We collected sociodemographic information about the participants at the time of the interview. For the development of the research instrument and qualitative questions, we considered some of the ILO dimensions and indicators of labor exploitation derived from the theoretical and practical experience of the ILO’s Special Action Programme to Combat Forced Labour (SAP-FL) (2012). While the ILO indicators are considered common signs that point to the possible existence of human trafficking, we considered those indicators that we deemed captured the vulnerability of this workforce. The interview questions were also informed by scales developed for salaried workers; namely, the Employment Precarious Index developed as part of the longitudinal survey Poverty and Employment Precarity in Southern Ontario (PEPSO) (Poverty and Employment Precarity in Southern Ontario n.d.) and the validated multidimensional Employment Precariousness Scale (EPRES), developed in Europe (Vives et al. 2010). Both scales overlap on some of the dimensions of precarious employment and while they do not necessarily fully represent the work and social context of farmworkers in the US, they were generally used to inform our understanding of the dimensions of precarious employment. We pilot-tested our open-ended questions and the brief sociodemographic questionnaire with farmworkers and outreach workers to finalize our interview guide.

Topics of discussion for farmworker interviews included knowledge and experiences with social, occupational, and environmental exposures (e.g., interpersonal dynamics at work with supervisors/crew leaders, contractors, growers/employers¹, and coworkers, injuries, quality of water or exposure to chemicals and pesticides), and workers’ knowledge and experiences with worker protection laws, policies and services (e.g., experiences in regards to demanding compliance or presenting complaints, social and legal support from advocacy groups and governmental agencies, language and cultural barriers). For workers with families, we discussed their working and living situations and how this affected their families and family life. Farmworkers were also asked about their perceptions, experiences, and knowledge of labor exploitation, including labor trafficking. These last topics emerged naturally during the interviews given the goal of the study.

All members of our racially and ethnically diverse community-university team were trained in ethical principles and are committed to the ethical conduct of research. All participants provided consent to participate following proper linguistic, cultural, and ethical guidelines and procedures. The study was approved by the University of Michigan IRB (HUM00165344).

Overall, farmworkers described agricultural work as physically draining and demanding, requiring workers to work long hours and be extremely productive. Farmworkers were subjected to working hours that averaged 12 or more hours per day for 6–7 days a week. Some workers mentioned working nights in the fields during high crop seasons. A female seasonal worker shared “we had to work many hours, we had to and we were there, [until] it was very dark—already night. My sister-in-law and I would be like “Oh, it’s already 10:00 pm.” For women, working long hours is especially burdensome, given that they often shoulder a large share of household responsibilities and childcare.

All workers living in agricultural worker housing sites, including H-2A farmworkers, expressed having unpredictable work schedules and needing to be on call for work. The unpredictability of their working schedule affected their daily lives, including their worship activities and the possibility of having personal or quality family time. As an example, a female migrant farmworker with children described her situation: “Oh, [I feel] very pressured, because you are nervous there. I am just starting to cook, when, if they [referring to crew leader] pass by, they tell you in about an hour [referring to be ready for work]. But if they feel like another hour would be better, then I have to turn off [the stove] the food, put a lid on it, and leave. If it is cooked or not, I leave it there. Because you are racing through and when they come, you are not ready. You are grabbing everything, sometimes you forgot the hat because you are racing through. You have to get ready even earlier.”

Another female seasonal farmworker voiced the challenges of being able to plan daily life due to the requirements of being on call for work and the nonstandard working hours: “Yes, [when I started to work] they only told me about the pay and told me that there was no fixed time to end the workday. Sometimes, we started at 7 or 6 a.m. but there was no schedule to end the day. And sometimes they call you, come to work, if we call you it is because we want you to come [to work]. When we are at the end [of the season] of tomatoes, one finishes work later, 9, 10 (p.m.) and they pay you the same [referring to not getting paid overtime].”

