Rebuilding
After
Katrina
A Population- Based Study of Labor
and Human Rights in New Orleans June 2006
International Human Rights Law Clinic, Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley
Human Rights Center, University of California, Berkeley
Payson Center for International Development and Technology Transfer, Tulane University
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CLINIC
BOALT HALL SCHOOL OF LAW
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
The International Human Rights Law Clinic ( IHRLC) designs and implements innovative human rights projects to advance the
struggle for justice on behalf of individuals and marginalized communities through advocacy, research, and policy development.
The IHRLC employs an interdisciplinary model that leverages the intellectual capital of the university to provide innovative so-lutions
to emerging human rights issues. The IHRLC develops collaborative partnerships with researchers, scholars, and human
rights activists worldwide. Students are integral to all phases of the IHRLC’s work and acquire unparalleled experience generating
knowledge and employing strategies to address the most urgent human rights issues of our day. The IHRLC works closely with the
UC Berkeley Human Rights Center.
HUMAN RIGHTS CENTER
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
Founded in 1994 with the assistance of The Sandler Family Supporting Foundation, the Human Rights Center ( HRC) is a unique
interdisciplinary research and teaching enterprise that reaches across academic disciplines and professions to conduct research on
emerging issues in international human rights and humanitarian law. The HRC complements and supports the work of nongov-ernmental
human rights organizations by drawing upon the creativity and expertise of researchers from several diverse university
programs and departments including anthropology, demography, environmental sciences, geography, journalism, law, political
science, and public health. The HRC collaborates closely with the International Human Rights Law Clinic and the Berkeley War
Crimes Study Center at the University of California, Berkeley and the Payson Center for International Development and Technology
Transfer at Tulane University.
Payso n Center for International Development and Technology Transfer
Tulane University
Established in 1997, the Payson Center is founded on the belief that sustainable development means improving the quality of
people’s lives and expanding their ability to shape their own future. The Payson Center has a strong commitment to global policy
program development, implementation and training/ capacity building in developing countries. Most notably, the Payson Center has
developed program initiatives related to Disaster and Conflict Prevention, Mitigation, and Reconstruction; HIV/ AIDS reduction;
education; and broad- based responses to service delivery and care. In addition, faculty members of the Payson Center have been
involved in the development of public health schools throughout the world, including the Kinshasa School of Public Health in
the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Hanoi School of Public Health, the School of Public Health at the National University of
Rwanda and the Institute of Public Health at Makerere University in Uganda.
Photographs by Gilles Peress. The telephone number on billboard photo has been altered for privacy protection.
REBUILDING AFTER KATRINA
A POPULATION- BASED STUDY OF LABOR AND
HUMAN RIGHTS IN NEW ORLEANS
JUNE 2006
By
Laurel E. Fletcher
Phuong Pham
Eric Stover
Patrick Vinck
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
The Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
Research Design and Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Key Informant Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Targeted Sampling of Latino Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Random Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Limitations to the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
The Demographics of New Orleans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Emerging Tensions/ Community Debates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
Composition of the Construction Workforce in New Orleans . . . . . . . . . .12
Current and Planned Length of Stay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
Housing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Labor Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
Health Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
Human Rights and Legal Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
Current Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
AUTHORS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
Appendix A: Katrina Work and Health Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
Appendix B: Legal Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38
NOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hurricane Katrina made landfall just east of New Orleans, Louisiana early in the morning of
August 29, 2005.1 For the next five hours, the Category 3 storm ravaged the city and its neigh-boring
communities. A twenty- foot storm surge broke through the city’s three levees flooding
entire neighborhoods. High winds and rising waters ripped down power lines and destroyed
buildings. By late morning, Katrina had moved northward displacing hundreds of thousands. 2
In the weeks that followed, over a thousand bodies were recovered from the floodwaters. 3
Local and out- of- state contractors, aware that federal reconstruction grants would be forthcom-ing,
soon moved into areas affected by the hurricane to begin the massive clean up operation. 4
But labor was scarce. The number of workers employed in construction and related industries
had dropped by nearly half. 5 On September 6, the Department of Homeland Security announced
that it was suspending certain labor regulations for a 45- day period to accommodate survivors
who had lost identity documents in the storm. During that time, employers would not be
required to confirm employee identity and eligibility documents to federal authorities. 6 Two
days later, the Department of Labor lifted wage restrictions for a period of two months.
Contractors working on federally- funded construction projects could now pay their employees
below prevailing federal wage standards. 7
Word of the need for labor in New Orleans spread quickly throughout the United States and the
city was soon flooded again, this time with thousands of men and women eager to find work. 8
As clean up efforts got underway, the media reported that some employers in the Gulf Coast area
had failed to pay their workers or to provide them with adequate safety equipment and housing. 9
The Southern Poverty Law Center filed lawsuits against two large contractors for failure to pay
wages to migrant workers who were removing toxic mold from hospitals and schools in order to
restore public services to New Orleans. Workers alleged their employers paid them so poorly
that they could not afford to buy food. 10 Reports of abuse— coupled with the easing of labor reg-ulations,
virtually no monitoring of construction sites, and the city’s lack of adequate housing
and healthcare— suggested that unscrupulous contractors could easily be exploiting their workers.
Against this background, the International Human Rights Law Clinic and the Human Rights
Center at the University of California, Berkeley collaborated with the Payson Center for
International Development and Technology Transfer at Tulane University to conduct a study of
the situation of construction workers in New Orleans. The study took place in March 2006 and
examined both documented and undocumented workers. Documented workers include U. S. citi-zens,
permanent residents, work visa holders, and those workers with temporary immigration
status, while undocumented workers are immigrants who are considered to be living in the
United States illegally, although some may be eligible for legal status but have not obtained it.
The study used three research methods: key informant interviews, targeted sampling, and ran-dom
sampling. ( These methods are described in greater detail in the Introduction.) Researchers
interviewed 25 key informants including legal advocates; social service providers; community
activists; health care providers; business leaders; policymakers; representatives of minority and
immigrant groups; and representatives of federal, state, and local government agencies in
Louisiana and Mississippi. Researchers also used targeted sampling to interview 148 Latino
1
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
workers in different sites in New Orleans and Kenner. 11 The goal was to determine the needs
of Latino workers as they represent the largest group of undocumented workers. The third
technique involved the random sampling of 212 workers of all origins working in Orleans
parish. The random sampling was conducted to provide quantitative information on workers’
experiences. The sample size was designed to be representative of all construction workers in
New Orleans. 12
The specific objectives of the study were:
1. To collect demographic information about laborers employed in the construction and
related industries in New Orleans and its environs;
2. To assess the needs and experiences of workers in the construction industry including
job security, safety, fair pay, discrimination, and access to adequate housing and
health care; and
3. To study the overall impact of the changing workforce demographics in the
Gulf Coast region.
These are some of the main conclusions of the research:
u Nearly half of the reconstruction workforce in New Orleans is Latino, of which 54
percent is undocumented. Most of these workers have arrived since the storm and are
performing tasks critical to the rebuilding of New Orleans and its neighboring com-munities.
By virtue of their racial minority, language, and legal status, they constitute
a vulnerable group and under international human rights standards are afforded appro-priate
protections. International instruments oblige public authorities to adopt measures
that will effectively protect individuals from violations of human rights, monitor compli-ance
with these protections, and, if rights are violated, provide victims with access to
appropriate remedies.
u Documented and undocumented workers are vulnerable to exploitation by their
employers because of inadequate legal protection and the failure on the part of federal
and local authorities to monitor construction sites. Workers interviewed in the random
survey report working with harmful substances ( 29 percent) and in dangerous conditions
( 27 percent). In the wake of the hurricane, the federal agency responsible for workplace
safety suspended its enforcement actions and focused on providing employers with
technical assistance. However, the data suggest these efforts fell short: 19 percent of the
workers said they are not provided with any protective equipment. These problems are
further compounded by the city’s lack of adequate health and medical services.
u Undocumented workers are especially at risk of exploitation. Thirty- four percent of
undocumented workers report that they receive less money than they expected when
paid, compared to 16 percent for documented workers. Twenty- eight percent of undocu-mented
workers said they had problems obtaining payment, compared to 13 percent of
documented workers. The average hourly wage among documented workers is $ 16.50
compared to $ 10.00 for undocumented workers.
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
2
u Few workers have medical insurance or seek medical care. Less than half ( 43 percent)
of construction workers have medical insurance. More than half ( 55 percent) of docu-mented
workers have medical insurance, compared to nine percent of undocumented
workers. Among construction workers who report health problems, a little more than
one- quarter ( 27 percent) sought medical treatment. All workers report health concerns
but undocumented workers are far less likely to seek medical treatment. Eighty- three
percent of documented workers reported receiving medications when needed, compared
to 38 percent of undocumented workers.
u Few workers report harassment by police. Very few ( five percent) of workers report they
had been harassed by police. Documented workers report police harassment at a higher
frequency ( six percent) than undocumented workers ( two percent). The frequencies
reported by participants are lower than suggested by newspaper reports and key informants.
u U. S. immigration laws are at odds with national and international labor standards.
U. S. immigration laws prohibit employment of workers who do not have legal permission
to work. Yet federal labor, health, and safety protections are— at least, in theory—
supposed to be afforded to workers without regard to their legal status. Our data show
that employers have hired a significant number of undocumented workers, but many of
them are not complying with workplace regulations. We cannot have it both ways. Either
we enforce immigration laws effectively and prevent illegal immigrants from working or
we allow them to work and provide them with the same labor, safety, and health protec-tions
afforded documented workers.
In an effort to ameliorate these disparities, this study offers the following recommendations:
1. The federal government should create an expedited process of issuing work authori-zations
in federally- declared disaster zones. By enabling undocumented workers already
residing in the United States to obtain legal permission to work in disaster areas, federal
authorities will be able to meet the demand for labor and expedite the reconstruction
process. However, such work authorizations must be accompanied by measures that provide
workers with full labor, health, and safety protections. Procedures should be established
to monitor construction sites and sanction those employers who violate these protections.
2. Federal, state, and local authorities should strengthen employer accountability for
labor violations. Enforcement of worker health and safety regulations, including
mandatory workers’ compensation coverage, should be improved for all laborers.
Effective, accessible mechanisms to resolve wage disputes and remedy violations of
wage laws must be available to workers regardless of legal status. These mechanisms
should contain provisions that allow for judicial review. Regulation and administration
of workers’ compensation programs should be reformed to improve employer compli-ance.
Additional resources need to be allocated to increase access to legal services for
workers and to deter unscrupulous employers.
3. Federal immigration enforcement must be separate from enforcement of labor pro-tections.
Employers should be held accountable for violations of immigration laws. At
the same time, laws must be revised to eliminate gaps that allow employers to hire
3
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
undocumented workers and subsequently evade their obligations to respect the rights of
these employees. Laws and policies that link worker protections to legal status must be
eliminated. Undocumented workers should have effective access to workers’ compensa-tion
coverage, safety training, and other programs designed to promote worker health
and well- being. Outreach programs informing workers of their rights and responsibilities
should be developed and implemented. Immigration enforcement should not involve
health care providers or other institutions engaged in provision of social services or
implementation of worker protections.
4. Public authorities in those areas affected by Hurricane Katrina should increase
access to healthcare, with particular attention to the needs of undocumented Latino
workers. The healthcare system throughout the hurricane- affected areas needs to be
rebuilt as quickly as feasible. Access to public and private healthcare must not be condi-tioned
on legal status. Affordable heath insurance should be made available to the work-ing
poor without regard to legal status to improve equal access to heath care for workers.
5. Further study of working conditions and treatment of laborers in the Gulf Coast
region should be conducted. The demographic composition of the workforce in
New Orleans has changed dramatically since Hurricane Katrina and is likely to evolve
further as residents return to the region. Economic conditions could change dramatically
depending on the timing and amount of federal aid that is directed to fund reconstruc-tion.
Further study of the treatment and needs of workers, particularly undocumented
Latino workers, is needed and should be repeated over time to document and respond to
changing trends.
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
4
INTRODUCTION
Hurricane Katrina made landfall just east of New Orleans, Louisiana early in the morning of
August 29, 2005.13 For the next five hours, the Category 3 storm ravaged the city and its neigh-boring
communities. A twenty- foot storm surge broke through the city’s three levees flooding
entire neighborhoods. High winds and rising waters ripped down power lines and destroyed
buildings. By late morning, Katrina had moved northward displacing hundreds of thousands. 14
In the weeks that followed, over a thousand bodies were recovered from the floodwaters. 15
Local and out- of- state contractors, aware that federal reconstruction grants would be forthcom-ing,
soon moved into areas affected by the hurricane to begin the massive clean up operation. 16
But labor was scarce. The number of workers employed in construction and related industries
had dropped by nearly half. 17 On September 6, the Department of Homeland Security
announced that it was suspending certain labor regulations for a 45- day period to accommodate
survivors who had lost identity documents in the storm. During that time, employers would not
be required to confirm employee identity and eligibility documents to federal authorities. 18 Two
days later, the Department of Labor lifted wage restrictions for a period of two months.
Contractors working on federally- funded construction projects could now pay their employees
below prevailing federal wage standards. 19
Word of the need for labor in New Orleans spread quickly throughout the United States and the
city was soon flooded again, this time with thousands of men and women eager to find work. 20
As clean up efforts got underway, the media reported that some employers in the Gulf Coast area
had failed to pay their workers or to provide them with adequate safety equipment and housing. 21
The Southern Poverty Law Center filed lawsuits against two large contractors for failure to pay
wages to migrant workers who were removing toxic mold from hospitals and schools in order
to restore public services to New Orleans. Workers alleged their employers paid them so poorly
that they could not afford to buy food. 22 Reports of abuse— coupled with the easing of labor reg-ulations,
virtually no monitoring of construction sites, and the city’s lack of adequate housing
and healthcare— suggested that unscrupulous contractors could easily be exploiting their workers.
