Elimi­na­ting the exploi­ta­tion of workers through hard and long-term work

“Although studies have shown that there is a lot of racism in Finland, this rarely comes up in my work as my focus is on the oversight of emplo­yers. Racism in the more broad form of unequal treat­ment, however, is somet­hing that I do see in my work,” says Katja-Pia Jenu, Senior Officer at the Division of Occupa­tional Safety and Health of the Regional State Admini­stra­tive Agency for Southern Finland.

“At the Division of Occupa­tional Safety and Health, we have a separate helpline for well-being at work and discri­mi­na­tion cases that people can contact if they have perso­nally encoun­tered discri­mi­na­tion or racism.”

In her role, Jenu oversees that emplo­yers using foreign labour comply with the minimum pay and other terms of univer­sally binding collec­tive agree­ments. Among other things, this means that the wages and other terms of emplo­y­ment of foreign workers must be in line with those of other emplo­yees of the company or other compa­nies in the same industry.

Accor­ding to Jenu, she rarely comes across situa­tions in which the exploi­ta­tion of foreign workers in the form of signi­ficantly lower pay or longer hours, for example, is done for purely ideolo­gical reasons.

“Discri­mi­na­tion at work takes many forms. People who have perso­nally experienced discri­mi­na­tion can contact us through the helpline. In my work, I encounter discri­mi­na­tion as part of work-related exploi­ta­tion, with financial gain the under­lying reason in nearly all cases.”

ISSUES WITH WAGES ARE COMMONPLACE

Accor­ding to the oversight report by the Occupa­tional Safety and Health Admini­stra­tion, last year, regional state admini­stra­tive agencies carried out more than 2,200 inspec­tions of compa­nies using foreign labour in Finland.

About half of the inspec­tions concerned the enforce­ment of minimum terms of emplo­y­ment. Many shortco­mings were observed. Inspec­tors of regional state admini­stra­tive agencies reported problems with wages in nearly half, or 47%, of inspec­tions where the issue was under evaluation.

Issues related to wages varied in their degree of severity. In some compa­nies, the shortco­mings were minor, such as unpaid evening supple­ments, while others had evidence of serious work-related exploitation.

“The results clearly show that problems with the payment of wages are commonplace. Still, it should be kept in mind that the compa­nies were selected for inspec­tion based on risk estimates, which means that we are either aware of problems in the industry or have received an inspec­tion request from a third party or another public autho­rity or some other kind of tip-off.”

In addition, Jenu stresses that problems with the payment of wages come in many shapes and forms. Minor shortco­mings are clearly more common that serious violations.

Work-related exploi­ta­tion is almost always driven by financial gain.

Last year, inspec­tors also monitored compa­nies’ compliance with the prohi­bi­tion of discri­mi­na­tion. This means that emplo­yees cannot be discri­mi­nated in terms of pay based on their origin or nationality.

The autho­ri­ties issued a total of 113 injunc­tions related to the ban of discri­mi­na­tion. In other words, viola­tions of the ban were observed in 11% of inspec­tions. The number of injunc­tions was at the same level as in 2022.

In the super­vi­sion of seasonal labour, regional state admini­stra­tive agencies carried out a total of 69 inspec­tions related to the ban on discri­mi­na­tion. Of these emplo­yers, 9% were issued an injunc­tion for failing to comply with the ban.

“Situa­tions in which an injunc­tion has been issued are clear cases of discri­mi­na­tion, where the employer has not been able to disprove the presumed discri­mi­na­tion detected by the inspec­tion. Sometimes, the situa­tion is not that clear. There are workplaces where discri­mi­na­tion is suspected to have taken place but cannot be proved due to the employer’s failure to keep track of working hours, for example.”

“In serious viola­tions of the law and criminal offences, the inspector is required to report the matter to the police. Last year, regional state admini­stra­tive agencies filed 24 police reports for discri­mi­na­tion and extor­tion in emplo­y­ment and 5 reports for human trafficking.”

AT-RISK INDUSTRIES UNDER SCRUTINY

Most of the inspec­tions performed by the autho­ri­ties last year focused on hospi­ta­lity and food service compa­nies. Construc­tion firms made up a slightly smaller percen­tage of the total. Industrial compa­nies accounted for 6% and compa­nies that employ seasonal workers 8% of the inspections.

Jenu says that the industries covered by the inspec­tions are based on obser­va­tions from previous years, tip-offs received and the degree to which foreign labour is used in the industry. However, no industry is outside the scope of the autho­ri­ties’ inspections.

“For example, we receive very few requests for inspec­tion and tip-offs for industrial compa­nies. The number of inspec­tions in industrial sectors could be higher if more requests for inspec­tion were filed. It’s good to keep in mind that the autho­ri­ties can also be tipped off anonymously.”

LONG-TERM WORK IS NEEDED

Jenu believes that preven­ting exploi­ta­tion in emplo­y­ment requires diverse and long-term efforts.

“Infor­ming workers about the terms of emplo­y­ment in Finnish workplaces is one method. An example of this is the Industrial Union’s Hermes app. It is also impor­tant that there are channels through which people can report problems. This requires ensuring that autho­ri­ties and non-profits have the neces­sary resources,” Jenu says.

“In addition, if and when problems arise, viola­tors must be held crimi­nally liable. A sufficient number of prece­dent cases are needed in which the employer is penalised for exploi­ta­tion. Prece­dents help prevent exploi­ta­tion and encou­rage the repor­ting of similar problems in the future.”

Read the article in Finnish!