June, 12 2012, 08:33am EDT

Qatar: Migrant Construction Workers Face Abuse
Reform Sponsorship Law, Protect Workers Ahead of World Cup Building Boom
DOHA
Hundreds of thousands of mostly South Asian migrant construction workers in Qatar risk serious exploitation and abuse, sometimes amounting to forced labor, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Both the government and the Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) need to make sure that their commitments to respect workers' rights in preparation for the 2022 World Cup are carried out. Construction contractors should also make specific, public commitments to uphold international labor standards,.
The 146-page report, "Building a Better World Cup: Protecting Migrant Workers in Qatar Ahead of FIFA 2022," examines a recruitment and employment system that effectively traps many migrant workers in their jobs. The problems they face include exorbitant recruitment fees, which can take years to pay off, employers' routine confiscation of worker passports, and Qatar's restrictive sponsorship system that gives employers inordinate control over their employees. Workers' high debts and the restrictions they face if they want to change employers often effectively force them to accept jobs or working conditions they did not agree to in their home countries, or to continue work under conditions of abuse, Human Rights Watch found. Workers face obstacles to reporting complaints or seeking redress, and the abuses often go undetected by government authorities.
"Workers building stadiums won't benefit from Qatar's general promise to end the sponsorship system: they need a deadline for this to happen before their work for the FIFA games starts," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "The government needs to ensure that the cutting edge, high-tech stadiums it's planning to build for World Cup fans are not built on the backs of abused and exploited workers."
Human Rights Watch found that Qatar has one of the most restrictive sponsorship laws in the Gulf region, as workers cannot change jobs without their employer's permission, regardless of whether they have worked two years or 20, and all workers must get their sponsoring employer to sign an "exit permit" before they can leave the country. Saudi Arabia is the only other Gulf country that retains the problematic exit permit system, while other countries now allow workers to change jobs after serving out their contract or after a two-to-three-year period with their first employer. In May, Deputy Labor Minister Hussein al-Mulla announced that Qatar may replace the sponsorship system with contracts between employers and employees, but failed to specify how these contracts could replace current immigration laws or whether workers would be entitled to switch jobs.
Qatari laws also prohibit migrant workers from unionizing or striking, though the International Labour Organization (ILO) identifies free association as a core labor right. A recent government proposal for a "worker's union" fails to meet minimum requirements for free association by restricting all decision-making positions to Qatari citizens, Human Rights Watch said.
Migrant workers comprise a staggering 94 percent of Qatar's workforce, and the country has the highest ratio of migrants to citizens in the world. The country may recruit up to a million additional migrant construction workers in the next decade to build the stadiums and infrastructure improvements Qatar promised in its bid to host the 2022 FIFA World Cup soccer tournament.
Human Rights Watch interviewed 73 migrant construction workers for the report, and met and corresponded with government officials, employers, contracting companies, recruitment agents, diplomats from labor-sending countries, and worker advocates.
Workers reported a range of problems, including unpaid wages, illegal salary deductions, crowded and unsanitary labor camps, and unsafe working conditions. All but four of the workers said they paid recruitment fees ranging between US$726 and $3,651, borrowing from private money lenders at interest rates that ranged from 3 to 5 percent per month to 100 percent interest on their debt per year.
"We don't complain because if we complain for anything, the company will punish us," Himal K., an 18-year-old construction worker from Nepal told Human Rights Watch. Most workers told Human Rights Watch they feared the consequences of complaining to their employers or to the authorities.
"If I don't pay [my debt], the bank will kick my family out from my house," said Mahmud N., a 27-year-old Bangladeshi worker who said he owed 270,000 Bangladeshi taka (US$3,298) in recruitment fees.
"The Qatar government and companies in the construction industry need to make sure that employers, not impoverished workers, are paying these recruiting fees," Whitson said. "Until the government seriously enforces its laws to make sure it is the employers who are paying these fees, and imposes serious penalties on companies that look the other way, this problem is not going to just disappear."