Workers paid on a “piece-rate system” (i.e., based on the number of units produced) expressed being negatively impacted by this compensation method. Farmworkers expressed feeling significant pressure to work rapidly and often avoided or delayed using the bathroom, eating, or attending medical appointments to meet productivity quotas that would allow them to earn enough money for the day. Many participants expressed that they live paycheck to paycheck and experienced the stress of income insecurity. By law in Michigan, most farmworkers—including those under the piece-rate system—have a right to be paid an hourly minimum wage. However, workers in larger farms expressed that they are reprimanded, threatened, received warnings, and were sometimes even fired if the employer needed to supplement the piece rate to reach minimum wage. A female migrant farmworker describes her experience with the piece-rate payment: “I knew a man who said he was leaving. But he then told me that, while working with blueberries, he did not make it [enough money]. Then, he was making two [buckets of blueberries] per hour and, it was not convenient for the grower to pay him per hour. Every hour that he was there [referring to farmworker], he [the grower] was losing money, and what they [growers] want is for you to give them earnings, meaning that the grower does not lose, does not need to pay out-of-pocket. You have to make at least a thousand pounds per week, and if you do not, they cannot be paying you per hour. They only give you three weeks. If you did not make it [to reach minimum wage] in the piece rate system, they fire you.”

The piece rate system was often referred to by workers as working “by contract,” even though there was no written, formal working contract. Workers called them contracts because, according to workers, they can usually determine themselves their schedules, but this was not the case for all the workers. Some female farmworkers had to quit their jobs, even when working by piece rate, because the employer requested more work hours and they were unable to care for their children.

Some farmworkers felt that working by piece rate can be unfair because crew leaders or supervisors tend to have preferential treatment for some workers, assigning them rows with better crops and therefore giving unequal possibilities for workers to earn money. A male seasonal farmworker exemplified this issue: “Yes, say [the crew leader], now they are going to harvest by contract [piece rate]. They give us lines [rows of crops to harvest in the field] so that the worker gets motivated and earns more. Sometimes, there are workers who get better lines and others who do not.” The piece rate system also entails more job insecurity as workers expressed that the “flexible” relationship with the employer does not always guarantee working hours or maintaining the job during the season. As a result, income fluctuates because it is based not only on how much workers are able to pick but also on the quality of the crop, resulting in economic insecurity. Working hours can also be impacted by weather conditions, the conditions of the crop, or the employer deciding they no longer need the workers.

Some participants currently working in the apple fields or that have worked picking apples before shared experiences of receiving penalties and warnings if when picking apples, the fruits were bruised by the pressure of the workers’ hands. Apple checkers count the number of bruised apples, and workers with more bruised apples would receive warnings, have working days taken away, or even get fired: “You have to be really careful with that one [yellow apple], you can have your finger marked [on the apple]. They found us [the apple checker], about six, or seven apples, and they sent us to ‘rest’ [i.e., employee took away work days from worker]. They do not pay for those days. One time my husband and I got ‘rested’, as well” (Female migrant farmworker). The penalty of bruising apples was also corroborated in an informal conversation we had with a crew leader in charge of a large apple field. The crew leader stated that he provides warnings to the workers and if they “do not work well” they are fired and, especially in the case of H-2A farmworkers, the contractor would not bring the worker back next year.

Many farmworkers, including H-2A farmworkers, perceived or had the experience of being cheated by employers or crew leaders on their wages. Workers expressed having no control over their payment and were often taken advantage of by growers counting down and paying them for a lower number of crop boxes than what was actually harvested.

Other workers shared they were told by their employer that they would receive a “bonus” at the end of the season. Some workers mentioned that the “bonus” is not an extra payment, but rather that it is taken from their weekly paychecks and is paid back only if they complete the harvesting season with the employer. Workers who leave without completing the season do not receive the “bonus,” one participant shared: “In each box [of apples] they take out $2 in bonus and if you finished the season they give you back that money but if you do not finish, they do not give you a job next year and no bonus” (Male migrant farmworker). Regarding wage theft, a male migrant farmworker with many years working in the apple fields, provided an example of how the wages are withheld by the contractor: “The grower pays one price, the contractor pays another price. The American [referring to the grower] pays to the contractor and the contractor, steals some money. He pays people, but he takes a part of it. For example, if the American says, ‘I am going to pay you $10 per hour’ the contractor, what he does, pays you $8 or $8.50. Or $9, let us say. At $9 and he takes $1 for each person. If they are boxes, he also earns a percentage.”

The housing made available to agricultural workers and their family members, which is often “no-cost,” owned by employers, and located on agricultural worksites, must meet inspection requirements and state standards. However, some farmworkers living in agricultural worker housing sites (in Michigan and Florida) shared experiences of being charged for services or rent when living in housing units owned by growers: “They rent to us. We work for him [grower] but he charges us rent and we pay $80 dollars per week. If you want a larger apartment then he charges like $100 and this is on top of paying a deposit. It is a lot. It is difficult for people [farmworkers] to pay rent here or where we go, Florida or Texas and they pay me $9.50 per hour” (Female migrant farmworker).