The Study
Against this background, the International Human Rights Law Clinic and the Human Rights
Center at the University of California, Berkeley collaborated with the Payson Center for
International Development and Technology Transfer of Tulane University to conduct a study
of the situation of construction workers in New Orleans.
The specific objectives of the study were:
1. To collect demographic information about laborers employed in the construction and
related industries in New Orleans and its environs;
2. To assess the needs and experiences of workers in the construction industry including
job security; safety; fair pay; discrimination; and access to adequate housing and health
care; and
3. To study the overall impact of the changing workforce demographics in the Gulf
Coast region.
5
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
The study was conducted in March 2006 and examined both documented and undocumented
workers. Documented workers include U. S. citizens, permanent residents, work visa holders,
and those workers with temporary immigration status, while undocumented workers are immi-grants
that are considered to be living in the United States illegally, although some may be
eligible for legal status but have not obtained it. All the undocumented workers interviewed in
our study were Latino.
Research Design and Instruments
The study used qualitative and quantitative methods to assess the needs and priorities of workers
engaged in reconstruction activities in New Orleans. These methods included key informant
interviews, targeted sampling of Latino workers, and random sampling of construction workers.
All participants were 18 years old or older. Participation in the random survey was strictly vol-untary
with informed consent. No financial compensation was provided for participation in the
study. All interviews, including the survey interviews, were anonymous. Key informants work-ing
on labor issues were interviewed in New Orleans as well as along the Gulf Coast of
Mississippi, while targeted and random surveys were administered in New Orleans.
Researchers used a structured questionnaire to conduct the interviews for the targeted and ran-dom
survey ( see Appendix A). The questionnaire contained 130 questions on demographics,
employment, health, and potential violations of human rights. Researchers first developed the
questionnaire in English and then translated it into Spanish. The questionnaire was translated
back into English and then reviewed by native and fluent Spanish speakers from Central and
South America to ensure the quality of the translation. In addition, a modified version of the
Johns Hopkins Depression Symptom Checklist was used to assess potential symptoms of
depression among interviewees.
Key Informant Interviews
During March 2006 researchers interviewed 25 key informants including legal advocates, social
service providers, community activists, health care providers, business leaders, policymakers,
representatives of minority and immigrant groups, and representatives of federal, state, and local
government agencies in Louisiana and Mississippi. Each interview lasted one to two hours. Key
informants were selected based on in- depth discussion with a representative sample of service
providers, community organizations, as well as minority and immigrant group representatives.
Targeted Sampling of Latino Workers
The study used targeted sampling to interview 148 Latino workers in different sites in New
Orleans and Kenner. 23 The goal was to determine the needs of the Latino community, and espe-cially
the needs of undocumented workers. To locate the Latino workers, researchers consulted
with local organizations that monitor labor activities in New Orleans. A map was prepared not-ing
locations of residential areas, worker pick- up sites, and social gathering places such as
restaurants, churches, laundry mats, and parks. Survey teams of two to three trained graduate
students from the University of California, Berkeley and Tulane University were sent to the
identified locations. Eighteen researchers randomly selected and interviewed up to 10 individuals
at each site. The survey teams approached a total of 256 individuals, of whom 148 consented be
interviewed, resulting in a refusal rate of 42 percent. During the data analysis, we eliminated
three interviews as they failed to meet the selection criteria ( not of Latino origin).
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
6
Researchers used a structured questionnaire to conduct the interviews ( see Research Design and
Instruments, above and Appendix A).
Random Sampling of Workers
The third technique involved the random sampling of 212 workers of all origins working in
Orleans parish. The random sampling was conducted to provide unbiased quantitative information
on workers’ experiences. The sample size was designed to represent all construction workers in
New Orleans. 24
Anticipating that researchers would not
be able to interview construction work-ers
at some selected sample points, a
random sampling of 296 housing unit
addresses was conducted using a com-prehensive
address database for the
City of New Orleans proportionate to
the number of housing units within
each census tract ( see Flood Map).
Researchers created the database by
merging the New Orleans Sewage and
Water Board dataset of the addresses
with water meters at residential and
commercial properties with data from
the Census Bureau and the Geographic
Information Systems ( GIS) Department
of New Orleans. This provided
researchers with a database of all the
addresses in the City of New Orleans
with geographic reference points and
links to pre- Katrina demographic infor-mation.
The sampling procedure was
conducted with the support of the
Emergency Operations Center ( EOC)
of New Orleans.
Trained graduate students were
assigned to the 296 housing units. Once
the surveyors arrived at a designated
point ( sampled housing unit), they were
instructed to select a construction work-er.
If the selected address had construc-tion
workers, the survey team would
ask the closest person standing to the left to participate in the study. If the selected address had
no construction workers, then the closest house within a 10 block radius was selected.
Of the 296 selected points, the survey teams failed to locate workers within the 10 block radius
for 84 of the points due to little or no construction work under way in the selected area. This
7
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
Hurricane Katrina: Damage and Reconstruction
v FLOODING OR STORM DAMAGE HAS AFFECTED
MORE THAN A THIRD OF THE REGION’S 1.7 MILLION
RESIDENTS.
i
v OVER 1,300 RESIDENTS OF LOUISIANA HAVE DIED
ii
AND 597 ARE STILL MISSING AS A RESULT OF THE
HURRICANE.
iii
v THE TOTAL COST OF THE STORM’S DAMAGE IS
ESTIMATED AT $ 96 BILLION.
v 250,000 HOUSING UNITS IN NEW ORLEANS ALONE
WERE DAMAGED OR DESTROYED.
iv
ONLY A FRACTION
OF THE HOUSING UNITS IN NEW ORLEANS HAVE
BEEN REBUILT.
v 38.1 MILLION CUBIC YARDS OF DEBRIS ( 60 PERCENT OF
THE TOTAL) HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE CITY.
v
v ELECTRICITY AND GAS SERVICES ARE NOW RESTORED
IN MOST AREAS OF THE CITY, BUT STREETS REMAIN
LARGELY UNLIGHTED.
vi
v PUBLIC SERVICES AND CRITICAL ECONOMIC
SECTORS LIKE TOURISM CONTINUE TO OPERATE AT
SUBSTANTIALLY DIMINISHED LEVELS.
vii
v THE U. S. CONGRESS HAS NOT PASSED A PROPOSED
$ 29.8 BILLION RECOVERY PACKAGE THAT WOULD
HELP FUND RESIDENTIAL REBUILDING THROUGH A
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND.
viii
v MANY RESIDENTS HAVE NOT RETURNED TO NEW
ORLEANS, AND RECONSTRUCTION IS PROGRESSING
SLOWLY.
is either because the area was largely unaffected by the hurricane or, inversely, because little
reconstruction was taking place in heavily damaged areas. These areas included the neighbor-hoods
of Lake View, Gentilly, Mid- City, and the Lower Ninth Ward. In total, the survey teams
approached 351 construction workers and completed 212 interviews, resulting in a refusal rate
of 40 percent. Four interviews were incomplete. The survey instrument used for the random
survey was the same as that described above for the targeted sample ( See Appendix A).
Limitations to the Study
The combined three techniques of key informant interviews, targeted survey, and random survey
provide a triangulated view of workers’ experience and concurring evidence that increase the
validity of the findings. Researchers designed the methodology and questionnaire to reduce
any potential bias or threat to the reliability and validity of the findings. Nevertheless, possible
limitations to this study must be acknowledged.
First, the survey components of the study were administered only in New Orleans and therefore
may not reflect the situation in the broader Gulf Coast region affected by Hurricane Katrina.
However, based on the labor conditions described by key informants outside of New Orleans as
well as review of available documentation, there should be no significant difference in condi-tions
affecting the employment and living conditions of reconstruction workers in New Orleans
and those in other areas of the Gulf Coast.
Second, the survey instrument covered sensitive subjects including discrimination, labor abuses,
violations of human rights, trauma, and immigration status. It is possible that respondents did
not answer truthfully because they feared being reported to immigration authorities. However,
confidentiality was stressed in the consent form, names were never asked or recorded, and the
concurrence of evidence through the three approaches reduced the risk of systematic error. In
some cases, workers refused or contractors did not allow workers to participate in the survey.
This may have contributed to under- reporting on sensitive issues such as human rights abuses
and illegal status. In addition, a relatively high refusal rate to be interviewed could have further
contributed to under- reporting. However, the relatively high refusal rate ( 42% for the targeted
sample and 40% for the random sample) is to be expected in light of the demanding working
conditions and little availability of time to participate in the survey.
The sensitivity of the questions also may have placed the respondent at additional risk ( e. g.
employer dissatisfaction if the worker participated in survey) or reminded respondents of trau-matic
experiences. Ensuring confidentiality as discussed above may have minimized the risk.
Additionally, survey teams gave respondents information sheets and contact information for
non- governmental organizations active on the ground that could provide support on human rights
issues and address any question or issue respondents might have. In addition, the study protocol
was carefully reviewed and approved by the Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects at
the University of California, Berkeley and the Institutional Review Board of Tulane University.
Third, only the random survey provides unbiased quantitative estimates on workers’ experience.
Key informant interviews and targeted sampling that used convenient sampling typically can be
biased due to non- random selection. Figures provided in the discussion of the results are always
derived from the analysis of the random survey component unless otherwise specified. Results
from the targeted sampling of Latinos will be presented where appropriate.
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
8
BACKGROUND
History teaches us that those most affected by natural disasters tend to be the poor and socially
marginalized. Natural disasters, like armed conflicts, disrupt local economies and place vulnera-ble
groups at risk of exploitation. Women and children, especially if they are widowed or
orphaned, may suffer higher rates of mortality and morbidity. Natural disasters can also exacer-bate
systemic weaknesses and abuses in government bureaucracies, especially if such systems
are poorly managed or lack accountability mechanisms. Over time, natural disasters can radically
alter the physical geography, demographic profile, and power relations of the impacted area. 25
While a growing body of literature examines the long- term impact of natural disasters on sur-vivors,
little, if anything, is known about the vulnerabilities of groups of workers that migrate to
post- disaster areas. Even less is known about how the presence of migrant laborers in these set-tings
can affect the social and economic dynamics of post- disaster communities.
U. S. history provides at least two examples where large numbers of migrants have faced wide-spread
discrimination after arriving rapidly in new areas of the country. Between 1916 and 1919,
hundreds of thousands of African- Americans left the southern United States in search of greater
social and economic opportunities in the North. Known as “ The Great Migration,” a substantial
number of these internal migrants settled in the south side of Chicago where employers hoped
their presence would solve labor shortages and diminish union demands. Yet, many city resi-dents,
particularly recently- arrived white immigrants, feared their new neighbors would drive
down property values, increase competition for jobs, and threaten their political power. 26 Racial
tensions increased, culminating in a spate of bombings and a race riot that lasted for several
days and left 23 blacks and 15 whites dead. 27
In the 1930s, poor “ Dust Bowl” farmers faced similar problems when they left their drought-ravaged
farms on the southern plains in search of work in the Central Valley of California. 28
While large growers generally welcomed the new workers, they often paid them wages well
below subsistence level. Thousands of migrants failed to find work and lived by the side of the
road in camps called “ Little Oklahomas.” 29 Locals derogatorily called the migrants “ Okies,”
and a sign in at least one theater read: “ Negroes and Okies Upstairs.” 30
Reports indicate that many— if not most— of the men and women who have traveled to New
Orleans in search of work are Latino. 31 By virtue of their racial minority, language, and legal
status, they constitute a vulnerable group and under international human rights standards are
afforded appropriate protections. International instruments direct public authorities to adopt
measures that will effectively protect individuals from violations of human rights, monitor
compliance with these protections, and, if rights are violated, provide victims with access to
appropriate remedies ( See Appendix B).
The Demographics of New Orleans
The population of greater New Orleans reflects the diversity of multiple migrations since the
arrival of the Spanish colonizers in 1500.32 French trappers also settled in the area, as did
Acadians ( French colonists) after the British forced them out of Canada beginning in 1764. By
1785, 165,000 slaves had been brought to Louisiana. German immigrants began arriving in the
9
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
mid- 1800s and were later joined by Irish refugees fleeing the potato famine. 33 Jewish migrants,
though officially excluded from the area in 1724, also settled in New Orleans. At the end of the
19th century, Italian labor was recruited to the Gulf Coast to replace newly- emancipated slaves. 34
During most of the last century, migration into the Gulf Coast remained relatively low due to
lack of economic growth in the South. 35 However, beginning in the 1990’ s, foreign- born
migrants from Mexico, Vietnam, China, and India began to settle in cities and towns along the
coast. 36 Yet the absolute number of foreign- born residents remains small. In the three Gulf Coast
states of Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana, the 2000 census reflects less than a total of
200,000 foreign- born residents. 37
Despite the proximity of the Gulf Coast to Mexico and Central America, prior to Hurricane Katrina,
Louisiana had a relatively small Latino population, 2.4% ( compared to 12.5% nationally). 38
Latinos and Caribbean migrants comprise less than 40 percent of foreign- born residents of
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama compared with 64 percent throughout the South. In New
Orleans, the largest foreign- born Latino population is Honduran, most of whom have legal status. 39
By 2000, Latinos comprised approximately 4 percent of the greater New Orleans population. 40
Emerging Tensions/ Community Debates
So far, there have been no reports of targeted violence or systematic exclusion aimed at Latinos
in New Orleans. Yet many key informants told us that tensions could easily surface between the
new Latino arrivals and residents as reconstruction begins and the character of the “ new” New
Orleans becomes visible. Our key informants pointed to three factors that could increase ten-sions
between residents and the Latino population: uncertainty, personal loss and deprivation,
and race and reconstruction.
