home country

2.4 The Department of Employment sends the completed documents to the home country ’s embassy in Thailand. Afterwards, the home country’s embassy in Thailand will send the documents to their Ministry of Labour

2.5 Once the Ministry of Labour in the home country receives the documents from the Thai Ministry of Labour, they will send the requests to the recruitment company (as specified in the request) to further proceed with the recruitment process

2.6 When the recruitment company is able to hire labour, the company wil l send a name list to the home country’s Ministry of Labour to stamp for approval before sending to the employer/establishment in Thailand

C- 5 -

Step 3: Request to Work on Behalf of the Immigrant

3.1 When the employer/establishment receives the approved name list from the home country’s Ministry of Labour in 2.6, the employer must submit the name list and the employer’s documents, stating the border the entry, along with a request to work on behalf of the immigrant at the Provincial Recruitment Office the immigrant wil l be working. If the location is in Bangkok, the documents to be submitted to the Office of Foreign Workers Administration are as follows: (1) The name list as provided and off icial ly

approved by the home countyr’s Ministry of Labour

(2) TT 15 per each individual (3) 2 pieces individual photo of the immigrant,

size 2.5 x 3 cm, taken not longer than 6 months, with name written on the back to prevent from losing

(4) Copy of quota certification After submission of the documents, the employer/establishment must pay for commission fee of 100 Baht per request.

C- 6 -

3.2 The Provincial Recruitment Office send the name list to the Department of Employment

3.3 The Department of Employment proceeds with the transaction, notifies the Thai embassy or consulate in the labour’s home country and to the Immigration Office for further processing for the issuance of visa and permission to reside in Thailand

Step 4: Issuance of Work Permit to the Immigrant

4.1 The recruitment company in the home country takes the labour to request for immigration at the Thai embassy or consulate in the home country. The labour will receive a non-immigrant visa L-A according to the request made by the recruitment company in Step 3.3

4.2 After acquiring visa to enter Thailand to work (Non-Immigrant Visa L-A) from the Thai embassy or consulate, the immigrant is issued permission by the immigration to reside in the Kingdom of Thailand for 2 years. In order to receive work permit as soon as possible, the employer must take the immigrant for medical check-up in the hospital as specified by the Ministry of Health. The employer should coordinated and make an appointment with the hospital beforehand, for efficiency and convenience.

C- 7 -

Information on the hospitals of the Ministry of Health can be asked at the Office of Health Service Development Tel. 02-5901639 or at Provincial Health Offices.

The employer must then submit a work permit request

within the specified period. Documents include: (1) Petition for work permit (2) Copy of result of work permit petition (3) Original passport with 1 copy (4) Medical certificate

4.3 The immigrant must pay for commission fee of 1,800 Baht per year within the time period of the work permit or no later than 1 year.

4.4 The employers/establishments in provinces submit requests according to 4.2 at the Provincial Employment Office while employers/establishments in Bangkok submit at the Office of Foreign Workers Administration. The division will continue with the process o f mak ing the permi t and se t t ing an appointment date to pick up at the permit. The immigrant will need to pay for commission for the period of time of the work permit or no later than 1 year.

C- 8 -

Taking Care of Immigrants/Reporting according to Specified Schedule/Termination of Employment 1. In cases where the employer/establ ishment would want to transfer power to another individual or juristic person for 1transaction,post a 10-Baht stamped envelop along with a copy each of the citizen’s identification of the employer and the person the authority is transferred to. For multiple transactions, post a 30-Baht stamp. 2. Once the employer/establishment has hired the immigrant, the employer must treat the immigrant according to the condition of the Labour law, such as applying for social security and payment of wages and benefits 3. For termination of immigrants, the procedures are as follows: 3.1 Take the immigrant to the Department of Employment for notification of resignation or termination. If the immigrant moved out or left without notice, the employer/establish must give notice within 15 days (in this case, should notify the police as well). For provinces, notification can be made at the Provincial Recruitment Office and at the Office of Foreign Workers Administration for those in Bangkok. The immigrant needs to return the work permit as well. 3.2 The employer takes the immigrant out of the country and notifies immigration at all borders.

C- 9 -

June 2007

Ministry of Labour Department of Employment

Office of Foreign Workers Administration Tel.02-3541723 Fax 02-354172

D- 1 -

Appendix 4 Name list of Cambodian Recruitment Companies that send labour to other countries, guaranteed by the Ministry of Labour in Cambodia

as of February 2007.

