The federal government has played an active role in reinforcing racial inequities through policy. Two examples of federal policies intentionally excluding workers of color include the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935 and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938. Both pieces of legislation were monumental in improving workers’ rights, with the NLRA providing workers the right to collective bargaining and the FLSA enacting minimum wage, overtime, and child labor protections. However, domestic and agricultural workers—positions historically held by Black workers and, more recently, by immigrant workers—were deliberately excluded from these laws to gain the support of Southern Democrats in passing this New Deal legislation (Siqueira et al., 2014; Perea, 2011).
The passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, did little to address the deep-seated nature of structural racism reflected in other laws (Wiececk & Hamilton, 2014; Douglas et al., 2015). One example is the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) of 1970, which requires that employers across industries maintain a safe and healthy work environment (Gleeson, 2016). However, protections do not extend to workers in private households. As a result, domestic workers, who are predominantly Black or have immigrant backgrounds, are not protected (Siqueira et al., 2014). Another example is the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986, which granted citizenship to millions of undocumented immigrants, but simultaneously increased border security and prohibited the hiring of undocumented immigrants. This latter provision has created racial inequities for undocumented immigrants. IRCA allowed employers to deny knowledge of legal status while hiring workers under subpar conditions, which increased the risk of exploitation for undocumented workers (Paret, 2014; Massey & Pren, 2012; Gomberg-Munoz & Nussbaum-Barberena, 2011; Bonacich et al., 2008).
In addition to federal policies, state and local governments may enact more restrictive laws, which in some cases, have discriminatory effects on workers of color. One example is right-to-work laws prohibiting states from requiring workers who work in unionized workplaces to pay dues to the union representing them. The effects were especially pronounced in the South, where states enacted right-to-work laws to counter what was seen as the rising power and rights of Black workers (Garcia, 2019). This legislation has effectively weakened union political strength and bargaining power in states with right-to-work laws, thereby diminishing protections for workers, many of whom are workers of color (Garcia, 2019; BLS, 2019). Black workers, in particular, form the highest proportion of unionized workers and, therefore, disproportionately risk the loss of workplace protections.
Another example is state laws mandating E-Verify, a federal system intended to discourage the hiring of undocumented immigrants by matching employee tax documents with government databases. While these laws are purported to protect citizens, they often target Latinx workers and their families by limiting access to the labor market and increasing worker vulnerability to racial profiling and criminalization (Gomberg-Munoz & Nussbaum-Barberena, 2011; Ayón et al., 2012). One study found that Arizona’s Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA), enacted in 2007, restricted access to employment for undocumented workers, increased exploitation by employers, and resulted in the criminalization of workers by enforcement agencies who should instead be sanctioning employers (Ayón et al., 2012).
These laws demonstrate U.S. and state lawmakers’ active pursuit of legislation that discriminates against and excludes workers of color and immigrants from labor and economic opportunities, fostering economic inequality and racial health inequities.
- Ayón C, Gurrola M, Salas LM, Androff D, Krysik J. Intended and unintended consequences of the employer sanction law on Latino families. Qualitative Social Work. 2012;11(6):587-603. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1473325011418871.
- Bonacich E, Alimahomed S, Wilson JB. The Racialization of Global Labor. American Behavioral Scientist. 2008;52(3):342-355. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002764208323510.
- Douglas KM, Sáenz R, Murga AL. Immigration in the Era of Color-Blind Racism. American Behavioral Scientist. 2015;59(11):1429-1451. doi:10.1177/0002764214566502. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0002764214566502.
- Garcia RJ. Right-to-Work Laws: Ideology and Impact. Annual Review of Law and Social Science. 2019;15(1):509-519. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101518-042951.
- Gleeson S. Precarious Claims: The Promise and Failure of Workplace Protections in the United States. University of California Press; 2016. https://www.luminosoa.org/site/books/m/10.1525/luminos.19/.
- Gomberg-Munoz R, Nussbaum-Barberena L. Is Immigration Policy Labor Policy?: Immigration Enforcement, Undocumented Workers, and the State. Human Organization. 2011;70(4):366-375. https://meridian.allenpress.com/human-organization/article/70/4/366/71217/Is-Immigration-Policy-Labor-Policy-Immigration.
- Massey DS, Pren KA. Unintended Consequences of US Immigration Policy: Explaining the Post-1965 Surge from Latin America. Population and Development Review. 2012;38(1):1-29. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3407978/.
- Paret M. Legality and exploitation: Immigration enforcement and the US migrant labor system. Lat Stud. 2014;12(4):503-526. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/lst.2014.53.
- Perea JF. The Echoes of Slavery: Recognizing the Racist Origins of the Agricultural and Domestic Worker Exclusion from the National Labor Relations Act. 72 OHIO ST. L.J. l 95 (2011). https://lawecommons.luc.edu/facpubs/151/.
- Siqueira CE, Gaydos M, Monforton C, et al. Effects of social, economic, and labor policies on occupational health disparities. American Journal of Industrial Medicine. 2014;57(5):557-572. doi:10.1002/ajim.22186. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5920651/.
- Union membership rate 10.5 percent in 2018, down from 20.1 percent in 1983. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Published January 25, 2019. Accessed May 4, 2021. https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2019/union-membership-rate-10-point-5-percent-in-2018-down-from-20-point-1-percent-in-1983.htm
- Wiecek WM, Hamilton JL. Beyond the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Confronting Structural Racism in the Workplace. Louisiana Law Review. 2014;74(4):1095-1160. https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol74/iss4/5/.