Uncertainty. Virtually every key informant told us that the ability of individuals to invest in
rebuilding New Orleans was contingent on decisions by public authorities— local, state, and
federal— that were not forthcoming. At the time of the interviews, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency had not issued new flood maps to designate the required elevation level
for rebuilt homes. 41 Although the City of New Orleans had announced that homeowners were
allowed to rebuild, the municipal authorities had not committed to providing city services to all
areas. Homeowners face the prospect of rebuilding in areas where there may be no police pro-tection,
sewage, or sanitation services. The result is a sense of protracted uncertainty about fun-damental
conditions of public and private life. Public officials, private service providers, and
business leaders said that the lack of certainty regarding the rules that would govern reconstruc-tion
colored virtually every aspect of their work and prevented progress toward rebuilding.
Against this background, it is not surprising that there is no coordinated public planning effort
to identify and address the needs of the Latino population that has migrated to the region in
search of work.
Personal Loss and Deprivation. Hurricane Katrina affected virtually everyone in New Orleans.
The vast majority of the key informants told us they had suffered damage to or complete loss of
their homes. Almost all had experienced displacement for some period of time or had close
friends or relatives who had lost homes or suffered damage to property. As a result, expectations
and standards regarding acceptable housing, hospital care, and employment opportunities have
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
10
diminished. In a climate of deprivation, residents who have remained in the city express a sense
of entitlement to have their needs attended to before those of ‘ outsiders.’ Indeed, several key
informants who work with Latino workers told us they consciously temper their advocacy
efforts for fear that they will anger permanent residents.
Race and Reconstruction. The subject of race and rebuilding is an extremely sensitive topic
and most key informants declined to address the issue directly. Rather the subject emerged in
discussions about the potential impact of a permanent increase in the number of Latino residents
or in response to questions about who would supply the labor necessary to rebuild. At a meeting
with business leaders a month after the hurricane, Mayor Ray Nagin reportedly asked: “ How do
I ensure that New Orleans is not overrun by Mexican workers?” 42 He quickly disavowed the
remark after pressure from civil rights groups, but the comment and reactions to it highlight the
tensions between residents and newcomers.
Many key informants told us that employers had a bias in favor of hiring Latino immigrants
over African- Americans. Some employers reportedly express the opinion that Latinos have a
reputation for industriousness and a willingness to tolerate the difficult and uncomfortable
working conditions involved in debris removal and demolition work. Several key informants
expressed concern that, in the absence of state interventions to promote job opportunities for
African- Americans, competition for construction jobs could pit Latinos against the city’s histori-cally
excluded, poor, and underserved African- Americans residents.
11
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
FINDINGS
Composition of the Construction Workforce in New Orleans
As the previous section underscores, race and immigration are sensitive but important issues that
will continue to affect the reconstruction effort and the future social fabric of the Gulf Coast
region. One of the first objectives of the study was to obtain demographic information on both
documented and undocumented workers.
v Undocumented workers constitute 25% of the workforce in New Orleans. Seventy per-cent
of the workers in New Orleans are U. S. citizens or permanent residents. Five per-cent
are foreigners with a work visa. Twenty- five percent are undocumented workers.
v Forty- five percent of construction workers are Latino, of whom 54 percent are
undocumented. Among U. S. citizens and permanent residents, 40 percent are Caucasian,
34 percent African- American, 20 percent Latino, and six percent are of another race or
declined to answer. All work visa holders are Latino. Similarly, all undocumented workers
are Latino. The main countries of origin among undocumented construction workers are
Mexico ( 43 percent), Honduras ( 32 percent), Nicaragua ( nine percent), El Salvador ( eight
percent) or other countries ( eight percent).
Figure 1: Immigration Status and National Origin of Construction Workers in New Orleans 43
v Undocumented workers are younger than documented workers. According to the
analysis of the random survey of construction workers, the majority of the construction
workers are male ( 93 percent). Their average age is 38 years old. However, undocument-ed
workers are significantly younger than documented workers ( p- value < 0.001), with
respective mean ages of 30 and 41 years old.
v Undocumented workers are generally less educated than documented workers.
Education status, a predictor of earning potential, greatly differs among the groups. Only
55 percent of the undocumented workers have completed more than primary education,
compared to 96 percent of the U. S. citizens and permanent residents.
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
12
13
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
Figure 2: Educational Status of Construction Workers in New Orleans
v Workers’ family ties are disrupted, especially among undocumented workers. Fifty- nine
percent of construction workers are married or in a marital relationship, and 69 percent
have children. Figures for documented workers and undocumented workers are very
similar. However, among married workers, the spouses of 29 percent of the undocumented
workers accompanied them to the hurricane- affected area, compared to 62 percent
among documented workers. Forty- three percent of the documented workers have plans
to bring their spouses to join them within the next 12 months, compared to only 10 per-cent
of the undocumented workers. Comparable statistics were found in the targeted
sample of Latino workers.
Table 1: Household Dynamic
Documented Undocumented All
Workers Workers Workers
( n= 155) ( n= 53) ( n= 208)
Married or long term partner? (% yes) 59% 58% 59%
If yes, is partner present? (% yes) 62% 29% 53%
If not, will partner come within 12 months? (% yes) 43% 10% 29%
Have children? (% yes) 68% 69% 69%
Current and Planned Length of Stay
Critical to planning for reconstruction is information about whether Latino workers are likely
to remain. We assessed recent and future workforce trends by asking construction workers how
long they had lived in New Orleans and how long they planed to stay.
v About half of the construction workers ( three quarters among undocumented workers)
came to New Orleans six months ago or less. Forty- seven percent of the workers came
to New Orleans within the last six months. The majority ( 60 percent) of the documented
workers have lived in the hurricane- affected area for over one year, while the figure for
undocumented workers is 15 percent. The data suggest that the majority of the undocu-mented
workers ( 77 percent) did not live in New Orleans or its environs before the hurri-cane
struck.
Figure 3: Duration of Presence of Construction Workers in Hurricane- Affected Areas
v Two- thirds of the Latino construction workers have been in New Orleans six months
or less. According to the random survey data, only 33 percent of the Latino workers have
lived more than six months in the hurricane- affected areas, compared to 68 percent
among non- Latino workers. This is further confirmed by the targeted survey of Latino
workers: 70 percent of the 140 respondents moved to New Orleans within six months
prior to the study. Among Latino undocumented workers, the figure was even higher,
with 88 percent of the targeted sample of respondents residing in New Orleans for six
months or less.
v Most of the undocumented workers who came to New Orleans within the last six
months were already residing in the United States. The reconstruction effort in New
Orleans and the Gulf Coast cannot be directly associated with a wave of illegal immigra-tion
into the United States. The majority ( 87 percent) of the undocumented workers had
lived in the United States before moving to areas affected by Hurricane Katrina to work.
They come predominantly from Texas ( 41 percent) and Florida ( 10 percent).
v Media and social networks are driving factors to attract construction workers. Nearly
half of the construction workers ( 47 percent) who came to New Orleans after the hurri-cane
heard about the availability of work44 primarily through friends ( 34 percent) and
family ( 15 percent). Television ( 28 percent) was also a driving factor, especially among
undocumented workers ( 39 percent) compared to documented workers ( 19 percent).
Thirteen percent of the Latino workers were recruited by general contractors outside of
the hurricane- affected area.
v Documented workers are more likely to stay permanently in the areas affected by
Hurricane Katrina than undocumented workers. Workers that have been in the area
for more than six months are more likely to stay permanently than those who arrived
after the hurricane. When asked how long they plan to stay in the hurricane- affected
areas, responses varied greatly among documented and undocumented workers and
depended on how long they had lived in the hurricane- affected areas. The results of the
analysis of the random survey are illustrated in Figure 4. Documented workers frequent-ly
responded that they would stay permanently or over a year in the region, especially if
they had lived in the area for over six months: 70 percent said they would stay perma-
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
14
15
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
nently. Even those documented workers who came to hurricane- affected areas after
Katrina hit frequently said that they would stay permanently ( 45 percent). Among undoc-umented
workers, few workers reported that they wanted to relocate permanently to New
Orleans: nine percent among those who lived in hurricane- affected areas for over six
months, and four percent among those who arrived six months ago or less. For the most
part, undocumented workers said they planned to stay as long as they could find work:
27 percent among those present more than six months and 50 percent among those who
arrived within the last six months. These numbers are similar to those found in the tar-geted
sample of Latino workers.
Figure 4: Intended Length of Stay of Construction Workers in Hurricane- Affected Areas
v New Orleans is still a good place to live. Despite the relatively low figures on workers
planning to stay permanently, 65 percent of the construction workers ( 68 percent among
documented workers and 55 percent among undocumented workers) said New Orleans
was a good place for themselves and their family.
Housing Conditions
A key goal of the study was to investigate reports of substandard housing conditions for workers.
We posed a series of questions to survey participants to gain a better understanding of the living
situation of construction workers.
v Most construction workers reside in the city near construction sites. The analysis of the
random survey data indicates, perhaps not surprisingly, that most construction workers
reside near construction sites. It is therefore a relatively good proxy indicator of where
work is taking place. The majority of workers live in Orleans parish ( 46 percent) and
across the Mississippi river on the West Bank ( 17 percent). The geographic distribution
of documented and undocumented workers does not show much variation.
v General type of housing differs among documented and undocumented workers. Most
workers live in houses ( 50 percent), both among documented ( 52 percent) and undocu-mented
workers ( 42 percent). However, nearly twice as many undocumented workers
( 45 percent) live in apartments compared to documented workers ( 23 percent). Few
workers reported living in cars or at the construction site ( two percent of the undocu-mented
workers).
v Construction workers share housing with 5 people on average. Both documented and
undocumented workers share housing with about the same number of people ( average of
five people per housing unit).
v Access to amenities is worse among undocumented workers. When asked about specific
amenities, the situation of undocumented workers proves to be more precarious than that
of documented workers: 10 percent of undocumented workers said they did not have
access to a bathroom with a shower at either work or home, compared to one percent for
documented workers. Ten percent of the undocumented workers also said that they did
not have access to a kitchen, running water or electricity, compared, respectively, to
seven percent, one percent, and three percent for documented workers.
Labor Conditions
Several questions probed allegations of possible work- related abuses to provide a better under-standing
of work conditions experienced by construction workers.
v Most construction workers are currently employed and most were employed before
coming to New Orleans. According to the random sampling survey, most workers ( 72
percent) were employed before coming to the hurricane- affected areas and 93 percent are
currently employed. However, fewer undocumented workers ( 58 percent) reported being
employed before moving to the hurricane- affected areas compared to documented work-ers
( 79 percent). The difference was statistically significant ( p- value< 0.005). With regard
to the current employment rate it should be noted that the sampling strategy may have
led to an overestimation of the level of employment among construction workers.
v Undocumented workers perform general construction work with some level of special-ization
while documented workers more frequently specialize in skilled labor. We asked
respondents what type of construction work they usually perform. They were given the
option of providing multiple answers. Low- skilled work is the most frequent answer:
general construction ( 46 percent) is most common although some level of specialization
is found concentrated in specific tasks: roofing ( 20 percent), carpentry ( 17 percent), gutting
houses ( 16 percent) and painting and sheetrock work ( 13 percent). However, as illustrated
in Figure 5, documented workers more frequently report work activities requiring more
advanced skills, such as electrical work ( seven percent) and plumbing ( four percent). The
data suggest differentiation in the type of construction work performed by documented
and undocumented workers, with undocumented workers performing work with higher
associated risk such as roofing and debris removal. About three times as many undocu-mented
workers ( 43 percent) perform roofing work compared to documented workers
( 12 percent). Approximately twice as many undocumented workers ( 24 percent) paint
and install sheet- rock compared to documented workers ( nine percent).
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
16
17
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
Figure 5: Construction Jobs of Workers in New Orleans
v Construction workers work an average of 9.5 hours a day six days a week. Based on
self- reported information on number of hours worked and salary, the random survey of
construction workers indicates that they labor on average 9.5 hours a day and about six
days a week. There is no significant difference between the number of hours and numbers
of days a week worked among documented and undocumented workers.
v Wages for undocumented workers are below those of documented workers. Hourly
wages vary significantly ( p- value< 0.001) between the two groups. The average hourly
wage among documented workers is $ 16.50 compared to $ 10.00 for undocumented
workers. Even when adjusted for the type of work performed, the data suggest that
the hourly wage of undocumented workers is below that of documented workers
( p- value<. 05). Among those who reported to be carpenters, the difference is roughly
$ 3.00 between the two groups. The same difference is found among roofers. Those dif-ferences,
however, are not statistically significant possibly because of the small sample
size in each work group.
v Construction workers generally receive pay on a weekly basis. Employers of undocu-mented
workers generally pay them on a weekly ( 66 percent) or daily ( 19 percent) basis.
