Report to the Honorable

Luis V. Gutierrez

House of Representatives

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

September 2002 WORKER

PROTECTION

Labor’s Efforts to

Enforce Protections

for Day Laborers

Could Benefit from

Better Data and

Guidance

GAO-02-925
Why GAO Did This Study

Day laborers are individuals who

generally work for different

employers and get paid on a daily

basis. They may congregate on

street corners and wait for

employers to offer them work.

Little is actually known about

these workers or their working

conditions. Congressional

representatives, researchers, and

advocacy groups have raised

concerns that day laborers may

be used for the most hazardous

work but not paid appropriate

wages or provided safe working

conditions. Due to these

concerns, GAO was asked to

determine what is known about

the day laborer workforce and

identify the factors that affect

Labor’s ability to enforce the

protections afforded day laborers

under certain labor laws.

September 2002

WORKER PROTECTION

Labor’s Efforts to Enforce Protections for

Day Laborers Could Benefit from Better

Data and Guidance

This is a test for developing highlights for a GAO report. The full report, including GAO's objectives, scope, methodology, and analysis is available

at www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-925. For additional information about the report, contact Robert E. Robertson (202-512-7215). To provide

comments on this test highlights, contact Keith Fultz (202-512-3200) or e-mail HighlightsTest@gao.gov.

Highlights of GAO-02-925, a report to the Honorable Luis V. Gutierrez, House of Representatives

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that Labor

obtain better information about

the presence of day laborers or

violations experienced by day

laborers. GAO also recommends

that Labor provide guidance to its

local offices to ensure more

consistent enforcement of

protections for day laborers.

The Department of Labor

provided GAO with written

comments on a draft of this

report, emphasizing its

commitment to protecting all

workers, including day laborers.

While Labor did not comment on

all recommendations, it agreed

with those it did comment on.

United States General Accounting Office

What GAO Found

Although limited, existing information on the nature and size of the day

laborer workforce suggests that these workers may be prone to

workplace abuses and are probably undercounted. While individual

sources may be limited in scope, taken together, they indicate that day

laborers are generally young Hispanic men with limited educational skills

and significant language barriers, with some portion being

undocumented. These characteristics make workers vulnerable to

various types of workplace dangers and abuses. The only nationally

representative data on the day laborer population comes from Labor’s

Bureau of Labor Statistics, which in 2001 identified about 260,000 day

laborers who wait on street corners for employment. However, these

data may undercount day laborers. The methodology used to collect this

information may affect Labor’s ability to reach people not having fixed

addresses, a condition that may apply to day laborers.

A number of factors relevant to day laborers and their work affect

Labor’s ability to enforce the protections afforded them under laws that

also cover many other workers. Labor has difficulty getting complete

information about potential violations involving day laborers. Also,

Labor’s investigative procedures are generally not designed for

individuals in nonstandard work arrangements such as day laborers.

Finally, Labor officials in local offices are uncertain about the extent of

coverage for some day laborers and the responsibilities of some

employers who employ day laborers.

Day laborers at an employer’s truck.

Source: Latin American Workers’ Project, New York.

G A O

Accountability Integrity Reliability

Highlights
Page i GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 3

Available Data Suggest that Day Laborer Population Is Vulnerable

and May Be Undercounted 10

Labor’s Efforts to Enforce Protections for Day Laborers Are

Hampered by Limited Data, Traditional Procedures, and

Difficulty in Determining Coverage 13

Conclusions 24

Recommendations for Executive Action 25

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 26

Appendix I Identification and Selection of Agencies Serving

Day Laborers 29

Identifying Agencies Serving Day Laborers 29

Selecting Agencies Serving Day Laborers 30

Appendix II Services Provided to Day Laborers by Selected

Nonprofit Agencies 32

Description of Nonprofit Agencies Visited 32

Appendix III Selected Features of FLSA and Requirements

in Four States 36

Appendix IV Comments from the Employment Standards

Administration 39

GAO Comments 42

Appendix V Comments from the Occupational Safety

and Health Administration 43

GAO Comments 47

Appendix VI GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 48

GAO Contacts 48

Staff Acknowledgments 48

Contents
Page ii GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

Tables

Table 1: Agencies Participating in Structured Interviews 31

Table 2: Description of Agencies GAO Visited and the Services

They Provide 32

Figures

Figure 1: Day Laborers Waiting for Employment 4

Figure 2: Day Laborers at an Employer’s Truck 5

Figure 3: Shelter Construction at an Organized Day Labor Site 6

Figure 4: Day Laborers Signing up for Work 6

Figure 5: An Organized Day Labor Site 7

Abbreviations

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics

CHIRLA Coalition for Humane Immigration Rights of Los Angeles

CPS Current Population Survey

DLSA Day Labor Services Act

FLSA Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

OSH Act Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970

WHD Wage and Hour Division
Page 1 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

