For many occupations, the workplace is essentially a male domain, in that everything from work schedules to equipment is designed to accommodate the needs of the average male worker (Messing & de Grosbois, 2001; Messing, Lippel, Demers, & Mergler, 2000; Norton, 1994). For example, in construction and manufacturing, most personal protective equipment, tools and other equipments are manufactured in sizes appropriate for men and consequently may be difficult or even hazardous for many women to use (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health [NIOSH], 1999; Ontario Women’s Directorate and the Industrial Accident Prevention Association, 2006). In many industries, rather than accommodating differences in physical strength by incorporating adjustable elements, women are typically assigned to tasks that are considered “lighter” than the tasks that are assigned to men (Messing, 1997). However, this “light” work is often repetitious, demanding higher levels of dexterity and visual acuity, and requiring long periods of standing. Although such activities can lead to chronic health problems, these problems are less likely to be recognized, validated, and compensated than work-related injuries arising from activities more frequently performed by men.

Musculoskeletal disorders, ranging from repetitive strain to back injuries, comprise the largest single category of work-related health problems for women (Hoskins, 2005). Women are far more likely to develop musculoskeletal disorders than men (Stellman & Mailman, 1999). The relationship between clerical work and repetitive strain injuries is well known. However, women in nonclerical fields, such as assembly and retail trade, actually suffer from higher rates of repetitive strain injuries. It is believed that a major factor driving this disparity is that women frequently have to use tools and equipment sized for men. The physically stressful positions women must put themselves in to use inappropriately sized tools or equipment significantly elevates their risk of developing musculoskeletal disorders.

Many women, especially those working in nontraditional occupations, experience gender-based discrimination. A study of women in construction found that in addition to poorly sized equipment and tools, there was a lack of usable sanitary facilities at the worksite (Goldenhar, Swanson, Hurrell, Ruder, & Deddens, 1998). The women also reported preferential treatment for men (e.g., training only open to men), hostility from male coworkers, sexual harassment, isolation (i.e., being the only woman at a worksite), and job insecurity. When addressing women’s reproductive concerns, such as pregnancy and childbirth, employers tend to restrict the activities of women through mechanisms such as mandatory rest periods or prohibition of women in certain jobs (Norton, 1994). Although it is argued that such restrictions are for the protection of the woman and/or her unborn child, they only apply to women and in the long term, failure to equitably accommodate women can place them at an unfair disadvantage when competing for pay increases or promotions.

Although married men and women tend to work about the same number of hours per week on domestic activities, the tasks typically performed by women have significantly lower levels of control than those performed by men (Marshall & Barnett, 1994). A man exhausted from work can easily put off mowing the lawn until the weekend without consequences. However, an equally exhausted woman faces immediate and sometimes significant consequences from neglecting activities such as child care, cooking, cleaning, and laundry. Consequently, women tend to experience more stress than men when attempting to balance job-related responsibilities with family responsibilities. The conflict between women’s roles as wage earners, social expectations, and biological realities leave many women feeling they must choose between working and taking care of their families, or that they must work a “second shift” when they get home (Norton, 1994).

A number of studies looking at immigrant women’s work experiences have been conducted in the garment industry, both in the United States and in Canada (Delahanty & Khatun Shefali, 1999; Gannage 1999; Soldatenko, 1999; Villegas, Noriega, Martinez, & Martinez, 1997). In addition to exposures typical to factory work (excessive noise, strong vibrations, inadequate ventilation, and poor lighting), women working in the garment industry report concerns about tedious and stressful jobs, lack of training, lack of mobility, conflict between the weight of work and the weight of home responsibilities, language barriers, and discrimination (Gannage, 1999).

Although there is a growing body of literature examining the work experiences of immigrants and of women, there is virtually nothing in the literature specifically addressing the needs of Latina immigrant workers. It has been suggested that Latina immigrant workers in the United States experience a “triple bind” of discrimination based upon an interlocking framework of race, gender, and socioeconomic status (Aguirre-Molina & Molina, 2003). Document status represents yet another dimension of this framework, as many workers perceive a distinct lack of rights and personal freedom because they are “illegal.” Discrimination in the workplace, actual or perceived, can have an adverse impact on the physical and emotional health of any worker (Krieger, 1999; Pavalko, Mossakowski, & Hamilton, 2003). However, Latinas tend to be more affected by depression than Latino men and exhibit more depressive symptoms when they perceive they are being discriminated against (Finch, Koloday, & Vega, 2000).

