The issue of labor migration, mainly from Central Asia, again came
into the focus of public attention The issue of labor migration, mainly from Central Asia, again came
into the focus of public attention, due to the recent arrest and trial
of a Russian pilot in Tajikistan, which was followed by the
expulsion of hundreds of Tajiks from the country.
"Russkaya Gazeta" notes that two years ago the number of migrant workers in Russia ranked first in Europe and second in the world after the United States. Up to 2 million foreign nationals arrive in Moscow annually. Only a small proportion of them are officially employed. These workers mostly fill the low-skilled labor market and allegedly
aggravate the crime situation in Moscow. Recently, the chief state
sanitary doctor of Russia, Yevgeny Onishchenko, said that migrant
workers reveal many cases of HIV infection and tuberculosis, adding
that a natural solution in this case could be a total ban on the use of
labor migration from states that cannot ensure a minimal health
policy.
Meanwhile, back in 2007, the special envoy of the OSCE to combat human
trafficking, Helga Konrad, recommended Russia to create a special agency
to combat it. In the same year a
study was conducted for the first time that showed that workers do not trust law-enforcement agencies
and suspect the diaspora of willing to enslave them. All these factors
lead them to unite in voluntary or involuntary networks.
Valentina Chupikova, a lawyer and a specialist on migration, presented
the nature and structure of informal networks of migrants in her
report "Immigrants: Slavery of the 21st century". A
study of these associations was conducted for the first time in 2007, and then repeated
in 2009 and 2011. According to the survey, there were many more
independent migrants in 2007. The most common explanation was that the
easing of the legal regulation in 2006-2007 gave the migrants a
sense of euphoria that they can survive in Russia by themselves. At the
same time, in 2007 there were fewer members of voluntary members' networks
and more functionaries (people employed by the network-owners to
interact with the members of the network).
The global economic crisis increased the membership in the networks.
In addition, in 2009 the number of people forced
to become members of informal networks drastically increased. Valentina Chupikova stressed
that these people are basically enslaved. They are usually deprived of
their passports and do not receive money before they go home.
In 2011, more than half of the migrants were voluntarily involved in
networks, or “brigades” as they are usually called, while about 13%
were forced to do so. Voluntary networks have between 30 and 50
members and 2-3 functionaries, while a forced network unites about 80
workers and 8-10 foremen.
There are several ways to join the network. A stable number of
people is brought by the functionary, who is both a recruiter and the
transporter and basically organizes the illegal migration, because, as
Chupikova said, “labor migration from Uzbekistan without the
personal permission of the Prime Minister is always illegal.” Many
migrants are brought by their relatives or friends. In 2007 it was
often slavery recruitment, while in 2011 it was more help, the
desire to put your relative in a good organization. Some people become
members of a network because they could not otherwise find a
job, because they lost their documents, did not get a work permit or
their legal status is expired. According to Chupikova, there are
some cases of migrants beng sold from one foreman to
another - a typical example of the human trafficking that was
wide-spread in the mid-2000s.
The attitudes of migrants towards the networks include several variants:
“It is the same everywhere”, “I just put up with it”, “I am used to
this foreman”, “It is easier to find housing and jobs”.
Valentina Chupikova showed that the migrant flow is characterized by a
significant preponderance of men between 20 and 45. Ethnicity
influences the involvement in the network, but not as much as the
region of origin. Profession, however, does not affect
participation in the informal associations.
Chupikova also presented some data on the citizenship background of
the migrants who used her hotline to get assistance. She concludes
that the citizens of Azerbaijan rarely experience difficulties, while
the Armenians and Georgians who contacted her were always
independent migrants and the members of a network. The Kazakhs, in
their turn, are either members of voluntary networks or the
owners of networks composed of Uzbeks and Kyrgyz. Interestingly,
the non-Russian citizens of Russia are forced into networks equally
frequently as the citizens of Uzbekistan.
Independent migrants are more likely to be officially registered in
migration services, but those who in the voluntarily networks more
often have a work permit. Ironically, the forced members of the
network are most likely to be legally employed, which is connected to
the fact that they are basically sold to their employing enterprise,
while part of their salary is given directly to the foremen.
Almost all network members receive a guaranteed minimum wage and
regardless of whether forced or voluntary members are provided with
housing and meals. According to Chupikova, the advantages of the
independent migrants include free disposal of their time and money
and a choice of jobs and housing. However, this sense of security
against the law-enforcement agencies and the employers is more typical
of members of voluntary networks.
The expenditures of the migrants include several points. First of all,
they send money home through informal networks or bank transfers. The
independent migrants can spend on health and education while the
budget of the network migrants includes network fees and
requisitions. Some part of the money can also go on legalization
through intermediaries, fake documents and bribes to the police.
Housing and food expenses occupy quite a small place in the budget of
the migrant worker.
The problems that face the members of the informal organizations
include unfounded money requisitions, hindrance to
legalization and the compulsion to buy fake documents, forced
employment and enslavement for debts, as well as physical and
psychological abuse and humiliation.
At the end of her presentation Valentina Chupikova revealed the
amazing profit figures of these informal associations. Her study found that Moscow networks working
with Uzbeks alone make a profit of 5.5 billion rubles a month, while the
minimum monthly wage of the workers varies between 5 and 15 thousand
rubles.