Documented workers receive pay on a weekly basis ( 64 percent) or upon completion of
the work ( 22 percent compared to 11 percent for undocumented workers).
v Construction workers frequently report experiencing problems receiving wages owed,
especially undocumented workers. Thirty- four percent of undocumented workers report-ed
that they received less money then they expected when paid, compared to 16 percent
for documented workers. Twenty- eight percent of undocumented workers said they had
problems being paid, as compared to 13 percent of documented workers.
v Hours above 40 hours a week frequently are not paid. Despite the large number of
hours worked, few workers report receiving extra pay for hours worked above 40 a week
( 29 percent).
Figure 6: Extra Pay for Workers in New Orleans
v When paid extra hours, undocumented workers generally receive their normal hourly
wage, while documented workers frequently receive 1.5 times their normal hourly
wage. Seventy- four percent of documented workers received pay for extra hours at one
and half time the normal hourly wage, compared to 20 percent for undocumented workers.
Figure 7: Calculation of Extra Pay for Workers in New Orleans ( 2)
v Employers deduct expenses frequently from pay among undocumented workers.
Employers deduct expenses from salaries more frequently from undocumented workers
( 27 percent) than documented workers ( 12 percent). Among undocumented workers,
those expenses are for housing ( 43 percent), transportation ( 43 percent), and food
( 25 percent). Among documented workers, employers deducted expenses for food
( 30 percent) most frequently from workers’ salary.
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
18
19
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
Figure 8: Expenses Deducted from Pay of Workers in New Orleans
v Protective equipment generally is available but insufficient, especially for undocu-mented
workers. We asked workers about the protective equipment available to them at
work. The random survey data indicate that 19 percent of construction workers do not
have any type of protective equipment. Undocumented workers possess equipment less
frequently ( 72 percent) than documented workers ( 84 percent). The most widely avail-able
protective equipment is gloves ( 46 percent), goggles ( 46 percent) and face masks
( 45 percent). Few workers have multiple protective articles: Only 16 percent of them
have gloves and goggles and a face mask. Documented workers are more likely to have
goggles ( 51 percent) than undocumented workers ( 32 percent). Undocumented workers,
however, more frequently report having a harness than documented workers. This possi-bly
results from the fact that they more frequently work on roofs, as discussed above.
The following table provides detailed results ( respondents have the option to provide
several answers; therefore the percentages of responses do not add up to 100 percent).
Table 2: Equipment of Workers in New Orleans
Documented Undocumented All
Workers Workers Workers
( n= 155) ( n= 53) ( n= 208)
Any Type 84% 72% 81%
Gloves 46% 43% 46%
Hard Hat 25% 13% 22%
Steel- Toed Boots 22% 19% 21%
Goggle 51% 32% 46%
Face Mask 46% 42% 45%
Respirator 18% 17% 18%
Hearing Protection 6% 6% 6%
Vest 7% 0% 5%
Overalls 12% 4% 10%
Harness 4% 15% 7%
Other 10% 8% 10%
v Most workers who have access to protective equipment use it. The availability and use
of protective equipment are critical given the high exposure to unsafe material and con-ditions
among workers. Among those who have protective equipment, the employer pro-
vided the equipment for 64 percent of the construction workers. Sixty- one percent of the
workers said their employers required that they use the gear. Overall, 86 percent of the
workers who have protective equipment report using it. More undocumented workers
report doing so ( 97 percent) compared to documented workers ( 82 percent), which is
possibly due to the nature of their work. Those who do not use their protective equip-ment
reported they believe it does not provide additional protection ( 32 percent) or is
uncomfortable ( 23 percent).
v Documented and undocumented workers labor in dangerous conditions but documented
workers generally are better prepared to work in such situations. Workers interviewed in
the random survey reported working with harmful substances ( 29 percent) and in danger-ous
conditions ( 27 percent). Undocumented workers report working with harmful sub-stances
less frequently ( 21 percent) than documented workers ( 32 percent) although this
may be due to the lack of awareness of what harmful substances are. More importantly,
undocumented workers are less prepared for work conditions than documented workers:
Only 40 percent received any type of training for the workplace compared to 49 percent
among documented workers. Awareness of risk related to mold ( 38 percent), asbestos
( 36 percent) and unsafe building ( 19 percent) is significantly lower among undocumented
workers than among documented workers with respectively 67 percent ( mold), 65 per-cent
( asbestos) and 59 percent ( unsafe building) reporting receipt of such information.
Figure 9: Worker Risk Exposure and Information (% of Workers)
Health Concerns
Post- disaster clean up and construction work often exposes laborers to health risks due to work-ing
in unsanitary and dangerous conditions ( e. g. polluted water, spilled chemicals, downed elec-trical
lines, mold- infested buildings, asbestos, etc.). To evaluate the health impacts of rebuilding
we asked participants about their general health and access to health services.
v Workers frequently report health problems including, coughs, colds, cuts and bruises,
recurring headaches, and eye infections. During the random survey, we asked partici-pants
whether they experienced any of the 15 health problems listed on Table 3, and if
yes, how much of a problem it was. Since very few respondents ( less than 1%) reported
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
20
21
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
serious problems, we combined serious and minor problems into one single category. For
symptoms of depression we used a modified version of the Johns Hopkins Depression
Symptom Checklist containing 15 assessment items and scoring system. The top five
most commonly reported health symptoms among the workers are cold/ flu ( 39 percent),
cough ( 34 percent), cuts/ bruises ( 33 percent), recurring headaches ( 24 percent), and eye
infections including red and watery eyes ( 21 percent). Documented workers significantly
report more cuts and bruises than undocumented workers. On the other hand, undocu-mented
workers significantly report more nose bleeds and recurring headaches than doc-umented
workers. In addition, undocumented workers ( 17 percent) are also more likely
to report symptoms of depression than documented workers ( 9 percent); however, the
difference was not statistically significant. This may be due to low statistical power
because we also found a higher percentage ( 24 percent) of surveyed undocumented
workers reporting symptoms of depression in the Latino targeted sample.
Table 3: Reported Health Problems Among Workers in New Orleans
Documented Undocumented All
Workers Workers Workers
( n= 155) ( n= 53) ( n= 208)
Cold/ Flu 36% 49% 39%
Cough 34% 32% 34%
Cuts/ Bruises* 38% 17% 33%
Recurring headache* 17% 42% 24%
Eye Infections ( Red/ Watery) 20% 25% 21%
Difficulty breathing 17% 9% 15%
Hypertension 13% 4% 11%
Depression 9% 17% 11%
Skin rashes, swelling 10% 8% 9%
Difficulty remembering 9% 8% 9%
Broken/ Sprained Limbs 8% 6% 7%
Nose Bleeds* 4% 15% 7%
Diarrhea 7% 0% 5%
Head Injuries 5% 2% 4%
Diabetes 5% 0% 3%
Asthma attack 4% 2% 3%
Burns 2% 0% 1%
* indicates health symptoms for which there is a statistically significant difference among documented and undocumented workers ( p- value < 0.05)
v Few workers have medical insurance, even among documented workers. Less than
half ( 43 percent) of the construction workers have medical insurance. More than half
( 55 percent) of the documented workers report that they have medical insurance and nine
percent of the undocumented workers report having medical insurance. We did not expect
any undocumented workers to have medical insurance; however, data from the targeted
Latino workers also indicate that a small number of interviewed undocumented workers
have medical insurance. How and where they obtain such insurance is not assessed.
v Documented workers are more likely to have access to medicine and treatment when
needed than undocumented workers. The random survey data further indicate that
among the documented workers, 83 percent report having medicine when needed while
only 38 percent of the undocumented workers have access to medicine when needed.
Among the construction workers who report health problems, a little more than one-quarter
( 27 percent) had sought medical treatment. Documented workers ( 33 percent)
were four times more likely to seek medical treatment than undocumented workers
( 10 percent) ( p- value<. 005). The documented workers mostly seek treatment at Charity
Hospital ( temporarily located at the convention center), Oschner Hospital, and through
private physicians.
Figure 10: Insurance and Health Care for Workers in New Orleans
v Undocumented workers have access only to free health services, while documented
workers are more frequently covered or can pay for the treatment. Seventeen percent
of documented workers who sought medical care said that their treatment costs were
covered by the insurance provided by their employer. Twenty percent of documented
workers who sought medical treatment reported that they were covered by personal
health insurance, 29 percent paid for it out- of- pocket, and 20 percent received free med-ical
treatment. All undocumented workers who report having sought medical treatment
did so at mobile clinics and health services provided by charity organizations such as the
American Red Cross.
Human Rights and Legal Issues
There have been numerous media reports of police or contractors abusing workers. 45 To move
beyond the anecdotal aspect of those reports and evaluate the scope and gravity of such events,
we asked workers selected for the random survey a series of questions on possible human
rights abuses.
v The main problems faced by workers involve unfair treatment by employers and lack
of payment of wages, especially among undocumented workers. The analysis of the
random survey data indicate that the main problem faced by workers is payment of
wages rather than abuses by the police or immigration authorities. Thirteen percent
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
22
23
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
of the construction workers report having experienced problems collecting wages and
11 percent knew of co- workers, friends or relatives who experienced similar problems.
Undocumented workers report more difficulties with payment than do documented
workers. Twenty- one percent of undocumented workers said they had problems being
paid compared to 10 percent of documented workers. Construction workers report unfair
treatment by employers relatively frequently ( 10 percent) as a direct experience. Again,
undocumented workers report the problem more frequently than documented workers,
with respectively 15 percent and eight percent as a direct experience. Not surprisingly,
the majority ( 89 percent) of the construction workers who report having received threats
of deportation from their employers were undocumented workers. Eight percent of the
undocumented workers report that problem. The results are presented in Figure 11.
v Harassment by police is relatively infrequent compared to problems with employers.
Police harassment is not frequently reported among workers ( five percent) and is more
frequently cited among documented workers ( six percent) compared to two percent
among undocumented workers. This is possibly due to the fact that undocumented
workers typically try to avoid interactions with the police.
Figure 11: Experience of Abuses by Workers in New Orleans
v Encounters and problems with immigration officers are not frequently reported
among undocumented workers. Undocumented workers in the random survey were
asked a series of questions about their experiences with immigration services. Thirteen
percent of the undocumented workers report encountering immigration personnel who
generally only checked the worker’s identification. In three cases respondents report that
immigration officials took away people. Ten percent of the undocumented workers report
having experienced themselves or being aware of co- workers who experienced unfair
treatment by immigration officers. Those relatively low figures are supported by the
findings from the targeted survey of Latino workers that shows that 18 percent of the
undocumented workers report being approached by immigration authorities and 16 per-cent
report unfair treatment by these officials. No definition was provided to respondents
as to what constitutes “ unfair” treatment; however it likely includes harassment, arrest
and possibly deportation.
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
24
Flood Map with Study Participant Sampled Points
25
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
Current Concerns
A comprehensive picture of the experience of workers will provide insight into some of the
challenges that must be faced as reconstruction policies are developed.
v Legal status ( work, residential) is a concern among undocumented workers. Among
documented workers, their main concerns are access to insurance, education for children,
and financial problems. Sixteen percent identify politics ( concerns about corruption and
government leadership) and the rebuilding of the city as concerns. One- quarter of the
documented workers state that they have no concerns, compared to 20 percent among
undocumented workers. Among undocumented workers, their main concerns are lack of
work ( 27 percent), obtaining a work permit ( 25 percent), obtaining residential status
( 20 percent), the absence of their family ( 14 percent), poor pay ( 12 percent) and poor
housing ( 12 percent).
Table 4: Concerns of Workers in New Orleans
Documented Undocumented All
Workers Workers Workers
( n= 155) ( n= 53) ( n= 208)
None 25% 20% 24%
Health 13% 2% 10%
Politic and Rebuilding 16% 0% 12%
Hurricanes, Flood, and Levees 9% 0% 7%
Housing Problem 8% 12% 9%
Lackof work 7% 27% 13%
Poor Working Condition 6% 4% 6%
I don’t belong here 3% 4% 3%
Poor Pay 3% 12% 6%
Obtaining Working Permit 1% 25% 7%
Obtaining Residential Status 1% 20% 6%
Family not here 3% 14% 6%
Immigration 1% 6% 2%
Other 22% 14% 20%
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
26
27
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This report is based on a population- based study of conditions of workers rebuilding New
Orleans and its neighboring communities. Our findings raise serious concerns about working
conditions and workers’ rights. Undocumented workers are especially vulnerable. They are at
risk of exploitation and are poorly informed about the inherent dangers in their work. They lack
knowledge of services available to them and lack basic safety equipment. Furthermore, the cur-rent
laws regulating their work environment and access to basic services are weak and must be
reformed. Measures— from improving services to increasing accountability and reforming the
legal framework— must be taken to address these shortcomings.
Latinos comprise nearly half ( 45%) of the reconstruction workforce in New Orleans. Most of
these workers arrived since Hurricane Katrina, confirming reports of a large Latino migration
to the Gulf Coast. These workers are performing tasks critical to the rebuilding of New Orleans.
Key informants across a variety of professions report that Latino workers are making a positive
contribution to New Orleans. As one business leader remarked: “ But for Latinos willing to live
where others have not, we’d be in worse shape.” That said, so far, local and national authorities
have failed so far to comprehend the human costs that are being borne by Latino workers.
Continued lack of attention to this growing undocumented population could result in an under-class
of exploited workers.