Clearly, Latina immigrant workers face a host of potential physical, social, and psychological stressors. Given current and projected demographic trends, it is of considerable importance to learn more about this underserved group. Because there is so little in the literature concerning Latina workers, the decision was made to conduct exploratory research using qualitative data collection methods. The current article represents an attempt to characterize the work experiences of these workers based upon these data. It is hoped that this preliminary effort will raise awareness of their plight and encourage further research into their needs.

The primary criteria for inclusion were being an employed Latina immigrant age 18 or older and willingness to participate. The participants were recruited to take part in a study of the occupational safety and health experiences of Latino immigrants working in the United States. Participants were recruited by local advocacy groups serving the Latino immigrant communities in Cincinnati, OH, and Santa Fe, NM. A total of eight focus groups (n = 53) were carried out with Latina immigrants working in the United States. Four of the focus groups were assembled in Cincinnati, OH, and four in Santa Fe, NM. The focus groups were assembled in facilities arranged by the advocacy groups with an aim toward being both familiar to and convenient for the participants.

The mean age of the participants was 32 years old (SD = 9.2, range = 18–54). The mean time since immigrating to the United States was 4.3 years (SD = 3.8, range = 0.3–16). The mean educational level was 7.7 years of formal education (SD = 4.9, range = 0–18). All of the participants currently worked in low-wage and low-skill jobs. The overwhelming majority worked in the service sector jobs such as commercial cleaning or food services. Compared with employment in their home countries, this represents a very significant restriction of occupational settings (See Table 1). Reflecting national trends in immigration, the almost two thirds (n = 30) of the participants in this sample were from Mexico. Just under a third (n = 16) came from other Central American countries, with the remainder (n = 7) coming from South America. Nearly two thirds of the participants had emigrated from urban areas, with the reminder coming from rural communities.

This study assembled focus groups of Latina immigrants to explore their work experiences in the United States. These focus groups were conducted as part of a larger, qualitative data collection effort conducted in two sites (Cincinnati, OH and Santa Fe, NM) aimed at better understanding working conditions and experiences of Latino immigrants in the United States. The overall design of the study relied on a maximum theoretical variation sampling approach in which gender, education, and settlement area (traditional vs. nontraditional) were varied in order to achieve theoretical saturation. The inclusion of both “traditional” (Santa Fe) and “nontraditional” (Cincinnati) settlement areas was driven by concerns that work experiences in areas with extensive bilingual support services might be very distinct from work experiences in new immigrant communities with limited or absent bilingual infrastructure. Stratification by education and gender arose from prior research with Latino immigrants in the Cincinnati area. It was found that the cultural deference paid by Latinas to males and/or to better educated individuals often resulted in one or two individuals monopolizing the focus group discussion.

At the start of each focus group, participants were assisted in completing a brief, anonymous sociodemographic background form eliciting age, educational level, nationality, occupations, and length of time living in the United States. To protect participant identity and provide an initial icebreaking activity, playful pseudonyms were generated for each participant. Cards with these “names” printed on them were in front of each participant. All of the focus groups followed the same general format: a preliminary activity in which participants generated and ranked lists of events and/or conditions that were causing or had caused them the most concern or worry since leaving their home countries; a discussion of participant work experiences, if any, in their home countries; and an extended discussion of participant employment experiences since coming to the United States, including probes on finding and losing positions, safety training and practices, risk perceptions, and responses to injuries and perceived safety issues. The total time for all of these activities ranged between 1 and 2 hr, and participants were provided a monetary stipend ($50) for their time and participation.

The focus groups were all conducted in Spanish by a native Spanish-speaking female. Audio recordings were made of the interviews for latter transcription. Upon completion of transcription and translation into English, the recordings were destroyed to ensure the confidentiality of the research participants.

The focus group protocol contained four broad categories of questions. In the first, participants were asked to discuss the jobs they have held since coming to the United States and to describe their typical work activities. In the second category, participants were asked to discuss safety problems and/or workplace injuries associated with these jobs. In the third category, participants were asked to discuss any safety training they had received on these jobs. In the fourth category, participants were asked to discuss what they needed to feel safe on the job. (See Appendix A for the full interview protocol.)

The audio recordings of the focus groups were transcribed verbatim in Spanish and then translated into English to ensure analytic input from all of the team members. The transcripts (in both Spanish and English) were reviewed independently by the four authors of this article and coded using the grounded theory approach (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). In this approach, the researchers code responses using the themes and patterns that emerge from their reading of the transcripts.