No. Recruitment

Company Name Location of

Recruitment Company Tel. No.

1 CDM Trading Manpower Co.,Ltd

No.20, St.265, Sangkat Toeuk La Ork, Khan Tuol Kork, Phnom Penh City, Kingdom of Cambodia

011–28 4444 012–490 906 Fax: 023–353 538

2 Human Resources Development Co.,Ltd

No.144EQ, St.146 On Mao Tsc Tung Blvd.,Sangkat Toeyk Laak II, Khan Tuol Kork, Phnom Penh City, Kingdom of Cambodia

855 – 23 – 880 773 Fax: 855 – 23 – 882 980

3 Top Manpower Co.,Ltd

No.68, St.122, Sangkat Phsadepo3, Khan Tuol Kork, Phnom Penh City, Kingdom of Cambodia

855–23–987 890 Fax: 855–23–987 822

4 Human Power No.2D, St.335, Sangkat 855–12–600 996

D- 2 -

No. Recruitment



Co.,Ltd Boeung Kak 1, Khan Tuol Kork, Phnom Penh City, Kingdom of Cambodia

5 S.T.P. International (Cambodia) Public Co.,Ltd

No 168, Preah Norodom Bvld, Sangkat Tonlebasak, Khan Chamkarmorn, Phnom Penh City, Kingdom of Cambodia

855–23–982 922 855–23–987 837 Fax: 855–23–369 329

6 May Yorn Service Co.,Ltd

No 6, St 402, Sang Kat Turnnup Toek, Khan Chamkarmorn, Phnom Penh City, Kingdom of Cambodia

855–23–355 353 Fax: 855–12–445 855

7 Philimore Cambodia Co.,Ltd

No.10 – 12, St.528, Sangkat Boeung Kak 1, Khan Yuol Kork, Phnom Penh City, Kingdom of Cambodia

Tel. + Fax : 855–23–88 11 33

8 Chhun Hong Manpower Co.,Ltd

St.Veng Sreng – Sorla, Sangkat Stoeung Meanchey,Khan Mean

Tel. 855–23–880 497 855–23–424 175

D- 3 -

No. Recruitment



Chey, Phnom Penh City, Kingdom of Cambodia

Fax: 855–23–424 175

9 UNG Rithy Group Co.,Ltd

No.392, St.271, Sangkat Tumnup Toeuk, Khan Chamkarmorn, Phnom Penh City, Kingdom of Cambodia

Tel. 855–12–365 777 855–12–678 997 855–16–287 007

10 Cambodia Labour Supply PTY.Ltd

No 161B, Norodom Blvd, angkat Boeung Kengkangl, Khan Chamkarmon, Phnom Penh City, Kingdom of Cambodia

Tel. 855–23–215 323 855–12–902 823 Fax:: 855–23–215 322

D- 4 -

Name list of Laotian recruitment companies that send labour to other countries, guaranteed by the Ministry of Labour in Laos as of February 2007.