U. S. immigration laws are at odds with national and international labor standards. The Inter-
American Court of Human Rights, the highest human rights tribunal in the Americas, recently
held that labor rights must be extended to all workers regardless of status because “ the migrato-ry
status of a person can never be a justification for depriving him of the enjoyment and exercise
of his human rights, including those related to employment.” 46 United States immigration laws
prohibit employment of workers who do not have legal permission to work. However, employers
continue to hire undocumented workers. Labor, health, and safety protections are— at least, in
theory— supposed to be afforded to workers without regard to their legal status. Federal mini-mum
wage and overtime regulations as well as health and safety provisions apply to workers,
regardless of their immigration status ( See Appendix B). In practice, undocumented workers
enjoy lesser protections. We cannot have it both ways. Either we enforce immigration laws
effectively and prevent illegal immigrants from working or we allow them to work and provide
them with the same labor, safety, and health protections afforded documented workers.
This study found that the inconsistency between immigration laws and workplace regulation is
harmful to undocumented workers. We found that this group experiences problems similar to
those of documented workers but of a greater magnitude, particularly in the areas of wages,
health and safety, and access to healthcare. Our data are consistent with research on natural
disasters that finds minorities and migrants have greater difficulties accessing and enforcing
their rights. 47 Moreover, undocumented workers are paid significantly less than those with legal
status for the same type of work performed. Undocumented workers receive overtime compen-sation
at less than one- third the frequency as documented workers. Of further concern is the
finding that undocumented workers report greater problems than documented workers with
employers in a number of areas, including receipt of wages owed, threats of deportation, and
other types of perceived unfair treatment.
Similarly, the data on safety equipment and preparedness suggest that significant disparities
exist between documented and undocumented workers. It is possible that language barriers
inhibit training and dissemination of information about risk. It is also possible that some
employers lack a commitment to workplace safety or that they are cutting corners with undocu-mented
workers simply because they can get away with it and increase their profit margins. A
range of explanations is possible. What is clear is that documented and undocumented workers
enjoy different levels of protection— a warning sign that could result in adverse health effects to
the undocumented.
The data on health concerns and access to medical care suggest that undocumented workers are
far less able to access healthcare than documented workers. All workers reported health con-cerns
( with documented workers reporting greater frequency of cuts and bruises while undocu-mented
workers listed more nose bleeds and recurring headaches). However, the data suggest
that undocumented workers are far less likely to seek medical treatment and have less access to
health care when needed. Such disparities indicate that legal status operates to prevent undocu-mented
workers from accessing needed healthcare.
The health problems reported by workers are consistent with on- the- job injuries in construction,
but few workers— documented or undocumented— reported that the costs of their medical care
were covered by their employer. Survey data for Louisiana suggest that six percent of adult
workers have private health insurance. 48 The number of workers in this study who reported they
were self- insured ( 20%) may be high because it is possible that respondents confused “ personal
insurance” with insurance coverage which they purchased through their employer or believe
they are covered through workers’ compensation insurance. Workers’ compensation schemes are
designed to ensure that injured workers receive treatment and compensation for their injuries. The
data on lack of health coverage even among documented workers suggest violations of the work-ers’
compensation requirements. This is further supported by key informant interviews. While
the public hospital system is the last resort for the indigent and undocumented, the city’s public
health system is severely compromised, which leaves the undocumented with few options. This
hypothesis is supported by the finding that undocumented workers access medical care, if at all,
through free clinics.
While this study provides important information about the experience of workers, it does not tell
the whole story. We do not know the personal motivations or structural impediments that affect
the desire and ability of employers to comply with the letter and spirit of the law. Key inform-ants
report that inexperienced or “ fly- by- night” contractors have opened up shop in the area and
that these employers may be taking advantage of the lack of regulations and enforcement simply
to ignore relevant laws. It also may be true that rising insurance premiums and other costs of
doing business in the disaster zone hinder the ability of well- intentioned employers to maintain
standards. It is also possible that undocumented workers are more willing than documented
workers to accept low wages, poor safety protections, and substandard housing because they
have no other choice or because even these conditions are better than their other options.
Whatever the reason, it is critical that regulations are put into place to protect undocumented
workers. What the data show are that the most vulnerable workers— the undocumented— are
bearing the brunt of a weakened regulatory regime.
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
28
29
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
Hurricane Katrina stripped bare the physical and social infrastructure of New Orleans, exposed
and exacerbated pre- existing social problems including disparities in distribution of resources,
and placed a heavy burden on the city’s public health system. An open and public discussion is
urgently needed about the social values that will define the future of New Orleans. That discus-sion
should include ways of protecting the human dignity, safety, and well- being of all workers
regardless of their legal status.
With this goal in mind, we make the following recommendations:
1. The federal government should create an expedited process of issuing work author-izations
in federally- declared disaster zones. By enabling undocumented workers
already residing in the United States to obtain legal permission to work in disaster areas,
federal authorities will be able to meet the demand for labor and expedite the reconstruc-tion
process. However, such work authorizations must be accompanied by measures that
provide workers with full labor, health, and safety protections. Procedures should be
established to monitor construction sites and sanction those employers who violate these
protections.
2. Federal, state, and local authorities should strengthen employer accountability for
labor violations. Enforcement of worker health and safety regulations, including
mandatory workers’ compensation coverage, should be improved for all laborers.
Effective, accessible mechanisms to resolve wage disputes and remedy violations of
wage laws must be available to workers regardless of legal status. These mechanisms
should contain provisions that allow for judicial review. Regulation and administration
of workers’ compensation programs should be reformed to improve employer compliance.
Additional resources need to be allocated to increase access to legal services for workers
and to deter unscrupulous employers.
3. Federal immigration enforcement must be separate from enforcement of labor
protections. Employers should be held accountable for violations of immigration laws.
At the same time, laws must be revised to eliminate gaps that allow employers to hire
undocumented workers and subsequently evade their obligations to respect the rights of
these employees. Laws and policies that link protections for workers to legal status must
be eliminated. Undocumented workers should have access to workers’ compensation
coverage, safety training, and other programs designed to promote worker health and
well- being. Outreach programs informing workers of their rights and responsibilities
should be developed and implemented. Immigration enforcement should not involve
health care providers or other professionals engaged in provision of social services or
implementation of worker protections.
4. Public authorities in those areas affected by Hurricane Katrina should increase
access to healthcare, with particular attention to the needs of undocumented Latino
workers. The healthcare system throughout the hurricane- affected areas needs to be
rebuilt as quickly as feasible. Access to public and private healthcare must not be condi-tioned
on legal status. Affordable heath insurance should be made available to the work-ing
poor without regard to legal status to improve equal access to heath care for workers.
5. Further study of working conditions and treatment of laborers in the Gulf Coast
region should be conducted. The demographic composition of the workforce in New
Orleans has changed dramatically since Hurricane Katrina and is likely to evolve further
as residents return to the region. Economic conditions could change dramatically
depending on the timing and amount of federal aid that is directed to fund reconstruction.
Further study of the treatment and needs of workers, particularly undocumented Latino
workers, is needed and should be repeated over time to document and respond to
changing trends.
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
30
31
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
AUTHORS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Authors
This report was written by Laurel E. Fletcher, Patrick Vinck, Phuong Pham, and Eric Stover.
Laurel E. Fletcher is a Clinical Professor of Law and Director of the International Human
Rights Law Clinic, Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley. Patrick Vinck
is a Research Associate at the Payson Center for International Development and Technology
Transfer, Tulane University. Phuong Pham is an Assistant Professor at the Payson Center for
International Development and Technology Transfer, Tulane University, and a Research Fellow
at the Human Rights Center of the University of California, Berkeley. Eric Stover is an Adjunct
Professor of Public Health and Director of the Human Rights Center at the University of
California, Berkeley.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the following individuals and institutions for their help in designing
and implementing this study.
University of California, Berkeley. Roxanna Altholz, Clinical Lecturer at the International
Human Rights Law Clinic provided indispensible advice and consultation to the project, and
participated in the research, data collection, and analysis. International Human Rights Law
Clinic interns Aziza Ahmed and Girish Agrawal assisted in the survey design and data collection
of the study; Jennifer Landsidle, Matthew Schwoebel, and Teresa Wang helped with the data
collection. Further research assistance was provided by clinic interns Azmina Jasani and Emily
Proskine, and Jamie Rowen, a student at Boalt Hall’s Jurisprudence and Social Policy Program.
Rohan Radhakrishna, a student in the School of Public Health, assisted with the survey.
Kimberly Madigan provided research support and assisted in preparing the manuscript. Eric
Stover edited the report. Rachel Shigekane of the Human Rights Center and Joseph Blotner
copyedited the text. Grace Woo and Annie Morley designed the report.
Tulane University. Bethany Gaddis, Deborah Even, Nanette Svenson, Emily Schweninger,
Olivia Almendares, and Serena Fuller of the Latino Outreach Committee at the Payson Center
and the School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine assisted in the survey design, translation,
and data collection of the study. Other students at Tulane University who assisted in the research
were Neil Hendrick, Olga Quinonez Eames, Rita Golikeri, Tweabech Alemayehu Aychiluhem,
and Zenira Marques. Timothy Grant, Gregory Stone, and Nathaniel Weaver, representing both
Tulane University and the City of New Orleans’ Emergency Operations Center, helped with the
recruitment of the survey team and the sampling database. Professors Eamon Kelly and William
E. Bertrand of the Payson Center offered invaluable advice and consultation.
We would like to thank Gilles Peress for the time and vision he dedicated to capturing photo-graphic
images for this project.
Thanks are also due to the Koret Foundation and The Sandler Family Supporting Foundation.
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
32
TO BE COMPLETED BEFORE INTERVIEW
NAME: |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
NAME OF THE INTERVIEWER
DATE |__|__| / |__|__| / |__|__|__|__|
MONTH DAY YEAR
NUMBER OF PERSON APPROACHED BEFORE CONDUCTING THIS INTERVIEW |__|__|
1 WORKPLACE
2 HOME
3 PICK- UP SITE
4 SOCIAL GATHERING , SPECIFY _______________
5 FEEDING PLACE
PLACE OF THE INTERVIEW:
6 CLINIC, HOSPITAL
NEIGHBORHOOD:
SIGN HERE IF YOU HAVE READ AND OBTAINED CONSENT:
1. WHAT IS THE GENDER ( SEX) OF THE RESPONDENT? 1 MALE 2 FEMALE
2. WHAT YEAR WERE YOU BORN? |__|__||__|__| OR |__|__| YEARS OLD
1 MEXICO
2 HONDURAS
3 COSTA RICA
4 EL SALVADOR
5 NICARAGUA
6 BRAZIL
7 VIETNAM
8 U. S. ( AFRICAN AMERICAN)  SKIP TO 5
9 U. S. ( CAUCASIAN)  SKIP TO 5
10 U. S. ( HISPANIC)  SKIP TO 5
11 U. S. ( ASIAN)  SKIP TO 5
3. WHAT IS YOUR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN?
12 OTHER, SPECIFY ________________
4.
IN YOUR COUNTRY OF ORGIN, ARE YOU FROM A URBAN OR RURAL
AREA? ( ASK ONLY FOR FOREIGN PARTICIPANTS)
1 URBAN 2 RURAL
0 NONE
1 PRIMARY ( YEAR 1- 6)
2 SECONDARY ( YEAR 7- 12)
3 COLLEGE / UNIVERSITY
4 TECHNICAL SCHOOL
5.
WHAT IS YOUR HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION?
( HOW MANY YEARS OF EDUCATION HAVE YOU HAD?)
5 GRADUATE
1 CHALMETTE
2 KENNER
3 LAPLACE
4 METAIRIE
5 ORLEANS PARISH
6 SLIDELL
7 ST. BERNARD PARISH
8 WESTBANK
9 BATON ROUGE
10 MISSISSIPPI
11 ALABAMA
6. WHERE DO YOU CURRENTLY LIVE?
12 OTHER, SPECIFY ________________
1 LESS THAN 1 MONTH
2 1 – 6 MONTH
3 7 – 12 MONTHS
4 OVER 1 YEAR  SKIP TO 10
7. HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN THE HURRICANE AFFECTED AREA?
5 OVER 5 YEARS  SKIP TO 10
8. BEFORE COMING HERE, DID YOU LIVE IN THE U. S.? 1 YES 2 NO  SKIP TO 10
APPENDIX A: KATRINA WORK AND HEALTH SURVEY
33
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
9. IF YES, WHERE IN THE U. S.? ( SPECIFY STATE – FULL OR CODE) |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
1 AS LONG AS I CAN FIND WORK
2 LESS THAN 1 MONTH
3 1 – 6 MONTHS
4 7 – 12 MONTHS
5 OVER 1 YEAR
6 OVER 5 YEARS
7 PERMANENTLY
10.
HOW LONG DO YOU PLAN TO STAY IN THE HURRICANE AFFECTED
AREA?
8 DON’T KNOW
11. DO YOU HAVE A SPOUSE OR LONG TERM PARTNER? 1 YES 2 NO  SKIP TO 14
12. IS YOUR SPOUSE/ PARTNER HERE WITH YOU? 1 YES  SKIP TO 14 2 NO
13.
IS YOUR SPOUSE/ PARTNER PLANNING TO LIVE HERE WITH YOU
WITHIN THE NEXT 12 MONTHS?
1 YES 2 NO
14. DO YOU HAVE CHILDREN? 1 YES 2 NO  SKIP TO 17
15. ARE YOUR CHILDREN HERE WITH YOU? 1 YES  SKIP TO 17 2 NO
16.