Except for one farmworker, all participants reported seeing or experiencing abusive, unfair treatment and threats by growers, supervisors or crew leaders. Two (male and female) farmworkers working in the same packing plant reported that the supervisor timed the workers in the bathroom and even asked them to sign a piece of paper every time they used the bathroom. Those that went over the “limit of time” in the bathroom received a warning. Participants mentioned that they and various coworkers would suffer constantly from urinary tract infections due to foregoing the use of the bathroom. One participant recounted the experience of a female coworker who was essentially ostracized when reporting this abusive treatment: “Because it has happened to people [abuse], one woman from work [packing plant] reported how they were treating her that they did not allow them [workers] to go to the bathroom. And because of it, they blacklisted her with all the growers and no one wanted her [to hire her]. She could not come back to Michigan for work. Now a lot of people come and say: if you report, here we are going to notice and you are not going to work with any other grower” (Female seasonal farmworker).

The psychosocial vulnerability of farmworkers was salient for undocumented workers. Several participants reported experiencing or witnessing coworkers’ mistreatment because of their legal status. The fear of being reported to Immigration & Customs Enforcement or alienated from job opportunities maintains a culture of silence and fear and affects the ability of workers to submit formal complaints to the respective authorities and employers. The following quote illustrated this situation: “Ah, well, we have to follow the rules, because otherwise, well, where are we going to go? We do not have where to go and, worse, nowadays there are a lot of H-2A workers. They [growers] want single people, single men, that do not have families” (Female seasonal farmworker). Another seasonal farmworker expressed how her social vulnerability from being undocumented impacts her likelihood of finding a job with better working conditions and compares her work obligations with American workers: “There is a man and two women [American] and they only water the plants but they do not work in the field, or get dirty, they do not get wet, they do not lift or work bending all day. When is time for planting they do not make three or four carts of plants, they do not carry heavy containers, they do not do anything of that nature, they only do the easy work. We [the workers] sometimes we get mad because I think it is very unjust [the work]. But I also know that I cannot ask for anything else if I do not have my papers [referring to being undocumented]. I mean, I cannot be asking for a better job or say ‘I am going to get another job’ because I know that I would not get a job anywhere else.”

For many farmworkers the working environment was perceived as hostile and dehumanizing, deeply affecting their working and living conditions as well as their mental and physical health. Some of these experiences were related to racism and discrimination from growers, contractors, crew leaders, and peers in higher positions than themselves. The experience of a U.S. born female migrant farmworker embodies these experiences of hostility and dehumanization: “[The grower] wanted me to stay working in the blueberry machine. I suffer from epilepsy and I also have a heart condition, so I cannot get agitated. My husband told him that I already worked and that we could leave it for tomorrow. The grower got very upset and said ‘I am not going to have people that do not want to work with me. Why don’t you just leave the house tonight?’ My son was only 10 months old, where were we going to go? We do not have anywhere else to go and not only that he was very racist. He mistreated [people], he did not have water for my husband and the other worker and he did not want them to take their lunch break and he did not want to pay us.”

The vulnerability of workers and work dynamics also encouraged unhealthy competition and lack of collaboration between workers. Some workers expressed that often other Latinos(as) who get promoted or were able to obtain legal residence would look down on or denigrate other Latino(a) workers. A female migrant farmworker relates her experience as follows: “To me the most fundamental thing is housing and also the inequality when you are working, because that [inequality] is very uncomfortable. During a working season I lost a lot of weight because of the stress with the crew leaders. For me it was an awful experience. From the ones that give orders, they were very aggressive and [I felt] humiliated. He [crew leader] sometimes would throw [the herb wires] to the floor just for his enjoyment and everyone needed to kneel on the floor to get them.”

Some workers shared experiences in which basic human rights were denied, such as situations with availability of clean water and even cases in which workers were not allowed to drink water. Two female migrant farmworkers described their experiences: “We were very thirsty and he [grower] did not give us water and I left my line, I went to drink water and the grower looked at me very upset and asked why did you leave the line and I told him ‘you know that it is very hot, I feel dizzy, I need to drink water’.” The other female worker mentioned “Some bathrooms have water to wash your hands and others do not, we need to wash our hands with the same water that they provide us to drink water but nobody drinks that water because they leave the water right next to the bathrooms.” Other workers were forced to work under extreme weather conditions including dangerous heat conditions or rainfall. Workers related experiences of suffering from heat exhaustion, and experiencing serious accidents and falls from ladders because they had to work while it was raining.