September 26, 2002

The Honorable Luis V. Gutierrez

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Gutierrez:

“Day laborers” is a term that generally refers to individuals who work and

get paid on a daily or short-term basis. To find work, day laborers often

congregate on street corners and wait for employers to drive by and offer

them work. The term also includes those who may be employed by

temporary staffing agencies that assign them work on a daily basis with

client employers. Day laborers have an informal relationship with the

labor market, often working for different employers each day, being paid

in cash, and lacking key benefits, such as health or unemployment

insurance. However, day laborers, like many other workers in this country,

may be eligible for wage and safety protections provided under two key

federal laws: the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Occupational

Safety and Health Act (OSH Act). The U.S. Department of Labor (Labor)

administers both acts: the former through its Employment Standards

Administration’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD), the latter through its

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). WHD is

responsible for ensuring that all covered workers receive at least the

federal minimum hourly wage and overtime pay. OSHA is required to

ensure that employers provide safe and healthy workplaces for their

workers to avoid injury or death. Coverage under both laws does not

depend on a worker’s immigration status.

Because of day laborers’ informal relationship with the labor market,

congressional representatives, researchers, and advocacy groups have

raised concerns that day laborers may be used for the most hazardous

work but not paid appropriate wages or provided safe working conditions.

However, little is actually known about who these day laborers are, what

their working conditions are, or the extent to which protections afforded

under federal wage and safety and health laws are enforced. As a result,

you asked us to determine what is known about the nature and size of the

day laborer workforce and identify the key factors that affect Labor’s

ability to enforce the protections afforded day laborers under FLSA and

the OSH Act.

To determine what is known about the size and nature of the day laborer

workforce, we reviewed available data on day laborers, such as

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

information from Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on day laborers

and available studies, and interviewed representatives of key national

associations representing day laborers and employers who use them. We

also conducted structured interviews with 25 nonprofit, local government,

or temporary staffing agencies that work with or employ day laborers (see

app. I for more details on how we selected these agencies). To identify the

key factors that affect Labor’s ability to enforce the protections afforded

day laborers under FLSA and the OSH Act, we reviewed provisions of

FLSA and the OSH Act, implementing regulations and guidance; obtained

and reviewed enforcement procedures; and analyzed enforcement

statistics from WHD and OSHA. For both objectives, we interviewed

federal WHD and OSHA officials in Washington, D.C., as well as state labor

officials in four states—California, Illinois, New York, and Virginia.1

 During

our state visits, we visited nonprofit and local government agencies that

work with day laborers and interviewed day laborers at each site we

visited. We also compared provisions of the wage laws and requirements

of these states with FLSA (see app. III for this comparison). We performed

our work between December 2001 and August 2002 in accordance with

generally accepted government auditing standards.

Although limited, existing information on the nature and size of the day

laborer workforce suggests that these workers may be prone to workplace

abuses and are probably undercounted. Available information shows that

day laborers are generally young Hispanic men with limited educational

skills and significant language barriers, with some portion also being

undocumented. Research has shown that these characteristics are typical

of workers willing to accept lower wages or work in substandard

conditions. The only nationally representative data on the day laborer

population comes from Labor’s BLS, but these data may undercount day

laborers. For example, the methodology BLS uses to collect this

information may affect BLS’s ability to reach respondents not having

telephones or fixed addresses—conditions that may apply to day laborers.

In 2001, BLS identified about 260,000 day laborers who wait on street

corners for employment, yet one study of day laborers in California

identified about 20,000 day laborers in one metropolitan area alone.

 1

We selected these states based on a variety of state-specific factors, including perceived

high numbers of day laborers; use of day laborers at nationally important locations, such as

the World Trade Center and the Pentagon sites; and local efforts to enforce existing laws.

Results in Brief
Page 3 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

A number of factors that are directly relevant to the unique characteristics

of day laborers and their work affect Labor’s ability to enforce the

protections afforded them under FLSA and the OSH Act. First, because

neither WHD nor OSHA can get complete information about potential

violations involving day laborers, it is hard to focus resources on them.

