Migrant Workers and Farming Will They Get a Decent Living and Employment?

Migrant workers play an essential, if not primary, role in the agrifood sector. A lot depends on them, from harvesting and food processing to logistics and delivery. However, they have to work amid precarious contracts, limited access to services, language barriers and employer-linked housing.

At the same time, many farm-to-fork sectors face a chronic scarcity of domestic workers. That intensifies the sector’s reliance on migrant labor, including seasonal and temporary workers. A paradoxical situation arises, with temporary workers being in huge demand in the European continent but still forced to work and live in undignified conditions. Discussed here will be regular migrant workers who have entered Europe quite legally and in whom it is actually interested.

This issue was examined in detail by Alberto-Horst Neidhardt, senior policy analyst and head of the European Diversity and Migration program at the European Policy Centre (EPC). Here are the conclusions made by the analyst, who specializes in asylum, migration and integration matters.

The author believes that the issue of migrant workers’ humiliating existence in Europe’s agro-industrial sector persists due to three interrelated factors.

Firstly, labor supply in agribusiness sectors is constrained by declining participation among native-born workers – caused by excessive expectations and demographic trends (European society is growing older). This has made migrant labor an essential and permanent feature of EU agri-food sectors. While mechanization can address some bottlenecks, manual labor remains integral to large parts of agri-food production. Simultaneously, the treatment of these workers shows the cascading effects of supply-chain pressures. Food industries often impose unfair prices upstream, particularly on producers, who may then reduce labor standards to compress costs.

Consumer demand for low-priced, year-round fresh produce further amplifies these pressures, as retailers respond to customer expectations by pushing prices and risks upstream. These systemic drivers limit the impact of actions by agribusiness at the initial production stages.

Secondly, the farm workers’ persistent plight reflects political priorities. The current EU migration debate is dominated by irregular migration. Due to its salience and complexity, policy-makers frequently prioritize political signaling over evidence-based solutions. Put simply, politicians prefer to talk rather than act.

A third, less examined cause is the internal mechanics of EU policymaking. EU action is shaped by power asymmetries, a fragmented decision-making process and weak implementation monitoring. This creates blind spots that the system cannot control and that only reinforce exploitation.

From this perspective, abuses are not mere deviations but structural outcomes of a weak governance architecture.

Put simply, European bureaucracy is itself interested in total savings on migrants and in sucking all the financial juices out of them in the process. Nothing personal here, just business. Europe is really interested in migrants, but it is unprofitable for employers to provide them with decent conditions. The market requires optimization, while the migrant – unlike locals – will not run to complain. And if he does, few will hear him.