Cornell University
Library
Cornell UniversityLibrary

eCommons

Help
Log In(current)
DigitalCollections@ILR
ILR School
  1. Home
  2. ILR School
  3. ILR Collection
  4. ILR Articles and Chapters
  5. Means to an End: An Assessment of the Status-blind Approach to Protecting Undocumented Worker Rights

Means to an End: An Assessment of the Status-blind Approach to Protecting Undocumented Worker Rights

File(s)
Gleeson8_Means_to_an_end.pdf (178.77 KB)
Permanent Link(s)
https://hdl.handle.net/1813/75843
Collections
Faculty Publications - Labor Relations, Law, and History
ILR Articles and Chapters
Author
Gleeson, Shannon
Abstract

This article applies the tenets of bureaucratic incorporation theory to an investigation of bureaucratic decision making in labor standards enforcement agencies (LSEAs), as they relate to undocumented workers. Drawing on 25 semistructured interviews with high-level officials in San Jose and Houston, I find that bureaucrats in both cities routinely evade the issue of immigration status during the claims-making process, and directly challenge employers’ attempts to use the undocumented status of their workers to deflect liability. Respondents offer three institutionalized narratives for this approach: (1) to deter employer demand for undocumented labor, (2) the conviction that the protection of undocumented workers is essential to the agency’s ability to regulate industry standards for all workers, and (3) to clearly demarcate the agency’s jurisdictional boundaries to preserve institutional autonomy and scarce resources. Within this context, enforcing the rights of undocumented workers becomes simply an institutional means to an end.

Date Issued
2014-01-01
Keywords
labor
•
immigration
•
bureaucracy
Related DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121414523733
Rights
Required Publisher Statement: © SAGE. Final version published as: Gleeson, S. (2014). Means to an end: An assessment of the status-blind approach to protecting undocumented worker rights [Electronic version]. Sociological Perspectives, 57(3), 301-320. doi: 10.1177/0731121414523733 Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.
Type
article

Site Statistics | Help

About eCommons | Policies | Terms of use | Contact Us

copyright © 2002-2026 Cornell University Library | Privacy | Web Accessibility Assistance