For example, day laborers are generally reluctant or unaware of their right

to complain to authorities about not being paid promised wages or

working in unsafe conditions. Similarly, available information that Labor

uses to target its investigations, such as data on injuries and fatalities, may

not accurately reflect the extent to which day laborers are injured or

killed. As a result, neither WHD nor OSHA may be reaching those

industries or workplaces where day laborers work. Although both

agencies have made efforts to educate workers or obtain better data, these

efforts may not be sufficient. Second, WHD’s and OSHA’s investigative

procedures make it difficult to detect violations of worker protection laws

involving day laborers who often have nonstandard work arrangements.

As a result, the procedures may cause both agencies to miss violations.

Finally, WHD officials are uncertain about the extent of coverage for day

laborers in some cases, and the responsibilities of temporary staffing

agencies under the OSH Act are unclear. This may lead to inconsistencies

in the protections provided to day laborers. For example, even though

FLSA can cover employees working for homeowners in a domestic service

capacity, some local WHD officials we interviewed did not believe this

provision applied to day laborers. Also, because the responsibilities of

temporary staffing agencies under the OSH Act to ensure the safety of

workers they assign to client employers are not clearly delineated, OSHA

officials had different approaches to holding temporary staffing agencies

accountable for the safety of these workers.

We are making recommendations to the Secretary of Labor to improve

Labor’s efforts to protect day laborers, including obtaining better

information to help focus resources on day laborers and clarifying

requirements under FLSA and the OSH Act. Labor generally agreed with

those recommendations that it commented on.

Day labor is a phenomenon that is not new to the United States; it has

traditionally served as an informal device for bringing together employers

who need workers and individuals willing to work. Both in times of

economic prosperity or downturn, employers see many advantages to

using day laborers—there are generally few commitments the employer

must make to the day laborer, and the employer has the flexibility of using

the day laborer only when work is available. Additionally, there are

Background
Page 4 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

numerous reasons why individuals would work as day laborers—for some,

it is an opportunity to earn income when temporarily laid off; for others, it

is a first job in the United States; for yet others, it is the only employment

option available given substance abuse or other social difficulties. In other

cases, this informal relationship offers an opportunity for employers to

avoid paying employment taxes and offers workers a chance to earn

undetected income.

There are generally two types of day laborers. The first type of day laborer

is one that gathers on street corners, waiting for employers to drive by and

offer them daily employment. (See figs. 1 and 2.)

Figure 1: Day Laborers Waiting for Employment

Source: Latin American Workers’ Project, New York.
Page 5 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

Figure 2: Day Laborers at an Employer’s Truck

Source: Latin American Workers’ Project, New York.

Across the country, there are likely thousands of street corners or informal

meeting places where day laborers wait for work. In these locations, it is

up to the day laborer and the employer to negotiate a wage and various

conditions of work. In many locations, however, nonprofit or local

government agencies have made efforts to gather day laborers at a single

site and establish procedures for obtaining work, negotiating wages, and

ensuring that wage and safety requirements are met (see figs. 3 to 5).

Appendix II describes how several of these agencies operate.
Page 6 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

Figure 3: Shelter Construction at an Organized Day Labor Site

Source: Latin American Workers’ Project, New York.

Figure 4: Day Laborers Signing up for Work

Source: Latin American Workers’ Project, New York.
Page 7 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

Figure 5: An Organized Day Labor Site

Source: GAO.

The second type of day laborer is one that is employed by for-profit

temporary staffing agencies that assign them to work at client employers

on a daily basis. To receive these assignments, day laborers must

physically report to the temporary staffing agency office. In many cases,

these workers are also paid on a daily basis by payroll check—in fact, one

agency’s motto is “Work today; get paid today.” Generally, the temporary

staffing agencies that employ day laborers are not those that are known

for providing professional or administrative white or pink-collar workers

to client employers.

No national data on day laborers existed until 1995, when BLS surveyed

various types of “contingent” workers.2

 This survey was conducted as a

 2

The term “contingent” has been used for many years to describe a variety of nonstandard

work arrangements. It describes the impermanent nature of certain work arrangements,

such as those (1) providing a relatively low level of job security, (2) with more variable or

less predictable hours, and (3) that reflect a change in the traditional rights of workers and

the benefits offered to them.
Page 8 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

supplement to BLS’s monthly Current Population Survey (CPS).3 BLS has

conducted the supplemental survey four times: 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2001.

Several researchers have also conducted studies on particular groups of

day laborers in select locations across the country, including Los Angeles

and Chicago. These studies attempted to obtain information not only

about day laborers’ demographics and work characteristics, but also about

the extent to which day laborers may be experiencing violations of

existing laws.

