I live in a condominium that is being expanded. Two contractors, one handling landscaping and another construction, employ crews of young Hispanic men who many of us suspect are undocumented. They work long hours, seven days a week, including holidays, even Christmas. They speak little English and seem wary of interacting with residents.
Some of us worry that the contractors are exploiting them, paying less than minimum wage, denying overtime and warning them against speaking with outsiders because of their precarious situation. Our state labor department can investigate, but it would need witnesses and cooperation. These men live in the shadows and are unlikely to do anything that might jeopardize their jobs or safety.
There is another concern, too. Other contractors, using authorized workers who are paid properly, are underbid by vendors who use “off the books” labor. Our condo board doesn’t seem ready to rock the boat, and while it might try to force the landscaper to hire documented labor, it has no control over the construction, which is being done by a developer’s contractor.
How should we balance our concern for these men with the risk of putting them in the cross hairs? They may be here “illegally,” but it seems wrong to ignore their exploitation. — Name Withheld
From the Ethicist:
A century ago, the great social theorist Max Weber contrasted the ethic of conviction with the ethic of responsibility. The first is about the purity of your intentions and your values: You act in accordance with those values, and if harm results, well, that’s not your concern. The second, though, makes you accountable for the foreseeable consequences of your sterling deeds. Now you’re a person of conscience; you’ve seen something wrong, and you want to set it right. Yet if your ultimate concern is the welfare of these workers, your hesitation is justified. Take it on yourself to represent their interests and blow the whistle on their exploitation, and you could leave them worse off.
In a variety of ways, the current administration in Washington has made the exploitation of undocumented workers easier. Officially, federal labor and employment laws cover all workers regardless of immigration status. But the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website has archived or removed much guidance on worker protections. Previous protections for undocumented workers involved in labor-enforcement investigations have been rescinded or curtailed. Under the law, the I.R.S. is bound by strict privacy rules, and all workers, whatever their immigration status, must pay taxes and are subject to tax withholding. (In 2022, undocumented workers paid nearly a hundred billion dollars in local, state and federal taxes.) Last year, however, the I.R.S. broke with longstanding precedent and agreed to an information-sharing arrangement with ICE. (Federal courts have found that the I.R.S. most likely violated taxpayer-privacy laws, in cases that are proceeding.) When workers fear that tax or wage records could be used against them, they’re more likely to want to stay off the books, which gives exploitative employers more power over them. A similar dynamic can be seen on the ground: After a raid on a Philadelphia carwash, ICE said it was responding to allegations of labor exploitation. Of course, the people arrested were the workers, not the employers.
And if the condo board did rock the boat, who would get washed overboard? Would these men be treated better? Or put out of work, or moved on to a job where nobody would notice whether they were being exploited? If you were able to consult the workers, you might find that preserving their income from a bad job was, in their view, the least harmful outcome right now.
Before you pressure the board or alert the state authorities, then, get in touch with a local immigrant-worker organization or legal-aid employment lawyer. You don’t have to be an expert to behave conscientiously, but — as that ethic of responsibility would urge — you do have to know what you don’t know.
Readers Respond
The previous question came from a reader who was unsure of how to support her unemployed sister. She wrote:
My older sister is nearing the end of a brutal divorce and is struggling financially and emotionally. … She has not worked for years and is now thousands of dollars in debt from legal fees and years without income. She says she cannot work because of health problems, a series of diagnoses and self-diagnoses. We do not want to dismiss her health concerns, but every conversation seems to bring a new reason she cannot look for work. My younger sibling and I want to help. … But we worry that financial support may enable her rather than help her. … We cannot take responsibility for her expenses. Still, as she runs out of time to find a new place to live, we feel trapped between two bad choices: watching her sink further into debt and despair, or offering support that could draw us into a long-term obligation while allowing her to avoid taking responsibility for her life. Is there a responsible middle ground? — Name Withheld
In his response, the Ethicist noted:
You’ve identified the two main ethical issues involved here. First, your sister should be encouraged to take responsibility for her own life. … Second, you and your younger sibling have your own lives, which come with their own sets of responsibilities. Whatever financial assistance you offer, then, should be limited in amount and duration. It should also be conditioned on your sister’s taking specific steps that can improve her chances of stability. … It’s equally important, in view of her reported incapacities, that she receive a proper evaluation, involving a doctor or a mental-health professional. If she resists those steps? It won’t do to fund the consequences of habitual avoidance while leaving the underlying problems unaddressed. … The key is to help her become more fully in charge of her life and to keep yourselves from being drawn into an open-ended role that ultimately helps no one.
(Reread the full question and answer here.)
⬥
Your “warm, lovely” sister “misrepresented” — or lied to you about — her employment for 10 years, and this doesn’t factor into your decision? You don’t think you’re being manipulated? The best thing you can do for her, as the Ethicist says, is steer her toward professional evaluation. — Diane
⬥
Clearly, your sister needs help emotionally and financially. Once you get past your own anger and resentment, you can be helpful. Do not expect any repayment, and do not expect her to change. Open your heart and give her what you’re willing to give her on a regular basis, and then let go. Once she knows she doesn’t have to worry about money to a certain extent, perhaps she will relax and become more capable. Reach into your heart for compassion. Remember, someday you may need help, and hopefully there will be someone to help you out like you are helping your sister. Try not to analyze it away by calling it enabling. Your sister needs you, and thank God she has you. — Marilyn
⬥
Your sister needs professional help and a diagnosis if she truly cannot work. You can best serve her by encouraging or requiring her to seek mental health treatment. A professional may be able to assist her in getting a job or recommend that she apply for Social Security disability. You need more information in order to make a decision. Effective support does not always mean giving money without clear, defined expectations. — Nancy
⬥
The sister sounds like so many of the Social Security disability cases I see. Pain and fictitious diagnoses as the reason people can’t work. Offer nothing financially even if limited, only your emotional support. Any financial aid only enables her. She has to take responsibility for her ability to work. — Barbara
⬥
I would respect your sister’s claims of illness. The best way to get her on her feet is to find out what is wrong with her. Do not dismiss claims of illness of any kind. It is my experience that someone does not “pretend” to be disabled or incapacitated. — Kimberlee
The post I Think the Workmen at My Condo Are Being Exploited. What Should I Do? appeared first on New York Times.