Human Rights Watch said most workers it interviewed had mortgaged their homes or sold off family property to obtain their jobs, and thus faced tremendous pressure to stay in their jobs regardless of the conditions. Nearly all said that their employers had confiscated their passports, and some said employers refused to return passports when requested. The ILO has identified passport confiscation as a key indicator of forced labor, particularly when combined with the threat or possibility of financial penalties, turning workers over to police, firing them, or preventing them from obtaining other employment - all common fears of construction workers in Qatar.
Dinesh P., a 20-year-old Nepali worker, said that he and 15 others employed at his company wanted to quit their jobs and return home, but that they would not do so.
"We feel like we were cheated, we didn't get the jobs we were expecting," he said. Because they could not change jobs without their sponsor's permission, he and his colleagues had to decide between forfeiting their employment and continuing under conditions to which they said they had not agreed.
"I have this loan so I'll end up staying," he said.
In a letter to Human Rights Watch, Labor Ministry officials stated that "the Ministry has received no complaint of forced labor and it is inconceivable that such a thing exists in Qatar, as the worker may break his contract and return to his country whenever he wishes and the employer cannot force him to remain in the country against his will."
"It's deeply disturbing that the Labor Ministry denies the problem of forced labor, when Qatar's laws and employment practices enable this very type of situation," Whitson said. "When you have thousands of workers who are scared to quit jobs and who only complain as a last resort, it's past time to face up to the problem."
A number of the key actors in the 2022 World Cup preparations have made public promises to uphold worker's rights, but have not yet made the specific public commitments that Human Rights Watch has urged. The local organizing committee for the tournament, the Supreme Committee for Qatar 2022, as well as the company it appointed to help it oversee World Cup construction, CH2M HILL, has said they will establish labor standards that builders and other contractors hired to build World Cup venues must meet. In correspondence with Human Rights Watch, they also said they are considering using mandatory contract language to set out these requirements. FIFA has pledged to raise worker rights issues with the government of Qatar.
Those commitments are a beginning, Human Rights Watch said, but additional steps are needed. FIFA should urge the Supreme Committee for Qatar 2022, the official body formed to manage the 2022 World Cup, to require private contractors involved in World Cup-related construction to set minimum employee standards in line with Qatari law and international labor standards. Any minimum standards the Supreme Committee sets for contractors should strictly prohibit confiscation of workers' passports and require that contractors take all possible steps to ensure that workers do not pay recruiting fees or reimburse workers who do pay them. The Supreme Committee should also engageindependent labor monitors to publicly report on contractors' compliance with Qatari law and international labor standards, Human Rights Watch said. The group also called on private contractors to publicly commit to protect the rights of all workers associated with their projects, including in relation to recruitment fees and worker passports.
"The Qatar 2022 Supreme Committee has said that it plans to conform to or surpass international labor standards through labor policies," Whitson said. "What the international community needs to hear are specific, public, and enforceable commitments from them and the construction companies. FIFA should also push for such action, given its public promise to promote labor rights in Qatar."
The report addresses concerns about worker safety in Qatar's construction industry. It highlights disturbing discrepancies between the number of construction worker deaths reported by local embassies and the number reported by the government. For example, the Nepali embassy reported 191 Nepali worker deaths in 2010, and the Indian embassy reported 98 Indian migrant deaths, including 45 deaths of young, low-income workers due to cardiac arrest, thus far in 2012. An Indian embassy spokesperson told local media that heat stroke likely contributed to this unusual rate of heart failure.
Yet in a letter to Human Rights Watch, Labor Ministry officials stated that, "Over the last three years, there have been no more than six cases of worker deaths. The causes are falls." The lack of any requirement for companies to regularly publish data on worker deaths and injuries contributes to this lack of transparency and information, Human Rights Watch said.
"How can Qatar confidently green-light such massive construction projects when they don't even know with any confidence the rate of worker deaths and injuries in the country?" Whitson said. "A very basic starting point is for the government to investigate and publish exact and detailed data on where, how, and how many workers have died or suffered injuries in the country."