Day laborers, like many other workers in the United States, may be

covered by the two federal laws that govern basic wage and workplace

safety protections: FLSA and the OSH Act. To be covered, the worker must

be “an employee” as defined by the law, among other requirements. The

protections afforded by these laws do not extend to independent

contractors. FLSA requires that employers pay the federal hourly

minimum wage and overtime to covered workers, while the OSH Act

requires employers to provide a workplace free of recognized hazards in

order to avoid worker injury, illness, or death. To comply with the law,

employers may have to provide safety training and personal protective

equipment, among other practices.

FLSA originally covered only those employees engaged in interstate

commerce or in the production of goods for commerce.4

 Coverage was

later extended to include all employees of a business “enterprise” that met

certain criteria.5

 Specifically, under the current law, all employees of an

employer (such as those working for a temporary staffing agency) would

be covered if it had some employees engaged in interstate commerce or in

the production of goods for commerce and annual gross sales or business

volume of at least $500,000. If annual gross sales were below $500,000,

only those employees actually engaged in activities involving interstate

commerce would be covered. Such activities might include taking orders

over the telephone from customers in another state or transporting

equipment to another state. Coverage under the OSH Act is broader. All

employees of a particular employer are covered if the employer is engaged

in a business affecting commerce. Coverage under the OSH Act does not

 3

The CPS surveys approximately 50,000 households each month. This information is the

primary source of nationally representative data used to develop national employment and

unemployment rates.

4

See P.L. No. 75-718 §§ 6, 7 (1938).

5

See P.L. No. 87-30 §§ 5(b), 6(a) (1961).
Page 9 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

depend on the specific activities of the employee or the volume of the

employer’s business.

FLSA specifically covers individuals working as employees in a domestic

service capacity for homeowners, performing tasks that would ordinarily

be performed by the homeowner.6

 Examples of such tasks include

gardening, housecleaning, or chauffeuring. On the other hand, while the

OSH Act is silent on its coverage of domestic service workers, an OSHA

regulation specifically excludes homeowners who employ workers in a

domestic service capacity.7

 Coverage under both laws does not depend on

a worker’s immigration status.

To carry out their responsibilities, WHD and OSHA perform a number of

activities. They generally conduct workplace investigations that result

from a worker complaint or initiate them based on other information.

Recently, both agencies have increased their emphasis on compliance

assistance, that is, providing information to employers, workers, and

others of their rights under the laws. These efforts require WHD and OSHA

to work with state enforcement agencies. State laws play an important role

in supplementing FLSA’s protections because states may enact more

stringent provisions in their laws than in federal law. This means that a

state law could cover employers and individuals not covered under FLSA.

If an employer is covered under FLSA and a state law, the more stringent

provision of either law will generally apply. Under the OSH Act, OSHA has

delegated enforcement responsibility to state labor agencies in 23 states.8

These states have the option of implementing more stringent requirements

than the federal program, and in many cases, they have done so. For

example, California requires employers to have an injury and illness

prevention program—something not required by OSHA.

 6

Workers performing domestic service qualify for the minimum wage if they work a total of

more than 8 hours a week for one or more employers or receive cash wages from one

employer totaling at least $1,300 in 2002. See 29 U.S.C. § 206(f); 66 Fed. Reg. 54047

(Oct. 25, 2001).

7

29 C.F.R. § 1975.6.

8

The OSH Act allows states to operate their own safety and health programs as long as they

are determined by OSHA to be at least as effective as the federal OSHA program. Two of

the state programs cover only state and local government employees.
Page 10 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

Available information indicates that the day laborer workforce is prone to

workplace abuses and is probably undercounted. The characteristics of

day laborers that we and others identified, such as limited English

proficiency, are generally recognized by Labor and others as those that

make workers vulnerable to workplace abuses. Moreover, our work and

other recent research indicate that the size of the day laborer population

may be greater than nationally available data suggest.

While individual sources may be limited in scope, taken together, they

provide a general picture of the day laborer population as young Hispanic

men with limited educational skills and significant language barriers. Our

interviews with nonprofit and local government agencies working with day

laborers indicated that the majority of day laborers were Hispanic men,

with some portion being foreign born.9

 A study performed by a researcher

in California generally corroborated this, finding that nearly one-third of

the day laborer population studied had been in this country for less than

1 year.10 We also found that, even though the majority of the day laborers

were between 18 and 30 years old, they generally had less than a high

school education; the study in California found that, in some cases, day

laborers had only about 7 years of education.11 We also found that these

workers often lacked basic proficiency in speaking or writing English,

with some of them not even proficient in their own language. Finally,

although we were unable to quantify the percentage, we found that some

portion of the day labor population was undocumented.12 In some cases,

 9

We also identified some day laborers who were black, eastern European, or female.