No. Recruitment



1 LAO STATE EMPLOYMENT ENTERPRISE (LSEE)

Omoong Village, Luang Prabang Rd. Sikhottabong District, Vientiane, Lao PDR

(856 – 21) 250 993 (856 – 21) 222 635

2 LANEXANG LABOUR STATE ENTERPRISE (Co.,LTD)

Nahaidiao Village, Chandhabould District, Vientiane, Lao PDR

(856 – 20) 551 5932 (856 – 21) 216 800

3 LAO LABOUR PROMOTION (LLPC, Co.,LTD)

Thatkhao Village, Sisattanak District, Vientiane, Lao PDR

(856 - 20) 593 6831 (856 – 30) 525 7537 (856 – 21) 264 084

4 XAYA EMPLOYMENT (XE,Co.LTD)

Vattay Village, Sikhottabong District, Vientiane, Lao PDR

(856 – 21) 226 3516 (856 – 20) 561 3675 (856 – 21) 214 431

D- 5 -

No. Recruitment



5 INTER LABOUR CO.,LTD E- mail : [email protected]

Mixay Village, Chandhabouly District, Vientiane, Lao PDR

(856 – 21) 241 012 Fax(856– 21)244 217 Mobile: 856202401607

6 DEAUNSAVAN EMPLOYMENT COMPANY

Nahe Village, Sikhottabong District, Vientiane, Lao PDR

(856 – 21) 620 936 (856 – 20) 541 8177

7 SINXAI EMPLOYMENT SERVICE

261/02 Nongbon Rd., Nongbon Village, Xaisetha District, Vientiane, Lao PDR

(856 – 20) 552 0463 (856 – 21) 264 120 (856 – 21) 264 119

8 BOUASAVAN EMPLOYMENT Co.,LTD

Somsanouk Village, Sayfong District, Vientiane, Lao PDR

(856 – 20) 551 7442 (856 – 21) 313 187

9 STATE ENTERPRISE BORRIKHAMXAY PROVINCE

Phonxay Village, Borrikhamxay District Borrikhamxay Province

(856 – 45) 212 098 (856 – 20) 233 5691

E- 1 -

Appendix 5 ILO Research

“Migrant recruitment from Cambodia and Lao PDR to Thailand”

A. Survey of migrant workers

Informed consent

Hello, my name is ……………………….. . I am an interviewer for a ILO research project examining the recruitment of workers to Thailand. The findings of this research will lead to policy recommendations and programmes which should benefit migrant workers by promoting safe and legal channels for migration.

We have a number of questions to ask you. Please be assured that your responses will be kept strictly confidential. We do NOT need your name. The information that you give will be used solely for the purpose of this study. The interview will take approximately 30 minutes and we will note down your responses.

You can choose whether you would like to participate in the survey. If you do not want to answer a question, you can choose not to. In addition you can end the interview at any point. We would like to encourage you to participate and assist us by providing honest responses to the questions. Your views are very important. If you have any further queries about the survey please let me know.

May I start the interview now? Proceed/Stop

E- 2 -

Name of interviewee:

Date of interview:

Place of interview:

Name of interviewer:

Work sector:

Manufacturing (e.g. textile/garment)

Food processing

Construction

Duration of current/recent work in Thailand: ……………..months ……………….years

Instructions for questions: None: Interviewer to choose based on answer given Yes/No/NA: Interviewer to choose based on answer given List: Read out the options to interviewee Did a recruiter help you to go and work in Thailand? Yes/No <If yes, proceed. If no, terminate interview now.> 1: Background

1.1 Sex: Male / Female 1.2 Age:

E- 3 -

1.3 Marital status: Single / Married / Divorced / Widow / Cohabitating

1.4 Place of origin:

Village...………...........District………...…Commune………….Province…...……

1.5 Education (number of years in school): 1.6 Household size (number of people):

2: Recruitment and sending

2.1 Did you decide to migrate to Thailand by yourself? a) Yes b) No

2.2 If no, who made the decision for you to migrate to Thailand?

a) Spouse b) Parents c) Brothers/sisters d) Relatives e) Boyfriend/girlfriend f) Recruiter g) others (specify)

2.3 Why did you decide to migrate? (List the options - Tick 3 only):

a) Economic (poverty, lack of employment, debts) b) Family (going with or join family/friends)

E- 4 -

c) Social network (know the recruiter, positive experiences from returnees)

d) Personal (adventure, new experiences) e) Problems at home (e.g. domestic violence, relationship

problems) f) Escape risks and dangers at place of origin (e.g. flooding

or environmental disaster, conflict) g) Others (specify)

2.4 Who is your recruiter? (Tick one only)

a) Someone known to you and family b) Broker in Cambodia/Laos c) Broker in Thailand d) Recruiting company e) Employer f) Others (specify)

2.5 Is your recruiter a licensed company?

a) Yes b) No c) Don’t know <If yes – then use formal recruiter questions If no – then use informal recruiter questions>

E- 5 -

2.6 How were you recruited? (Tick one only) a) Newspaper/Radio/TV ads (mass media) b) Notices c) Labour agents d) Word of mouth e) Others (specify)

f) Does not apply

2.7. What do you consider when using a formal/informal recruiter? (List options –tick 3 only)

a) Trust/reliability b) Services provided c) Speed d) Costs e) Safety and protection (legality of movement, insurance and

welfare) f) Availability of information and support services

2.8 What types of services did your formal/informal recruiter

provide? (List options - tick 3 only) a) Job placement b) Helping to make travel and/or ID documents c) Pre-departure orientation or training d) Arranging for free or cheap accommodation at destination e) Follow up or support at destination

E- 6 -

f) Access to complaints mechanism (if problem at destination) g) Facilitation to open bank accounts and/or facilitation of sending remittances h) Arranging for safe travel across border and to destination i) Others (specify)

2.9 Was the process of obtaining work in Thailand simple or

complicated? a) Simple b) Complicated

2.10 From the time of deciding to migrate, how long did it take for you to start work in Thailand? ……………days…………….weeks……………months