ARE YOUR CHILDREN PLANNING TO LIVE HERE WITH YOU WITHIN
THE NEXT 12 MONTHS?
1 YES 2 NO
1 TENT
2 TRAILER, RV
3 CAR
4 APARTMENT
5 HOTEL
6 HOUSE
7 CONSTRUCTION SITE
17. WHAT TYPE OF PLACE DO YOU LIVE IN?
8 OTHER, SPECIFY _______________
18. HOW MANY PEOPLE SHARE THAT PLACE WITH YOU? |__|__|__| PEOPLE
1 LESS THAN 1 MONTH
2 1 – 6 MONTHS
3 7 – 12 MONTHS
4 OVER 1 YEAR
19.
HOW LONG DO YOU PLAN ON STAYING AT YOUR CURRENT
RESIDENCE?
5 DON’T KNOW
20. ARE YOU CURRENTLY EMPLOYED? 1 YES 2 NO
1 DAY LABOR
2 GUTTING HOUSE – DEBRIS REMOVAL
3 CARPENTRY
4 PLUMBING
5 ELECTRICAL
6 A. C. ( HVAC)
7 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION
8 SERVICE SECTOR ( HOTEL, RESTAURANT)
21.
WHAT TYPE OF WORK DO YOU USUALLY DO?
( CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
9 OTHER, SPECIFY ________________
22. DID YOU ALREADY HAVE A JOB BEFORE YOU CAME HERE? 1 YES 2 NO
1 RECRUITED BY A CONTRACTOR
2 RECRUITED BY A JOB BROKER
3 FRIENDS
4 FAMILY
5 RADIO
6 TV
7 NEWSPAPER
8 INTERNET
23.
HOW DID YOU HEAR ABOUT WORK AVAILABLE HERE?
( CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
9 OTHER, SPECIFY ________________
24. WHEN EMPLOYED, HOW MANY HOURS A DAY DO YOU WORK?
|__|__| HOURS ( ON AVERAGE)
25. WHEN EMPLOYED, HOW MANY DAYS A WEEK DO YOU WORK?
|__|__| DAYS ( ON AVERAGE)
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
34
1 EVERY DAY ( HOW MUCH? ______________ )
2 ONCE A WEEK ( HOW MUCH? ______________ )
3 ONE EVERY FEW WEEKS ( HOW MUCH? __________)
4 ONCE A MONTH ( HOW MUCH? ______________ )
26. WHEN WORKING, HOW OFTEN ARE YOU PAID?
5
UPON COMPLETION OF WORK ( CONTRACT)
( HOW MUCH? ______________ )
27. IF YOU WORK OVER 40 HOURS A WEEK, DO YOU GET EXTRA PAY? 1 YES 2 SOMETIMES 3 NO  SKIP TO 29
1 BY HOUR, AT THE NORMAL HOURLY WAGE
2 ONE AND HALF TIMES T 28. IF YES, HOW IS THAT EXTRA PAY CALCULATED? HE NORMAL HOURLY WAGE
3 OTHER, SPECFY __________________________
29.
WHEN PAID, DO YOU RECEIVE LESS MONEY THAN YOU WERE
PROMISED?
1 YES 2 SOMETIMES 3 NO
30.
DOES YOUR EMPLOYER DEDUCT MONEY FROM YOUR PAY FOR ANY
EXPENSES?
1 YES 2 SOMETIMES 3 NO  SKIP TO 32
1 FOR HOUSING
2 FOR TRANSPORTATION
3 FOR FOOD
31.
WHAT EXPENSES DOES YOUR EMPLOYER DEDUCT FROM YOUR
SALARY?
4 OTHER, SPECIFY ________________
32. HAVE YOU EXPERIENCED PROBLEMS BEING PAID FOR YOUR WORK? 1 YES 2 SOMETIMES 3 NO  SKIP TO 34
33.
IF YES, WHAT WAS THE PROBLEM?
1 NONE  SKIP TO 39
2 GLOVES
3 HARD HAT
4 STEEL- TOED BOOTS
5 PROTECTIVE GOGGLES/ FACE SHIELD
6 FACE MASK ( DUST FILTER)
7
RESPIRATOR ( FULL- FACE OR HALF- FACE – CHEMICAL
FILTER)
8 HEARING PROTECTION ( EAR PLUGS OR EAR MUFFS)
9 OVERALLS
34.
WHAT PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT DO YOU HAVE FOR WORK?
( CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
10 OTHER, SPECIFY ________________
35. IS IT PROVIDED BY YOUR EMPLOYER? 1 YES 2 NO 3 NA
36. IS IT REQUIRED BY YOUR EMPLOYER? 1 YES 2 NO 3 NA
37.
DO YOU WEAR THOSE SPECIAL PROTECTIVE CLOTHES OR
EQUIPMENT?
1 YES  SKIP TO39 2 SOMETIMES 3 N0
1 BECAUSE IT IS UNCOMFORTABLE
2 FORGET TO BRING IT TO WORKSITE
3 DO NOT LIKE WEARING IT
4 DO NOT THINK IT PROVIDES ADDITIONAL PROTECTION
38. IF NO OR SOMETIMES, WHY NOT?
5 OTHER, SPECIFY ________________
1 LACK OF WORK
2 POOR WORKING CONDITIONS
3 OBTAINING WORKING PERMIT
4 OBTAINING RESIDENTIAL STATUS
5 POOR PAY
6 POOR HOUSING
7 I DON’T FEEL I BELONG HERE.
39.
WHAT ARE YOUR CURRENT CONCERNS ?
( CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
8 OTHER, SPECIFY ________________
35
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
40.
DO YOU THINK NEW ORLEANS IS/ WOULD BE A GOOD PLACE FOR
YOU AND YOUR FAMILY?
1 YES  SKIP TO 42 2 NO
41.
IF NO, WHY NOT?
42.
WHAT DO YOU DO FOR ENTERTAINMENT?
IN RELATION TO YOUR WORK IN THE HURRICANE AFFECTED AREA, FOR EACH OF THE FOLLOWING, PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU , YOUR
CO- WORKERS, AND/ OR FAMILY/ FRIENDS HAVE EXPERIENCED ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ( CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
43. WORK WITH HARMFUL SUBSTANCES/ CHEMICALS 0 NO ONE 1 MYSELF 2 CO- WORKER 3 FAMILY/ FRIEND
44. WORK IN DANGEROUS CONDITIONS 0 NO ONE 1 MYSELF 2 CO- WORKER 3 FAMILY/ FRIEND
45. RECEIVED TRAINING FOR THE WORK SITE 0 NO ONE 1 MYSELF 2 CO- WORKER 3 FAMILY/ FRIEND
46. WAS INFORMED ABOUT THE RISK RELATED TO MOLD 0 NO ONE 1 MYSELF 2 CO- WORKER 3 FAMILY/ FRIEND
47. WAS INFORMED ABOUT THE RISK RELATED TO ASBESTOS 0 NO ONE 1 MYSELF 2 CO- WORKER 3 FAMILY/ FRIEND
48. WAS INFORMED ABOUT RISK RELATED TO UNSAFE BUILDINGS 0 NO ONE 1 MYSELF 2 CO- WORKER 3 FAMILY/ FRIEND
49. HAD AN ACCIDENT RESULTING IN INJURY/ ILLNESS AT WORK 0 NO ONE 1 MYSELF 2 CO- WORKER 3 FAMILY/ FRIEND
50. HAVE BEEN INJURED WHILE WORKING 0 NO ONE 1 MYSELF 2 CO- WORKER 3 FAMILY/ FRIEND
51. HAVE BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY BY EMPLOYER 0 NO ONE 1 MYSELF 2 CO- WORKER 3 FAMILY/ FRIEND
52. HAVE PROBLEMS WITH PAYMENT FROM EMPLOYER 0 NO ONE 1 MYSELF 2 CO- WORKER 3 FAMILY/ FRIEND
53.
HAVE BEEN THREATHENED WITH DEPORTATION FOR
COMPLAINING TO THE BOSS REGARDING WORK CONDITIONS
0 NO ONE 1 MYSELF 2 CO- WORKER 3 FAMILY/ FRIEND
54. HAVE BEEN PHYSICALLY ABUSED AT WORK 0 NO ONE 1 MYSELF 2 CO- WORKER 3 FAMILY/ FRIEND
55. HAVE BEEN SEXUALLY ABUSED/ HARASSED AT WORK 0 NO ONE 1 MYSELF 2 CO- WORKER 3 FAMILY/ FRIEND
56. HAVE BEEN HARASSED BY THE POLICE 0 NO ONE 1 MYSELF 2 CO- WORKER 3 FAMILY/ FRIEND
DO YOU HAVE ACCESS TO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING?
57. VEHICLE ( CAR) 1 YES 2 NO
58. BATHROOM WITH SHOWER AT WORK OR HOME 1 YES 2 NO
59. KITCHEN AT HOME 1 YES 2 NO
60. RUNNING WATER AT HOME 1 YES 2 NO
61. ELECTRICITY AT HOME 1 YES 2 NO
62. PHONE ( CELL OR LAND) 1 YES 2 NO
63. RADIO AT HOME 1 YES 2 NO
64. TV AT HOME 1 YES 2 NO
65. ENOUGH FOOD 1 YES 2 NO
66. FOOD STAMPS/ EBT CARD 1 YES 2 NO
67. HEALTH INSURANCE 1 YES 2 NO
68. MEDICARE  1 YES 2 NO
69. MEDICINE WHEN NEEDED 1 YES 2 NO 3 NA
WHAT SERVICES HAVE
YOU USED OR
ACCESSED SINCE YOU
ARRIVED IN THE
HURRICANE AFFECTED
AREA? ( CHECK IF YES)
ASK ONLY FOR SERVICES THAT WERE USED
ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH [ SERVICE]
1. Very Unsatisfied
2. Unsatisfied
3. Neutral
4. Satisfied
5. Very Satisfied
WHAT
SERVICES THAT
YOU HAVE NOT
ACCESSED OR
USED DO YOU
NEED? ( CHECK)
70. MEDICAL SERVICES YES 1 2 3 4 5 YES
71. FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES YES 1 2 3 4 5 YES
72. DENTAL SERVICES YES 1 2 3 4 5 YES
73. LEGAL SERVICES YES 1 2 3 4 5 YES
74. IMMIGRATION SERVICES YES 1 2 3 4 5 YES
75. EMPLOYMENT/ JOB PLACEMENT YES 1 2 3 4 5 YES
76. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE YES 1 2 3 4 5 YES
77. COUNSELING/ PSYCHO- SOCIAL SERVICES YES 1 2 3 4 5 YES
78. EDUCATION FOR CHILDREN YES 1 2 3 4 5 YES
79.
OTHER, SPECIFY ________________
YES 1 2 3 4 5 YES
* Due to inadvertent error, “ Medicare” was listed instead of “ Medicaid.” Accordingly, the responses to this question have been dis-regarded
in the analysis.
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
36
SINCE KATRINA, HAVE YOU EXPERIENCED ANY OF THE FOLLOWING, AND IF YES HOW MUCH OF A PROBLEM WAS IT?
80. BROKEN/ SPRAINED LIMBS 1 NOT AT ALL 2 MINOR PROBLEM 3 SERIOUS PROBLEM
81. HEAD INJURIES 1 NOT AT ALL 2 MINOR PROBLEM 3 SERIOUS PROBLEM
82. CUTS/ BRUISES 1 NOT AT ALL 2 MINOR PROBLEM 3 SERIOUS PROBLEM
83. SKIN RASHES, SWELLING 1 NOT AT ALL 2 MINOR PROBLEM 3 SERIOUS PROBLEM
84. BURNS 1 NOT AT ALL 2 MINOR PROBLEM 3 SERIOUS PROBLEM
85. NOSE BLEEDS 1 NOT AT ALL 2 MINOR PROBLEM 3 SERIOUS PROBLEM
86. DIFFICULTY BREATHING 1 NOT AT ALL 2 MINOR PROBLEM 3 SERIOUS PROBLEM
87. ASTHMA ATTACK 1 NOT AT ALL 2 MINOR PROBLEM 3 SERIOUS PROBLEM
88. COLD/ FLU 1 NOT AT ALL 2 MINOR PROBLEM 3 SERIOUS PROBLEM
89. COUGH 1 NOT AT ALL 2 MINOR PROBLEM 3 SERIOUS PROBLEM
90. RECURRING HEADACHE 1 NOT AT ALL 2 MINOR PROBLEM 3 SERIOUS PROBLEM
91. WATERY OR RED EYES OR EYE INFECTIONS 1 NOT AT ALL 2 MINOR PROBLEM 3 SERIOUS PROBLEM
92. DIFFICULTY REMEMBERING RECENT EVENTS OR INFORMATION 1 NOT AT ALL 2 MINOR PROBLEM 3 SERIOUS PROBLEM
93. DIABETES 1 NOT AT ALL 2 MINOR PROBLEM 3 SERIOUS PROBLEM
94. HYPERTENSION 1 NOT AT ALL 2 MINOR PROBLEM 3 SERIOUS PROBLEM
95. DIARRHEA 1 NOT AT ALL 2 MINOR PROBLEM 3 SERIOUS PROBLEM
96.
IF YOU ANSWERED YES FOR ANY OF THE ABOVE, HAVE
YOU RECEIVED MEDICAL CARE?
1 YES 2 NO  SKIP TO 100
97.
FOR WHICH CONDITION( S) DID YOU SEEK MEDICAL CARE?
98.