Although available BLS data show most day laborers are white (88 percent), this is because

ethnicity is asked separately from race. Thus, Hispanics will indicate first whether they are

of white or black race, then separately indicate their ethnicity as Hispanics. Data from the

survey show that Hispanics make up nearly 40 percent of the entire day laborer population.

10Abel Valenzuela, Jr., Working on the Margins: Immigrant Day Labor Characteristics

and Prospects for Employment, Working Paper No. 2, Center for Comparative Immigration

Studies, University of California-San Diego, May 2000.

11We did find a small percentage of day laborers who had more than a high school diploma,

usually obtained in their home country.

12Individuals working for temporary staffing agencies may be more likely to be documented

and authorized to work since they generally have to provide documentation of their legal

work status to their employer. However, we were told of instances where temporary

staffing agencies did not ask for documentation or where day laborers provided fraudulent

documentation.

Available Data

Suggest that Day

Laborer Population Is

Vulnerable and May

Be Undercounted

Data on Day Laborer

Characteristics Show a

Population at Risk
Page 11 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

day laborers working for temporary staffing agencies were slightly more

ethnically diverse, with higher levels of education and skills.13

Research has shown that these characteristics make workers vulnerable to

various types of workplace dangers and abuses, a fact that Labor also

acknowledges.14 First, immigrants to the United States, especially newer

ones, are more willing to accept lower wages and substandard work that

offers few benefits or protections, which makes them attractive to

unscrupulous employers who may exploit them as a cheap source of labor.

For example, often immigrants take the more informal, contingent work in

this country, and we found in a previous GAO report that workers in

contingent work arrangements had lower family incomes than those in

traditional work arrangements and many have incomes below the federal

poverty threshold.15 Second, lower education and skill levels often mean

that workers are willing to take jobs that pose a greater health risk. In that

respect, we found that most of the day laborers worked in unskilled

occupations, such as laborer or landscaper, in more hazardous industries,

such as construction; day laborers working through temporary staffing

agencies were also employed in manual labor occupations in

manufacturing and warehousing. Lower educational levels also mean that

workers may not be aware of the labor protections available to them, their

rights as employees under the law, or the dangers associated with

hazardous conditions. Third, limited proficiency in speaking or reading

English makes it more difficult for workers to understand the relative risk

of their employment or communicate such dangers to employers, a point

stressed by representatives of several nonprofit and local government

agencies we interviewed that worked with day laborers. Finally, being

undocumented means that workers may not want to be found, so they will

endure a higher level of abuse to remain undetected.

 13Several temporary staffing agencies were unable to provide specific information on race,

age, and educational levels because they do not collect this type of information.

14This report does not fully address the characteristics or vulnerability of day laborers who

are not served by any group, as that information is difficult to obtain. For example, we

heard of Chinese day laborers in New York working for storefront or “fly-by-night”

temporary staffing agencies. These workers are likely to be as vulnerable as those day

laborers working with the agencies we contacted.

15See U.S. General Accounting Office, Contingent Workers: Incomes and Benefits Lag

Behind Those of Rest of Workforce, GAO/HEHS-00-76, (Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2000).

The Department of Health and Human Service’s 2002 Poverty Guidelines identifies the

poverty threshold for a family of three as $15,020.
Page 12 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

The only nationally representative source of data on day laborers is BLS’s

CPS Contingent Work Supplement. For a variety of reasons, these data

may underestimate the actual number of day laborers seeking work in the

United States. Data from the survey show that in 2001, there were about

260,000 individuals working as day laborers.16 BLS also reported that about

1.2 million workers found work through temporary staffing agencies in

2001, but the survey does not attempt to determine what percent of those

individuals, if any, were day laborers. Other studies of day laborers are not

national in scope, but may indicate the presence of relatively large

numbers of day laborers. For example, one study of day laborers in

Southern California estimated the population to be as high as 20,000 in one

metropolitan area.17 Based on our interviews with nonprofit and local

government agencies that serve day laborers on street corners, we

identified about 2,600 day laborers who seek work daily from 28 street

corners identified by these agencies. Regarding day laborers working

through temporary staffing agencies, staff at one agency serving day

laborers estimated that about 30,000 day laborers were sent out each day

by temporary staffing agencies in Chicago alone. Moreover, one national

temporary staffing agency we interviewed reported that it employed

almost 700,000 individuals as day laborers in 2001.