One of the workers knew of a farm with prior labor violations that are well-known among farmworkers for being “bad people” and where H-2A workers have been verbally and physically abused. “They said they had hit workers. Verbal abuse and I think they did not let them talk with local people. If they are contratados [H-2A] they tell them that if they do something then they would not come back next year. A friend of mine was working there and he said they push workers hard to produce more. He left because he could not handle the pressure they placed on him. He said, you are doing that [abuse] to your own people, he [my friend] was one of the crew leaders, and at the end [he said] you would lose your morals, you yourself are abusing people” (Male seasonal farmworker). This information was also mentioned in informal conversations that we had with migrant outreach workers in that community:

The vast majority of farmworkers expressed observing or experiencing inhumane treatment; feeling they are not valued by employers, dehumanized and easily replaced and disposed of by employers: “I felt like we were animals, and it was when I told him [crew leader], I am going to go to the office, I told him, I am going to make a complaint, you are treating people like animals. I told him no one should yell at people, I told him, we have the rights to take a break and drink water, go to the bathroom, right? But as I told you, all day being bent down and [working] quickly, quickly and without breaks and drinking water.” (Female migrant farmworker).

One of the H-2A farmworkers we interviewed mentioned the workers follow certain rules that prohibited leaving the agricultural worksite or set limits on the allowable distance a worker can leave the entrance of the agricultural worksite: “Well, I remember that they prohibited that we have parties, we cannot have loud music because we are a lot [of workers]. And I think there are rules of the distance we can step out [from the agricultural worksite], but I do not remember [the distance]. We cannot go out” (Male H-2A farmworker).

In the same agricultural worksite where this H-2A participant was recruited, the crew leader received a call from the contractor with orders to not allow the workers to participate in our study, arguing that “[sSomeone] was investigating the camps and taking people out of the camps.” At that time, all the workers turned around, and went inside their houses and the crew leader informed us that the contractor had called him and ordered that our study staff leave the premises of the agricultural worksite.

Most farmworkers experienced or knew about changes in hiring practices by growers and expressed not being hired in many farms because growers prefer contratados [H-2A farmworkers]. Some workers, irrespective of legal status, mentioned that the preference of H-2A farmworkers by growers is the result of growers feeling that they can exert more control and exploit these workers, given that their future employment prospects in the US are contingent on their performance and decided by the contractor. Workers reported knowing about and seeing H-2A workers working under adverse weather conditions and for excessively long hours, and being in agricultural worksites in which workers lack access to community resources, unless transportation is provided by the employer.

Seasonal and migrant farmworkers also expressed that growers “do not want families living in agricultural worker housing sites or employer-provided housing because the children ‘occupy’ space and they do not work.” Therefore, growers preferred hiring H-2A workers who are usually young males and who are not accompanied by their family members. A male migrant farmworker expressed: “We need to follow the rules … we do not have anywhere to go and right now they are a lot of contratados [H-2A workers], the growers only want single people, like single men that they do not have family. Maybe because they have more time to work and they do not have to go to appointments for their children. Like my mother [who is a farmworker], she is always worried about us, with [doctor or school] appointments and everything.”

In informal conversations we had with various H-2A farmworkers from various agricultural worksites, workers expressed being unaware of Michigan’s geographical location in the US, the physical address of the agricultural worksite in which they lived and worked, the name of the employer or contractor and had little to no knowledge about their rights and the obligations of their contract and housing arrangements.

A husband-and-wife migrant farmworker couple who migrated yearly from Florida to Michigan for work shared that, upon arriving at the agricultural worksite, they and several families were told that there was no work for them, given that the grower decided to hire H-2A farmworkers instead. These workers mentioned that they were never informed about this decision, although the grower knew they were coming from Florida. The couple had to spend some nights in their car with their children and, although they eventually found work with another grower, they were struggling financially: “This year we were surprised by the grower that he did not want us working with him because he hired H-2A farmworkers. We had been working with him for 4 years and we helped him a lot and he suddenly said ‘there is no more work for you’ and you can see what you do, we ran out of money because what we brought wasn’t enough and we were used to working right away with him and now we do not have money for gasoline, food, to wash our clothes.”