The interpretation of data in a qualitative study, as is the case with any research approach, can be skewed by biases held by the investigators. These biases can arise from personal, educational, and/or professional experiences. Consequently, a brief discussion of the backgrounds of the authors of this study is merited. Three of the four authors were trained as cultural anthropologists, are bilingual English/Spanish speakers, and have extensive experience working with the Latino community both in the United States and in Latin America. The remaining author was trained as a counseling psychologist, is a monolingual English speaker, and coordinates an ongoing research program addressing the occupational safety and health needs of Latino immigrant workers. Three of the four authors work for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, a government agency whose mission is to promote workplace safety and health for all workers through research. The remaining author is employed by a public university. As regards the ongoing debate concerning immigration reform, all of the authors may be characterized as being personally sympathetic to proposals that would formalize the status of undocumented immigrants currently living and working in the United States.

Over the years, the educational and professional experiences of the authors have afforded them many opportunities to confront personal and professional biases. Regardless, none of the authors are low-income Latina immigrants. For this reason, grassroots, community-based organizations were routinely consulted during all phases of the research project to ensure that their perspective was accounted for and to aid in the recognition and discussion of any inadvertent biases introduced by the authors.

The data used in this study underwent two phases of analysis. In the initial phase, the Latina focus groups were coded as part of a wider study of work experiences that also included focus groups conducted with male immigrants and native-born workers. This initial analysis was aimed at developing a set of labels or codes applicable across the entire range focus group transcripts. The investigators met more than a dozen occasions to discuss their own and others’ coding decisions for participant responses. Differences were identified and discussed until resolved. Through this process, a basic coding schema was iteratively developed that was subsequently applied to the entire qualitative database (QSR NVIVO 8) by a trained, bilingual research assistant.

In the second phase of the analysis, the Latina focus groups were then reviewed as an independent subset of transcripts. Using the same approaches used in Phase 1, over several meetings the investigators further analyzed the coded material and transcripts from the female focus groups and identified additional themes that are important for understanding the lived experience, goals, and perspectives of Latina immigrant workers.

The Latinas in this study reported a wide range of occupational risks including exposure to extreme temperatures, inhaling dust and fumes, poor lighting, loud noise, long hours of repetitive motions, and inadequate training. However, one of the most salient themes was an excessive workload, both in terms of expected pace and level of physical exertion. Representative statements include:

There was also another where they made you work like you were a man. Carrying boxes that were fifty or fifty five pounds … I couldn’t do it that fast, they said you’re going to go (be fired).

Examination of Table 1 reveals that although these women were employed in a fairly wide range of occupations in their home countries, after coming to Unites States the vast majority were funneled into service occupations. The most common of these occupations include commercial cleaning, hotel housekeeping, and restaurant work. These jobs are more difficult and dangerous than performing similar tasks at home. Much larger areas need to be cleaned within the time constraints of a shift. In addition, the size and weight of the equipment, and the strength of the cleaning chemicals used in commercial settings is far greater than those used in the home. Many of the women reported skin irritations or chemical burns from working with harsh chemicals, slips and falls, long working hours, and the need to maintain a very fast pace. Many of the respondents reported that they lacked the necessary personal protective equipments (such as gloves, masks, safety glasses, etc.) that are recommended or required for the types of work they are doing. A representative statement is: Participant:

… the cleaner we use to clean the grease of stoves, it burned my hand once … (the boss) was not there but it itched and my arm was very irritated and I stopped using the cleaner especially now that she does not bring the gloves.

The findings suggest that immigrant workers are subject to racial tension, discrimination (often based upon document status), harassment, and prejudice from Anglos, Blacks, and even other Latinos. As one female respondent reported:

Many times in our country we’re used to working to the maximum all the time and [the black people] have gotten into their rhythm of not working more and then no work. We already get into our rhythm and they start to tell us you all are like donkeys, because you’re from Mexico, you look like donkeys, you work like donkeys. That being that they see us like pack mules, see? … [it means that we are] stupid because they are making the same as us and they work less and they tell us it’s not worth it to work hard to make the same. They’re stupid.

The participants gave numerous accounts of accidents in the workplace involving self or others. In many cases, they were refused time off the job to both seek medical care or to recuperate. Representative statements include: Participant:

I had a third degree burn. I told the manager that I burned myself … I told her to look at my burn but she said put mustard on it, mustard is very good for burns … they did not pay for my health insurance nor do they send me to the hospital. Nothing …

Given that most Latina immigrants are of childbearing years, pregnancy is a real and present concern for them. However, they are also aware that this fundamental step in building a family can also undermine their ability to support one. A number of the women reported loss of employment due to pregnancy. Representative statements include:

I went to work with a … family. They practically fired me from there when I got pregnant with my second child. When I’d been there more or less six months, one day they told me, “Bye, bye.” They gave me a check and a bonus and told me that … they needed someone who was in better physical condition … I looked at a lot of jobs but no job would take me, because I was pregnant. My belly was big and nobody would accept me.