When one considers the methods used by BLS to collect data on day

laborers, the findings of these additional studies may be even more

convincing as to the potential undercounting of day laborers. We have

reported that BLS’s methodology is inadequate for measuring certain

hard-to-reach segments of the population and, as a result, may undercount

them.18 For example, BLS’s survey relies on address lists that are

dependent on stable or established residences. Day laborers may move

frequently to find work or live with relatives. In addition, BLS does most of

the interviewing by telephone, and day laborers may not have access to a

 16BLS does not publish information on day laborers separately, but while the number of

other types of contingent workers has remained relatively stable since 1995, the number of

day laborers has increased by 135 percent. In 2001, day laborers accounted for about

2 percent of the contingent workforce.

17See footnote 10.

18U.S. General Accounting Office, Child Labor in Agriculture: Changes Needed to Better

Protect Health and Educational Opportunities, GAO/HEHS-98-193, (Washington, D.C.:

Aug. 21, 1998).

Size of the Day Laborer

Population May Be Greater

than Available Data

Indicate
Page 13 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

telephone, or speak English.19 Finally, individuals who are wary of

government may avoid participating in surveys. None of the day laborers

we interviewed at the four sites we visited recalled ever being surveyed by

the government.20

A number of factors affect Labor’s ability to enforce the protections

afforded day laborers under FLSA and the OSH Act.21 The limited

information available on day laborers makes it difficult for WHD and

OSHA to focus resources on them. In addition, traditional investigative

procedures used by WHD and OSHA may hurt their ability to detect

violations affecting employees in nonstandard work arrangements, such as

day laborers. Finally, applying FLSA and the OSH Act to day laborers is

challenging because it requires sufficient information and resources to

determine coverage. In addition, in some cases, WHD officials are

uncertain about the extent of coverage for day laborers under FLSA, and

the responsibilities of temporary staffing agencies under the OSH Act are

unclear, which may lead to situations where day laborers are not

protected.

WHD and OSHA generally rely on two types of information to conduct

investigations to identify potential violations. They (1) rely on complaints

from individuals who believe they may have suffered a violation and

(2) analyze data on wages or workplace conditions to specifically target

 19BLS said that it can conduct the survey in person if necessary and does have the ability to

conduct the survey in Spanish; however, some day laborers may not have a fixed address

or may speak a language other than Spanish.

20Moreover, the characteristics of this workforce reflected in BLS’s data raise questions

about the extent to which BLS reaches day laborers employed by temporary staffing

agencies. For example, BLS’s 2001 data show that individuals working for temporary

staffing agencies are predominately white and employed in clerical and administrative

occupations, which does not reflect the characteristics of day laborers working for

temporary staffing agencies.

21We determined that the day laborers who were the subject of our review generally do not

appear to meet the legal criteria to be considered independent contractors under the OSH

Act or FLSA. We determined this through our structured interview questions regarding the

ownership of tools and transportation and the supervision of employees.

Labor’s Efforts to

Enforce Protections

for Day Laborers Are

Hampered by Limited

Data, Traditional

Procedures, and

Difficulty in

Determining Coverage

Limited Information about

Day Laborers Makes it

Difficult to Focus

Resources on Them
Page 14 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

problematic industries or worksites. In both cases, this information fails to

identify the presence of day laborers or potential violations affecting them.

Both WHD and OSHA initiate much of their enforcement activity in

response to complaints filed by individual workers. In fiscal year 2001,

about 70 percent of WHD’s investigations under FLSA were complaintdriven; for some industries, such as the construction or temporary staffing

industry, the majority of the investigations it conducted were due to

complaints. OSHA is required by law to respond to all valid complaints

about serious hazards from employees,22 although it relies less heavily on

complaints than WHD, historically initiating about 20 percent of its

investigations based on complaints.23 However, WHD and OSHA officials

reported that they received few or no complaints from day laborers. Day

laborers may not complain for a variety of reasons. For some day laborers,

language barriers may prevent them from being aware of or taking

advantage of their right to complain to authorities. In addition, the day

laborers may fear loss of employment, either through employer

retribution, deportation, or the time necessary to file and resolve a

complaint.24 Representatives of nonprofit agencies serving day laborers

told us of cases where, even when they have filed complaints, they have

received little action from WHD or it has taken too long for WHD to

complete a case.25

Nonetheless, available information indicates day laborers face numerous

potential violations. Many of these potential violations involve

nonpayment of wages, including overtime. For example, the majority of

nonprofit and local government agencies working with day laborers we

interviewed reported that day laborers complained at least once a week

about nonpayment of wages. These agencies reported that they recovered

 22OSHA also responds to all fatalities, catastrophes, and cases of imminent danger.