2.11 Were you aware of the risks and dangers involved in migrating through an informal recruiter?

a) Yes b) No (go to 2.14)

2.12 If yes, how did you know? a) Recruiter informed me b) Someone in village informed me c) NGOs informed me through awareness raising activities d) From media reports e) Others (specify)

E- 7 -

2.13 How much did you pay your recruiter? a) Nothing

b) Not sure c) ……………..USD

2.14 Did you loan money to pay the recruiter (i.e. for the costs of

travel and finding a job in Thailand)? a) Yes b) No (If no, go to 2.17) 2.15 If yes, who provided the loan? a) Recruiter b) Family c) Moneylender d) Bank e) Others 2.16 Was your salary deducted in order to pay the recruitment fee? a) Yes b) No c) Not applicable d) don’t know 2.17 If yes, how was it deducted? a) Full deduction of salary for ……….months b) Partial deduction salary for ………months (state percentage of salary: %)

E- 8 -

2.18 Are you satisfied with the services provided by your recruiter? a) Yes b) No

3. Information disclosure at pre-departure

3.1 Before leaving for Thailand, did your recruiter provide clear and adequate information on what to expect? (Yes/No to each item on List)

a) Nature of work (type of job) - Yes/No b) Wages – Yes/No c) Working hours – Yes/No d) Living conditions – Yes/No e) Healthcare services – Yes/No f) Termination of employment – Yes/No

For formal recruitment only (i.e. if Yes to 2.5)

3.2 Did you sign a contract with your recruiter? a) Yes b) No (go to 3.6) c) Don’t know

3.2 If yes, did you recruiter explain the contents of the contract(s) clearly before you sign?

a) Yes b) No

3.3 Did you keep a copy of the contract(s)? a) Yes (go to 3.6) b) No

E- 9 -

3.4 If no, who kept it? a) Employer b) Recruitment agency c) Don’t know d) Others (specify) 3.5 Did you undergo pre-departure training? a) Yes b) No (go to 4) 3.6 If yes, how long was the training/orientation?

………….weeks…………..months 3.10 If yes, would you recommend other migrants going to Thailand to have the same pre-departure training/orientation? a) Yes b) No

3.11 Did you sign a contract with your employer? a) Yes b) No (go to 4.1) c) Don’t know 3.12 Did you keep a copy of the employment contract(s) whilst

working in Thailand? a) Yes b) No 3.13 If no, who kept it? a) Employer b) Recruitment agency c) Don’t know

d) Others (specify)

E- 10 -

4. Situation at workplace

4.1 Were your working and living conditions in Thailand the same as what was promised (informal recruitment) or described in your contract (formal recruitment)?

a) Yes b) No c) No description given/promised

4.2 If no, which part was different? (List and tick all that apply)

a) Nature of work b) Salary c) Working hours d) Overtime pay e) Rest days f) Living conditions g) Risks and dangers h) Other (specify)

4.3 What were your wages? …………………THB per day or month 4.4 Did you have freedom of movement (to go outside the

workplace or living quarters when you were not working)? a) Yes b) No

E- 11 -

4.5 If no, who restricted your freedom of movement? Do not prompt. Tick one only a) Employer b) recruiter c) family members d) workmates e) police f) myself g) others (specify)

4.6 Did you have freedom of communications? (e.g. to call or write

to your family) a) Yes b) No

4.7 Did you hold/have possession of your original ID documents

whilst working in Thailand? a) Yes b) No c) Did not have any ID documents

4.8 If no, who held them?

a) Employer b) Recruitment agency c) Thai authority d) Others (specify)

E- 12 -

4.9 Can you change your job or employer whilst working in Thailand? a) Yes b) No 4.10 Would you prefer to work in your home country than Thailand? a) Yes b) No 4.11 If you travelled again to work in Thailand, would you do so

through (Tick one only): a) Recruitment agency b) Informal recruiter c) Myself

4.12 Why so? (Tick 3 only) Answer Yes or No

a) Legal and safe (not subject to arrest or deportation as illegal worker, safe travel to destination)

b) More protection e.g. Guaranteed wages and rights under contract

c) Bad experience with informal recruiters a) Cheaper b) Faster c) Trust in recruiter d) Bad experience with recruitment agencies e) Flexibility (can change jobs or come home if I want)

E- 13 -

f) I’m experienced at going to Thailand so I know how to do it

g) Others (specify)