The Latinas in this study reported facing sexually harassment from a wide range of sources. Many reported sexual harassment by supervisors. More recent immigrants tend to be targeted more frequently for sexual exploitation. The following quote comes from a woman who reported being repeatedly pressured to “date” her supervisor. She reported that nearly all of the other women he had approached acquiesced out of fear of job loss. After she continued to resist his advances for several months, a coworker who had lived in the United States for several years finally took her aside and explained to her that far from losing her job, if the upper management knew what her boss was up to, he could be fired. Empowered the woman confronted him.

And one day, that is, I talked with the supervisor and told him not to play with me. That he had to respect my rights. That my rights were important … and afterwards he didn’t say anything, right? After he asked me to forgive him and everything. He said … he didn’t want to upset me … so he never bothered me again.

Because Latinas are charged by tradition and culture with being the primary caregivers for children, they are forced far more frequently than male immigrants to make difficult decisions regarding whether to immigrate alone or to subject their children to the dangerous, and sometimes fatal, border crossing experience. The participants reported that if a woman has children, she is usually pressured to stay in her home country to care for them. It is far less socially acceptable for a mother to leave her children for work in the United States than it is for a father. The separation of families due to immigration was also reported as a significant stressor experienced by these women. One female participant stayed behind the first time her husband went to California. He came back after about a year to start a business, but when the business went broke, he decided to return to the United States for employment:

When he told me once again that he needed to go back to the U.S., I said,’ no’. He said ‘there is no other way.’ So I said, ‘we will go with you.’ He said, ‘you know we do not have money,’ ‘Sell the house,’ I said. [He said,] ‘We sacrificed so much to build a house and to get rid of it just like that, no.’ He came to the U.S. again and I stayed behind with my children. He called me every day but one day I told him ‘You have a week to take us with you over there’ … I don’t know how he did it but he brought us here after a month.

The findings from this study clearly support the argument that Latina immigrants are subject to multiple, ongoing stressors impacting many areas of their lives. Despite this, however much they may have been victimized, most Latina immigrants do not focus on being victims. Rather, both economic necessity and Latino cultural values press these immigrants to keep coping with, and adapting to adverse circumstances— and they often do this with remarkable resilience. Consequently, when working with this population one must be as prepared to celebrate strengths as to formulate strategies to overcome problems.

Barriers of language, culture, financial resources, and awareness, alone or in combination, make it unlikely that most Latina immigrants will find their own paths to the offices of career development professionals. As Blustein (2006) suggested, socially marginalized individuals are typically far more concerned with meeting basic survival needs than with the pursuit of self-actualization. Consequently, career development specialists, inspired by vocational psychology’s history of social advocacy, will likely need to take the initiative to build bridges to the Latino immigrant community. As the Latino population grows in an area, “grassroots” advocacy groups spring up to serve the needs of the immigrant community. One very important function of these groups is to serve as a bridge between the Latino community and the “host” community. Working with and through such groups is important both to gain the trust of the immigrant community and, perhaps even more important, in educating the “outside professional” regarding the realities of this underserved population.

The qualitative research methods used in this study were intended to survey the range of variables affecting the work experiences of Latina immigrants. While offering a rich, almost visceral understanding of factors impacting this group, these methods cannot quantify frequency of occurrence, magnitude of consequences, or salience of a given problem to the immigrant community as a whole. Such assessments are the domain of quantitative research. It is also possible that the use of focus groups rather than individual interviews may have impacted the findings. As rich as the current data set is, individual interviews might have allowed for investigation of some topics at greater depth. The group setting may also have caused some participants to be less forthcoming on certain topics. For example, although all of the Latinas in this study expressed knowledge of instances of sexual harassment on the job, none acknowledged ever succumbing to unwanted advances. In addition, the two data collection sites used by this study, while widely separated geographically and contrasting sharply in terms of traditional and new settlement areas, are far from an exhaustive list all possible Latino immigrant settlement destinations. It is expected that Latinas living and working in the large urban areas of Southern California or in small communities in the rural Midwest might report some different experiences. It is to be emphasized that the current study was an exploratory effort and much remains to be done. A good focus for future research efforts would be to conduct additional qualitative data collections in other locations and using different approaches (i.e., individual interviews vs. focus groups) to determine whether themes similar to those identified by this study will be found—and if not, possible reasons why they differ. Latina immigrant workers have been so underserved by the literature that virtually any additional efforts will add to the knowledge base.