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
Sanders Champions Those Fighting Back Against Water-Sucking, Energy-Draining, Cost-Boosting Data Centers
Dec 10, 2025
Americans who are resisting the expansion of artificial intelligence data centers in their communities are up against local law enforcement and the Trump administration, which is seeking to compel cities and towns to host the massive facilities without residents' input.
On Wednesday, US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) urged AI data center opponents to keep up the pressure on local, state, and federal leaders, warning that the rapid expansion of the multi-billion-dollar behemoths in places like northern Virginia, Wisconsin, and Michigan is set to benefit "oligarchs," while working people pay "with higher water and electric bills."
"Americans must fight back against billionaires who put profits over people," said the senator.
In a video posted on the social media platform X, Sanders pointed to two major AI projects—a $165 billion data center being built in Abilene, Texas by OpenAI and Oracle and one being constructed in Louisiana by Meta.
The centers are projected to use as much electricity as 750,000 homes and 1.2 million homes, respectively, and Meta's project will be "the size of Manhattan."
Hundreds gathered in Abilene in October for a "No Kings" protest where one local Democratic political candidate spoke out against "billion-dollar corporations like Oracle" and others "moving into our rural communities."
"They’re exploiting them for all of their resources, and they are creating a surveillance state,” said Riley Rodriguez, a candidate for Texas state Senate District 28.
In Holly Ridge, Lousiana, the construction of the world's largest data center has brought thousands of dump trucks and 18-wheelers driving through town on a daily basis, causing crashes to rise 600% and forcing a local school to shut down its playground due to safety concerns.
And people in communities across the US know the construction of massive data centers are only the beginning of their troubles, as electricity bills have surged this year in areas like northern Virginia, Illinois, and Ohio, which have a high concentration of the facilities.
The centers are also projected to use the same amount of water as 18.5 million homes normally, according to a letter signed by more than 200 environmental justice groups this week.
And in a survey of Pennsylvanians last week, Emerson College found 55% of respondents believed the expansion of AI will decrease the number of jobs available in their current industry. Sanders released an analysis in October showing that corporations including Amazon, Walmart, and UnitedHealth Group are already openly planning to slash jobs by shifting operations to AI.
In his video on Wednesday, Sanders applauded residents who have spoken out against the encroachment of Big Tech firms in their towns and cities.
"In community after community, Americans are fighting back against the data centers being built by some of the largest and most powerful corporations in the world," said Sanders. "They are opposing the destruction of their local environment, soaring electric bills, and the diversion of scarce water supplies."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Protest in Oslo Denounces Nobel Peace Prize for Right-Wing Machado
"No peace prize for warmongers," said one of the banners displayed by demonstrators, who derided Machado's support for President Donald Trump's regime change push in Venezuela.
Dec 10, 2025
As President Donald Trump issued new threats of a possible ground invasion in Venezuela, protesters gathered outside the Norwegian Nobel Institute in Oslo on Tuesday to protest the awarding of the prestigious peace prize to right-wing opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, whom they described as an ally to US regime change efforts.
“This year’s Nobel Prize winner has not distanced herself from the interventions and the attacks we are seeing in the Caribbean, and we are stating that this clearly breaks with Alfred Nobel’s will," said Lina Alvarez Reyes, the information adviser for the Norwegian Solidarity Committee for Latin America, one of the groups that organized the protests.
Machado's daughter delivered a speech accepting the award on her behalf on Wednesday. The 58-year-old engineer was unable to attend the ceremony in person due to a decade-long travel ban imposed by Venezuelan authorities under the government of President Nicolás Maduro.
Via her daughter, Machado said that receiving the award "reminds the world that democracy is essential to peace... And more than anything, what we Venezuelans can offer the world is the lesson forged through this long and difficult journey: that to have a democracy, we must be willing to fight for freedom."
But the protesters who gathered outside the previous day argue that Machado—who dedicated her acceptance of the award in part to Trump and has reportedly worked behind the scenes to pressure Washington to ramp up military and financial pressure on Venezuela—is not a beacon of democracy, but a tool of imperialist control.