23In some states, the percentage of compliant-driven inspections is higher than the national

average.

24In one of our previous reports, Labor officials reported that there is a misperception

among the foreign-born working community, actively promoted by those who do not want

employees to cooperate with Labor, that cooperating with Labor will automatically result

in an Immigration and Naturalization Service investigation. See U.S. General Accounting

Office, Illegal Aliens: Significant Obstacles to Reducing Unauthorized Alien Employment

Exists, GAO/GGD-99-33, (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 2, 1999).

25We reviewed a sample of complaint-based investigations in the temporary staffing

industry for both OSHA and WHD and confirmed that none of the complaints came from

day laborers.
Page 15 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

over $750,000 in owed wages that day laborers did not receive from

employers in 2001. Other researchers corroborated our findings, reporting

that over half of the day laborers in their studies were not paid the wages

due to them.26 Violations may also involve the safety and health of day

laborers. For example, the majority of the nonprofit and local government

agencies working with day laborers that we interviewed said that few, if

any, day laborers receive personal protective equipment or safety training.

Other researchers corroborated our findings, with one reporting that

75 percent of day laborers in the study did not receive protective

equipment when performing hazardous work.27 Many researchers and

agencies dealing with day laborers agreed that day laborers underreport

their concerns about workplace safety and health because they believe no

corrective action will be taken and are willing to risk their safety as long

as they are paid.

Labor has made various efforts to address the fact that day laborers are

less likely to complain. These efforts include educating workers and

improving access to the complaint process. For example, in Chicago,

OSHA and WHD have been working with nonprofit and faith-based

organizations to educate workers about their rights and help them identify

potential violations. As a result, OSHA received complaints that resulted in

35 cases with violations that it may not have otherwise detected. In its

comments on a draft of this report, WHD said that it has been increasing

its appearances on Spanish-speaking radio and television in an effort to

inform workers about their rights. OSHA, in its comments, also provided

additional information on its efforts to provide assistance with safety and

health training for day laborers. According to nonprofit agencies we

interviewed that work with day laborers, information and assistance

provided to day laborers led to improved working conditions and a decline

in the need to file complaints. We did not find similar levels of outreach in

all locations we visited, and not all outreach efforts have included

temporary staffing agencies or a broad range of organizations that work

with day laborers.

Regarding access to the complaint process, OSHA has translated its

complaint form and other publications into Spanish, created a

 26See, for example, Dan Kerr and Chris Dole, Challenging Exploitation and Abuse: A

Study of the Day Labor Industry in Cleveland, Prepared for the Cleveland City Council,

Ohio, Sept. 2, 2001.

27See footnote 10.
Page 16 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

1-800 telephone number accessible to Spanish speakers, and developed a

Spanish language web site. OSHA has also compiled a list of Spanish

speakers in the agency and has formed an Hispanic Task Force that is,

among other things, developing recommendations for implementing a

national strategy to address the problems of Hispanic and immigrant

worker populations. WHD is in the process of translating compliance

assistance materials into Spanish and has about one-quarter of its staff

that speak Spanish. WHD’s national office told us that it has developed a

“Wage Hours Recordkeeper” in English and Spanish to provide temporary

and transient workers—such as day laborers—the information needed to

determine if they are paid properly. While both agencies are making

progress in their activities, these efforts may not reach the full range of

day laborers, since they generally lack access to the Internet, may speak

languages other than Spanish, or may be illiterate.

The second way that WHD and OSHA identify potential violations is by

analyzing available data on workplace demographics, conditions, and past

investigations to target problematic industries or worksites. Generally,

WHD targets industries with the lowest wages or the most vulnerable

workers. For example, WHD uses BLS data on worker demographics, yet

as we noted earlier, BLS data may undercount workers with

characteristics similar to those of day laborers. WHD also uses wage

information to identify low-paying occupations or industries, yet our

research showed that day laborers obtaining employment from street

corners work an average of 2 to 3 days a week and are generally paid in

cash at the end of the day. As a result, it is not clear whether these kinds of

wage payments would be reflected in data collected from employers on

wages paid to workers. On the basis of this type of information, WHD

identified industries other than construction or the temporary staffing

industry for their national targets. Yet, most of the agencies we surveyed

reported that a majority of day laborers work in the construction

industry.28 Finally, the database on past investigations that WHD uses to

target industries does not identify whether violations involve day laborers.