WHERE DID YOU SEEK MEDICAL CARE?
1 INSURANCE PROVIDED BY WORK
2 PERSONAL INSURANCE
3 MYSELF
4 WORK
5 TREATMENT WAS FREE
6 UNABLE TO PAY
99. WHO PAID FOR THE MEDICAL TREATMENT?
7 OTHER, SPECIFY ________________________
100. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER HEALTH CONCERN? 1 YES, SPECIFY _______________ 2 NO
SINCE KATRINA, HAVE YOU EXPERIENCED ANY OF THE FOLLOWING, AND IF YES HOW STRONGLY?
101. TROUBLE FALLING OR STAYING ASLEEP 1. NOT AT ALL 2. A LITTLE BIT 3. QUITE A BIT 4. EXTREMELY
102. FEELING IRRITABLE OR HAVING ANGRY OUTBURSTS 1. NOT AT ALL 2. A LITTLE BIT 3. QUITE A BIT 4. EXTREMELY
103. HAVING DIFFICULTY CONCENTRATING 1. NOT AT ALL 2. A LITTLE BIT 3. QUITE A BIT 4. EXTREMELY
104. FEELING JUMPY OR EASILY STARTLED 1. NOT AT ALL 2. A LITTLE BIT 3. QUITE A BIT 4. EXTREMELY
105. FEELING LOW IN ENERGY, SLOWED DOWN 1. NOT AT ALL 2. A LITTLE BIT 3. QUITE A BIT 4. EXTREMELY
106. BLAMING YOURSELF FOR THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED 1. NOT AT ALL 2. A LITTLE BIT 3. QUITE A BIT 4. EXTREMELY
107. CRYING EASILY/ HAVE EMOTIONAL OUTBURST 1. NOT AT ALL 2. A LITTLE BIT 3. QUITE A BIT 4. EXTREMELY
108. FEELING HOPELESS ABOUT THE FUTURE 1. NOT AT ALL 2. A LITTLE BIT 3. QUITE A BIT 4. EXTREMELY
109. FEELING TRAPPED OR CAUGHT 1. NOT AT ALL 2. A LITTLE BIT 3. QUITE A BIT 4. EXTREMELY
110. FEELING LONELY 1. NOT AT ALL 2. A LITTLE BIT 3. QUITE A BIT 4. EXTREMELY
111. LOST OF APPETITE, NOT HUNGRY OR DO NOT FEEL LIKE EATING 1. NOT AT ALL 2. A LITTLE BIT 3. QUITE A BIT 4. EXTREMELY
112. FEELING SAD OR BLUE 1. NOT AT ALL 2. A LITTLE BIT 3. QUITE A BIT 4. EXTREMELY
113. THINKING OF ENDING YOUR LIFE 1. NOT AT ALL 2. A LITTLE BIT 3. QUITE A BIT 4. EXTREMELY
114.
FEELING WORTHLESS, FEELING AS YOU THOUGHT YOU ARE NOT
OF ANY VALUE TO SOCIETY
1. NOT AT ALL 2. A LITTLE BIT 3. QUITE A BIT 4. EXTREMELY
115. LOSS OF INTEREST IN THINGS OR IN DAY TO DAY ACTIVITIES 1. NOT AT ALL 2. A LITTLE BIT 3. QUITE A BIT 4. EXTREMELY
116. CONSTANTLY WORRY ABOUT THINGS 1. NOT AT ALL 2. A LITTLE BIT 3. QUITE A BIT 4. EXTREMELY
117. LOSS OF INTEREST IN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP 1. NOT AT ALL 2. A LITTLE BIT 3. QUITE A BIT 4. EXTREMELY
37
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
118. FEELING EVERYTHING IS AN EFFORT 1. NOT AT ALL 2. A LITTLE BIT 3. QUITE A BIT 4. EXTREMELY
119. DRINK ALCOHOL MORE THAN 3 TIMES PER WEEK 1. NOT AT ALL 2. A LITTLE BIT 3. QUITE A BIT 4. EXTREMELY
WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE FOLLOWING IS A SENSITIVE SUBJECT AND YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ANSWER. WE WOULD LIKE,
HOWEVER, TO REMIND YOU THAT THIS IS A CONFIDENTIAL INTERVIEW AND THAT NO INFORMATION THAT COULD IDENTIFY YOU
HAS BEEN RECORDED.
120. ARE YOU A US CITIZEN OR PERMANENT RESIDENT OF THE US? 1 YES  STOP 2 NO
121. IF NO, DO YOU HAVE A WORK VISA IN THE US? 1 YES 2 NO
122. HAVE YOU EVER ENCOUNTERED IMMIGRATION PEOPLE 1 YES 2 NO  SKIP TO125
123. IF YES, WHERE? ( CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY) 1 HOME 2 WORK 3 OTHER, ________
1 CHECKED PAPERS
2 WARNED PEOPLE TO LEAVE
3 TOOK PEOPLE AWAY
124. IF YES, WHAT DID THEY DO?
4 OTHER
125.
HAVE YOU OR YOUR CO- WORKERS EXPERIENCED ANY UNFAIR
TREATMENT BY IMMIGRATION?
1 YES 2 NO
126. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN APPROACHED BY THE POLICE? 1 YES 2 NO  SKIP TO129
127. IF YES, WHERE? ( CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY) 1 HOME 2 WORK 3 OTHER, ________
1 CHECKED PAPERS
2 WARNED PEOPLE TO LEAVE
3 TOOK PEOPLE AWAY
128. IF YES, WHAT DID THEY DO?
4 OTHER
129.
HAVE YOU OR YOUR CO- WORKERS EXPERIENCED ANY UNFAIR
TREATMENT BY THE POLICE?
1 YES 2 NO
THANK YOU FOR YOUR VALUABLE TIME. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
38
APPENDIX B: LEGAL STANDARDS
International Legal Standards
International human rights and labor standards contain a core set of guarantees to promote
respect for the rights of workers and prevent violations of these rights by governments as well as
private employers. These international standards address the treatment, welfare, and human
rights of workers regardless of their legal status. Widely- recognized by governments, these prin-ciples
serve as an important source of norms that may guide legislative reform and promote pol-icy
in the United States to reduce the vulnerabilities of documented and undocumented workers
to exploitation during the reconstruction phase after a natural disaster.
The International Labour Organization ( ILO)— a tripartite international organization of states,
labor, and employers— adopted a set of four “ core labor standards” in 1998. These principles
enshrine the right to freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining; the elimina-tion
of all forms of forced labor; the effective abolition of child labor; and the elimination of
discrimination in respect of employment and occupation. 1 All states have an obligation “ to
respect, promote, and realize” these fundamental labor guarantees. 2 The UN Global Compact
initiative to “ promote responsible corporate citizenship so that business can be part of the solu-tion
to the challenges of globalization” also contains these ILO core labor principles. 3 The
United States is a member of the ILO and has separately adopted a number of the conventions
upon which these standards are based. 4
The primary international human rights instruments, collectively referred to as the International
Bill of Human Rights5 contain several rights applicable to protecting the rights of workers in the
Gulf Coast. These include the right to be free from forced labor and slavery, 6 the right to be free
from discrimination, 7 and the right to health. 8 In addition, the International Convention on the
Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families ( Migrant
Worker Convention) articulates international human rights standards related to the treatment,
welfare and human rights of both documented and undocumented migrants, as well as the obli-gations
and responsibilities on the part of sending and receiving states. 9 The United States has
not joined the treaty, and is thus not bound by it. 10
The Migrant Worker Convention enumerates migrant workers’ rights within employment rela-tionships.
Of particular relevance to the Gulf Coast hurricane reconstruction effort are provisions
that guarantee freedom from discriminatory treatment ( Article 7); the right to protection from
the state against violence, physical injury, threats and intimidation ( Article 16); the right to treat-ment
not less favorable than nationals ( Article 25), as well as the right to urgent medical care
( Article 28). Under the Migrant Worker Convention, the state has responsibilities to migrant
workers when it is itself an employer, but also in cases where private, third parties are employ-ers.
11 Thus, whether the state is the primary employer or not, it must protect worker rights by
creating legislation that defines the labor relationship, monitors the compliance with that legisla-tion,
and provides recourse for workers when their rights are violated. 12
The regional human rights mechanism covering the Americas is established through the
Organization of American States ( OAS), of which the United States is a member. Within the
Inter- American human rights system, the rights of migrant workers to life, health, and remunera-tion,
regardless of immigration status, have been consistently recognized. The Inter- American
39
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
Court, the highest human rights tribunal in region, recently affirmed these rights in its Advisory
Opinion on the Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants. 13 This Court
held that “ a person who enters a State and assumes an employment relationship, acquires his
labor human rights in the State of employment, irrespective of his migratory status, because
respect and guarantee of the enjoyment and exercise of those rights must be made without any
discrimination.” 14 ( emphasis added). In conjunction with the anti- discrimination norm, this advi-sory
opinion establishes state obligations to ensure that the rights of undocumented workers to
remuneration and health are protected effectively. The United States has not accepted the juris-diction
of the Court and is not bound by its judgments. However, the ruling establishes interna-tional
norms that may inform debate and policy development in this area.
Domestic Legal Standards
Natural disasters expose the weaknesses of public institutions and laws designed to protect vul-nerable
populations. In the aftermath of the 2005 hurricanes, the paucity of state labor protec-tions
compounded by weakening of federal labor regulations by the Executive Branch, exposed
workers, particularly undocumented workers, to labor exploitation and on the job injury. Easing
compliance with immigration regulations in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina unintentionally
may have drawn undocumented migrants to the Gulf Coast area. However, authorities did not
act to increase protections for this vulnerable group, increasing their exposure to abuse.
Government enforcement of workplace safety laws has been curtailed due to the devastation.
Outreach and education conducted by the responsible federal agency— the Office of Safety and
Health Administration ( OSHA)— to the private sector is limited. Similar to all residents in the
affected areas, sick and injured workers and their families face inadequate or unavailable med-ical
treatment although uninsured poor and undocumented workers confront additional obstacles
to accessing treatment. Workers injured on the job are entitled to medical treatment and com-pensation
through employer- mandated insurance schemes. Uninsured workers have few health-care
options.
Wage and Hour Laws
Mississippi and Louisiana do not have state minimum wage laws. Workers may be entitled to
the federal wage standard if they are covered by one of the federal laws regulating wages in par-ticular
industries. Workers are protected by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, ( FLSA) 15 if
employed by a public agency or certain types of private enterprises. 16 The statute establishes a
minimum wage ( currently $ 5.15 per hour), 17 but the law’s greater utility for Gulf Coast recon-struction
workers, who have generally been receiving more than the federal minimum wage, is
that it establishes worker entitlement to overtime pay. 18 Employees regardless of legal status
may sue an employer under FLSA for violation of the minimum wage and overtime
regulations. 19
In addition to FLSA, there are other federal laws requiring employers to pay workers in federal-ly-
funded construction or service contracts based on the local wage standard (“ prevailing wage”)
for the type of work they perform; these wages are higher than the federal minimum. 20 One of
these statutes, the Davis- Bacon Act, 21 was suspended in areas damaged by Hurricane Katrina
from September 8, 2005 through November 7, 2005.22 Federal construction contracts awarded
during that period are not subject to the prevailing wage or production of payroll records
requirements of the Davis- Bacon Act. 23 The Wage and Hour Division ( WHD) of the Employment
Standards Administration ( part of the U. S. Department of Labor) enforces the prevailing wage
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
40
law. The WHD monitors compliance with all federal labor laws, investigates allegations of
violations, and issues recommendations to employers to bring them into compliance. It also
may file suit against employers to compel compliance. 24
Workers employed by small contractors that are not required to comply with FLSA must file
suit under state law to collect unpaid wages. Legal status does not prevent a worker from filing
suit, but access to attorneys willing to represent individuals seeking to recover relatively small
claims poses additional challenges to workers in this situation.
Immigration Regulation
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 198625 prohibits employment of any alien who is
not authorized to work. 26 Employers must verify the work- eligibility for all newly- hired employ-ees
and are subject to civil and criminal penalties for hiring illegal aliens. 27 On September 6,
2005, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the federal Department of Homeland Security ( DHS)
announced that for a period of 45 days it would not sanction employers for failure to provide
identity and eligibility documents as a result of the storm. 28 On October 21, 2005, DHS reinstat-ed
enforcement and stated that the agency expected that by this point in time individuals who
previously were unable to provide documents had been able to replace required documents or
could demonstrate that they have applied for these documents from relevant agencies. 29 Reports
and our key informant interviews suggest that the DHS waiver of the documentation provisions
attracted undocumented migrants to the Gulf Coast area in search of work. 30 An increase in
undocumented workers seeking jobs in hurricane- affected areas should have been a foreseeable
consequence of the employer sanction waiver. However, authorities took no additional measures
to increase protection for a predicable influx of vulnerable laborers.
Health and Safety Regulations
State and federal laws obligate employers to minimize risk to the health and safety of workers.
Louisiana law makes it a duty of the employer to provide a reasonably safe work environment. 31
The Workplace Safety Section of the Louisiana Department of Labor identifies worksite safety
and health hazards and issues recommendations to employers, but does not issue fines or cita-tions.