As Venezuelan-American activist Michelle Ellner wrote in Common Dreams in October after Machado received the award:
She worked hand in hand with Washington to justify regime change, using her platform to demand foreign military intervention to “liberate” Venezuela through force.
She cheered on Donald Trump’s threats of invasion and his naval deployments in the Caribbean, a show of force that risks igniting regional war under the pretext of “combating narco-trafficking.” While Trump sent warships and froze assets, Machado stood ready to serve as his local proxy, promising to deliver Venezuela’s sovereignty on a silver platter.
She pushed for the US sanctions that strangled the economy, knowing exactly who would pay the price: the poor, the sick, the working class.
The protesters outside the Nobel Institute on Tuesday felt similarly: "No peace prize for warmongers," read one banner. "US hands off Latin America," read another.
The protest came on the same day Trump told reporters that an attack on the mainland of Venezuela was coming soon: “We’re gonna hit ‘em on land very soon, too,” the president said after months of extrajudicial bombings of vessels in the Caribbean that the administration has alleged with scant evidence are carrying drugs.
On the same day that Machado received the award in absentia, US warplanes were seen circling over the Gulf of Venezuela. Later, in what Bloomberg described as a "serious escalation," the US seized an oil tanker off the nation's coast.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Princeton Experts Speak Out Against Trump Boat Strikes as 'Illegal' and Destabilizing 'Murders'
"Deploying an aircraft carrier and US Southern Command assets to destroy small yolas and wooden boats is not only unlawful, it is an absurd escalation," said one scholar.
Dec 10, 2025
Multiple scholars at the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs on Wednesday spoke out against the Trump administration's campaign of bombing suspected drug boats, with one going so far as to call them acts of murder.
Eduardo Bhatia, a visiting professor and lecturer in public and international affairs at Princeton, argued that it was "unequivocal" that the attacks on on purported drug boats are illegal.
"They violate established maritime law requiring interdiction and arrest before the use of lethal force, and they represent a grossly disproportionate response by the US," stressed Bhatia, the former president of the Senate of Puerto Rico. "Deploying an aircraft carrier and US Southern Command assets to destroy small yolas and wooden boats is not only unlawful, it is an absurd escalation that undermines regional security and diplomatic stability."
Deborah Pearlstein, director of the Program in Law and Public Policy at Princeton, said that she has been talking with "military operations lawyers, international law experts, national security legal scholars," and other experts, and so far has found none who believe the administration's boat attacks are legal.
Pearlstein added that the illegal strikes are "a symptom of the much deeper problem created by the purging of career lawyers on the front end, and the tacit promise of presidential pardons on the back end," the result of which is that "the rule of law loses its deterrent effect."
Visiting professor Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, argued that it was not right to describe the administration's actions as war crimes given that a war, by definition, "requires a level of sustained hostilities between two organized forces that is not present with the drug cartels."
Rather, Roth believes that the administration's policy should be classified as straight-up murder.
"These killings are still murders," he emphasized. "Drug trafficking is a serious crime, but the appropriate response is to interdict the boats and arrest the occupants for prosecution. The rules governing law enforcement prohibit lethal force except as a last resort to stop an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, which the boats do not present."
International affairs professor Jacob N. Shapiro pointed to the past failures in the US "War on Drugs," and predicted more of the same from Trump's boat-bombing spree.
"In 1986, President Ronald Reagan announced the 'War on Drugs,' which included using the Coast Guard and military to essentially shut down shipment through the Caribbean," Shapiro noted. "The goal was to reduce supply, raise prices, and thereby lower use. Cocaine prices in the US dropped precipitously from 1986 through 1989, and then dropped slowly through 2006. Traffickers moved from air and sea to land routes. That policy did not work, it's unclear why this time will be different."
The scholars' denunciation of the boat strikes came on the same day that the US seized an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela in yet another escalatory act of aggression intended to put further economic pressure on the government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