32 Mississippi administers an occupational health and safety program, but its function is to
assist, inform, educate and train employers and employees about workplace health and safety
issues in order to encourage compliance with established standards. 33 In both states, compliance
inspections and enforcement are performed by the federal Occupational Safety and Health
Administration ( OSHA). 34
The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 ( OSH), 35 is administered by OSHA and estab-lishes
“ mandatory occupational safety and health standards applicable to businesses affecting
interstate commerce.” 36 OSHA also assists states in developing and implementing their own
occupational health and safety programs. 37 Employers covered by the OSH Act must comply
with the regulations and the safety and health standards promulgated by the federal agency.
Homeowners who hire contractors are not considered employers and are generally not subject to
the OSH Act’s health and safety requirements. 38 However, a contractor rebuilding a private home
likely will be considered an employer under federal law39 and may be sanctioned for unsafe
work conditions. OSHA enforces federal occupational health and safety standards through pub-lishing
its inspections and investigations, 40 issuing citations, 41 and assessing monetary penal-ties.
42 The agency may also seek a court order to shut down operations that pose an immediate
danger to the health and safety of workers. 43
41
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
Following the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes, OSHA exempted a number of affected areas in
Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana from regular enforcement status to “ enable[]
OSHA staff to provide faster and more flexible responses to hazards facing workers involved in
the cleanup and recovery.” 44 The agency deployed teams to the area to provide technical assis-tance
to workers and employers involved in clean up operations. 45 However, the number of
OSHA personnel devoted to these tasks was not more than 100 and the teams covered a disaster
area of 90,000 square miles. 46 Normal enforcement restarted on January 25, 2006, except for the
worst- affected areas. 47 OSHA continues to investigate worker complaints and reports of major
injuries and fatalities even in the exempted areas. 48
Although OSHA suspended enforcement operations in the affected areas, it assumed special
duties in the aftermath of the hurricanes. Under federal law activated by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency after hurricane Katrina, OSHA is the coordinating agency responsible for
promoting the safety of federal responders and contractors. 49 The function of the federal agency
in this context is to promote workplace safety through technical support and coordination with
other relevant agencies. Since the hurricane, OSHA employees have interacted with over 16,000
work crews and handed out nearly 57,000 safety and health technical assistance fact sheets
throughout the affected areas. 50 The agency does not assume substantive responsibility for the
health and safety of workers after a natural disaster; private and federal employers remain
obliged to ensure the health and safety of their employees. 51
Injuries and Access to Healthcare
Workers’ compensation laws are designed to compensate employees who are injured in work-related
accidents according to a fixed monetary scheme, without having to resort to litigation.
The Federal Employment Compensation Act only covers civil employees of the federal govern-ment
or any of its instrumentalities. 52 State workers’ compensation statutes cover most other
employees, regardless of their immigration status.
In Louisiana, the state workers’ compensation scheme is administered through the Office of
Workers’ Compensation Administration of the state Department of Labor. 53 State law requires
that workers be able to seek medical assistance for work- place related injuries without resorting
to out- of- pocket payments. 54 With certain exceptions, Louisiana law requires public and private
employers to buy and maintain workers’ compensation coverage for all workers. 55 The
Mississippi workers’ compensation law covers most private employers with five or more
employees. 56 In both Louisiana and Mississippi, if an employer has workers’ compensation cov-erage,
any injury, disease or occupational illness as well as death to an individual is covered if it
arises out of the course and scope of employment. 57 Undocumented workers technically are eli-gible
for protection under the laws. 58 However, in practice, undocumented workers may not be
protected if insurance companies require employee social security numbers in order to extend
them coverage.
Injured workers who are not covered by workers compensation— either because the employer
does not have coverage, is paying workers “ off the books,” or because the injury is not work-related—
have to rely on other forms of insurance, or pay for treatment out- of- pocket.
Employers may offer health insurance to workers, but are not required to do so. 59 Although
workers employed by a company that does not offer health insurance coverage may be able to
purchase private medical insurance, these policies tend to be more expensive and, within the
region, few individuals of working age are covered by private insurance. 60
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
42
Uninsured workers in need of care who do not have private insurance generally must pay for
treatment. Most workers are not eligible for Medicaid, the federal medical assistance program.
This program covers low- income women who are pregnant, children, families with children,
seniors, and the disabled. 61 Low- income adults without children are not eligible for the program.
Undocumented workers generally are ineligible for Medicaid. 62 While federally- funded commu-nity
clinics must offer services regardless of immigration status; 63 such clinics may not be acces-sible
or are unable to meet demand for services.
States are not prevented by federal law from offering medical coverage to undocumented immi-grants.
Approximately one- third of states provide some type of medical coverage to immigrants
who are ineligible for Medicaid. However, Louisiana and Mississippi do not have such programs. 64
For the medically indigent and undocumented, the only medical care to which they are entitled
is emergency room treatment. 65 In Louisiana, state hospitals are obligated to provide indigent
care to residents, although it is not clear whether this duty specifically encompasses the undocu-mented.
66 Mississippi law contains no similar requirement that counties provide indigent care. 67
NOTES
Notes to Study
1 Richard D. Knabb, Jamie R. Rhome, and Daniel P. Brown, “ Tropical Cyclone Report: Hurricane Katrina, 23- 30 August
2005,” National Hurricane Center, Dec. 20, 2005. Hurricane Katrina grew from a tropical depression near the Bahamas on
August 23, and touched down as a Category I storm in Florida on August 25 ( ibid.).
2 Thomas Gabe, Gene Falk, Maggie McCarty, Virginia W. Mason, Hurricane Katrina: Social- Demographic
Characteristics of Impacted Areas. ( Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress, Nov. 4, 2005).
http:// www. gnocdc. org/ reports/ crsrept. pdf.
3 Ibid.
4 See e. g. Kristen Gelineau, “ Civil Rights Leaders Say Hispanic Immigrants Going Unpaid for Katrina Work,” Associated Press,
Nov. 19, 2005; Joshua Norman, “ All Work and No Pay Is Plight of Some- Latino Workers Face Fight to Receive Their Due,”
Sun Herald ( Biloxi, MS), Nov. 19, 2005; Justin Pritchard, “ Immigrants Often Unpaid for Katrina Work,” Associated Press,
Nov. 6, 2005; Darryl Fears, “ Firms in Gulf Coast Allege Nonpayment: 150 Immigrants’ Cases Sent to Labor Dept.,” Wash.
Post, Nov. 4, 2005; Robin Pogrebin, “ Lured to U. S. by the Work but Struggling for Fair Pay,” N. Y. Times, October 17, 2005.
5 The number of workers employed in construction and related industries in the New Orleans metropolitan area dropped from
40,100 to 22,500 from August to September 2005. The Brookings Institution, Katrina Index: Tracking Variables of Post-
Katrina Reconstruction ( Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, April 5, 2005), http:// www. brookings. edu/ metro/ pubs/
200604_ KatrinaIndex. pdf ( accessed on May 20, 2006). These figures of workers employed in the “ Natural Resources, Mining
& Construction” are based on data from the Louisiana Occupational Information System ( LOIS), Louisiana Department of
Labor, Current Employment Statistics ( CES) Survey, 2005, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U. S. Department of Labor, 2005.
6 Press release, U. S. Department of Homeland Security, Notice Regarding I- 9 Documentation Requirements for Hiring
Hurricane Victims ( Sept. 6, 2005). http:// www. dhs. gov/ dhspublic/ display? content= 4788.
7 The suspension of the Act operated in affected areas of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi. U. S. Department of
Labor, Employment Standards Administration, Wage and Hour Division. Guidance on the Reinstatement of the Davis- Bacon
Act Provisions in Areas Impacted by Hurricane Katrina, November 2005. http:// www. dol. gov/ esa/ whd/ aam/ DBA_ Reinstal. PDF.
8 Penny Brown Roberts, “ Nueva Orleans: Hispanics Rebuilding Crescent City Likely to Stay— And Affect Culture,” Baton
Rouge Advocate, May 7, 2006.
9 Leslie Eaton, “ Storm and Crisis: The Recovery; After Hurricanes Come Tempests Over Cleanups,” N. Y. Times, Feb. 24, 2006;
Pritchard, “ Immigrants Often Unpaid;” Fears, “ Firms in Gulf Coast Allege Nonpayment;” Pogrebin, “ Lured to U. S.”
10 Press Release, Southern Poverty Law Center, Center Seeks Justice for Katrina’s Migrant Workers ( Feb. 2, 2006).
http:// www. splcenter. org/ legal/ news/ article. jsp? aid= 160& site_ area= 1& printable= 1. Another group operating in Mississippi,
the Mississippi Immigrant Rights Alliance also sought to hold egregious employers accountable. The group filed complaints
against five subcontractors who the organization alleged had failed to pay hundreds of workers. The rights group also reported
finding a group of thirty workers that had been abandoned by a contractor in a remote trailer park. The workers were living in
three trailers with no electricity or furniture and had not eaten in three days. Interview with Bill Chandler, President of the
Mississippi Immigrant Rights Alliance, on Democracy Now. Org, Friday, December 16, 2005.
http:// www. democracynow. org/ article. pl? sid= 05/ 12/ 16/ 1457237.
11 Kenner was included because many people working in Orleans parish reside in Kenner.
12We used the minimum sample size formula for estimating the proportion ( 1). Assuming 95% confidence, a prevalence esti-mate
of 50%, and desired precision of .10, the minimum required sample size is 97. In order to have sufficient sample size to
stratify, we increased the minimum sample size requirement to 194.
( 1): N > Z2 x ( P)( 1- P)
d2
13 Knabb et al., “ Tropical Cyclone Report.”
14 Gabe, et al., Hurricane Katrina.
43
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
Rebuilding After Katrina: A Population- Based Study of Labor and Human Rights in New Orleans
44
15 Ibid.
16 See e. g. Gelineau, “ Civil Rights Leaders Say Hispanic Immigrants Going Unpaid;” Norman, “ All Work and No Pay;”
Pritchard, “ Immigrants Often Unpaid;” Fears, “ Firms in Gulf Coast Allege Nonpayment;” Pogrebin, “ Lured to U. S.”
17 The Brookings Institution, Katrina Index. See note 5.
18 U. S. Department of Homeland Security, Notice Regarding I- 9 Documentation Requirements for Hiring Hurricane Victims.
19 See note 7.
20 Roberts, “ Nueva Orleans.”
21 Eaton, “ Storm and Crisis;” Pritchard, “ Immigrants Often Unpaid;” Fears, “ Firms in Gulf Coast Allege Nonpayment;”
Pogrebin, “ Lured to U. S.”
22 Press Release, Southern Poverty Law Center, Center Seeks Justice for Katrina’s Migrant Workers. See note 10.
23 See note 11.
24 See note 12.
25 Anthony Oliver- Smith and Susanna M. Hoffman, Introduction, in Catastrophe & Culture: The Anthropology of Disaster.
Edited by Oliver- Smith and Hoffman ( Santa Fe: School of American Research Press, 2002), 9.
26 James R. Grossman, Land of Hope: Chicago, Black Southerners, and the Great Migration. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1989, 164. Approximately one million African- Americans moved north during the 1920s. From 1920 to 1930, the
African- American population in Chicago more than doubled, increasing from 109,458 to 233, 903 ( there were only 30,150
African- Americans living in Chicago in the 1890s) ( ibid.).
27 Ibid., 163; 178- 179. For more information regarding the race riot, see Hollis Lynch, The Black Urban Condition: A
Documentary History, 1866- 1971. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1973.
28 Donald Worster, Dust Bowl: The Southern Plains in the 1930s. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979, 150. See also
James N. Gregory, “ Dust Bowl Legacies: The Okie Impact on California, 1939- 1989,” California History ( Fall 1989): 74- 85.
Gregory argues that, contrary to popular conceptions, the largest influx of people actually came following World War II ( 76).
He also argues that the majority of people came from the Southwest ( Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, and Arkansas) as opposed
to the southern plains that make up the Dust Bowl ( ibid.).
29Worster, Dust Bowl, 52- 53.
30 Ibid., 52- 53.
31 Roberts, “ Nueva Orleans.”
32 Katharine Donato and Shirin Hakimzadeh, “ The Changing Face of the Gulf Coast: Immigration to Louisiana, Mississippi,
Alabama.” The Migration Information Source, Jan. 1, 2006. http:// www. migrationinformation. org/ Feature/ print. cfm? ID= 368.
33 James Gill, Lords of Misrule: Mardi Gras and the Politics of Race in New Orleans ( Jackson: University Press of Jackson,
Mississippi, 1997), 38. Between 1850 and 1855, 67,000 Irish immigrants landed in the area ( ibid.).
34 Donato and Hakimzadeh, “ The Changing Face of the Gulf Coast.”
35 Ibid.
36 Ibid.
37 James R. Elliot and Marcel Ionescu, “ Post- War Immigration to the Deep South,” Sociological Spectrum 23 ( 2003): 167.
Original data from 1950- 1990, 1 Percent IPUMS, “ Census 2000 Estimates.” http:// sentats. census. gov/ pub/ Profiles. shtml. The
data indicate that in Louisiana 2.6% of the population is foreign born population compared to 7.1% in Georgia and 5.3% in
North Carolina. And within the tri- state region of the “ Deep South” — Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama— 22% of those foreign
born live outside urban centers, triple the percentage in other southern states. Asians and Pacific Islanders make up 34% of
foreign born population in Deep South compared with 30.4% in the West ( ibid.).
38 U. S. Census Bureau, “ State & Country QuickFacts,” U. S. Census Bureau: Public Information Office. http:// quickfacts. census
. gov/ qfd/ states/ 22000. html. These figures are based on the 2000 census data.
39 A 2000 study revealed 61% of Hond