For example, WHD’s data show that, in 2001, temporary staffing agencies

had a higher likelihood of monetary violations than employers in any other

industries investigated, but the database does not identify whether any of

these workers are day laborers.

 28At the local level, WHD offices have the authority to target construction. In 2001, about 3

percent of WHD’s investigations in construction were targeted.
Page 17 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

OSHA targets the most hazardous industries and worksites for

investigation, using injury and illness data collected and reported by

employers and its database on past investigations. However, this

information does not show where day laborers work or the full extent of

their injury experience because when employers record an injury, they are

not required to note whether the worker was a day laborer. Furthermore,

because client employers—not temporary staffing agencies—must record

injuries and fatalities of temporary staffing agency day laborers, the data

OSHA uses cannot identify the extent to which day laborers working for

temporary staffing agencies are injured or killed. Finally, when OSHA

targets particular worksites for investigation, the information it uses may

not reflect smaller worksites, where many day laborers work and which

experts believe are the most hazardous sites in the industry. For example,

OSHA targets construction at the national level, but the data it uses to

target worksites in the industry does not generally include construction

projects valued at less than $50,000 and that are residential. OSHA’s local

offices have flexibility to exclude additional construction worksites from

targeted inspection; we found some local offices excluded projects valued

at up to $2,000,000. In addition, because OSHA counts inspections by the

number of contractors at a worksite, there is an incentive to target larger

construction worksites, which may be likely to have more contractors.

Recently, both WHD and OSHA made efforts to collect additional data that

better identified potential violations involving day laborers working for

temporary staffing agencies. A regional WHD office collected data from a

randomly selected number of temporary staffing agencies to determine

whether these agencies were in compliance with FLSA. In 1997, local

OSHA offices in Ohio obtained workers’ compensation data to better

identify injury rates for day laborers working at temporary staffing

agencies.29 These improved data helped the agencies determine wage and

safety problems that may have otherwise gone undetected. For example,

WHD found that almost one-third of temporary staffing agencies were not

in compliance with FLSA, while OSHA found that temporary staffing

agencies had some of the highest numbers of workers’ compensation

claims with total costs exceeding $8.4 million.30 In both cases, the offices

 29Although the client employer records an injury, the temporary staffing agency pays

workers’ compensation for the injured worker.

30High rates of workers’ compensation payments indicate either a large number of injuries

or potentially fewer injuries that incurred significant costs—an indicator of a potentially

hazardous work environment.
Page 18 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

worked with the temporary staffing agencies to reduce wage and hour

abuses and ensure a safer workplace. For example, OSHA’s Ohio office

began the Choice program to work with temporary staffing agencies,

providing compliance assistance to smaller agencies and requiring on-site

investigations of all injuries involving temporary workers, such as day

laborers. Recent results show that 60 percent of the participating

temporary staffing agencies reduced their overall workers’ compensation

costs and over half reduced the number of workdays lost to injuries and

illnesses. While these initiatives may help WHD and OSHA better identify

where day laborers work and the violations they face, the agencies have

not yet fully assessed the results of these efforts to consider their

application agencywide.

At the national level, OSHA is undertaking another effort to collect

additional data that will provide a better understanding of the extent to

which day laborers are involved in workplace fatalities. In 2002, OSHA

implemented a temporary procedure that required OSHA investigators, for

all fatality and catastrophe investigations, to determine if the worker was

foreign-born, Hispanic, or had language barriers. If that were the case, the

OSHA investigator would then determine if the worker was a day laborer.

OSHA has not yet begun to evaluate this information, but the information

should prove useful to gain a better understanding of day laborers’ fatality

experience. However, this process is still in the pilot stage and OSHA will

not identify fatalities and catastrophic accidents of day laborers that are

not foreign born, Hispanic, or do not have language barriers. Moreover,

OSHA does not ask if the day laborer was provided through a temporary

staffing agency.

Although both WHD and OSHA conduct thousands of investigations each

year to detect employer noncompliance and remedy potential violations,

their investigative procedures may not be able to detect violations

affecting employees in nonstandard work arrangements, such as day

laborers. As part of their investigations, WHD and OSHA are visiting fewer

worksites, and WHD generally gives advance notice when it visits

worksites. As a result, both agencies may miss potential violations

involving day laborers.

WHD and OSHA conduct thousands of investigations each year without

visiting worksites. For example, in 2001, WHD conducted as many as

55 percent of its investigations by fax or telephone. Although OSHA does

not keep similar statistics, since 1995, it has been encouraging its

investigators to handle complaint investigations informally by telephone.

Labor’s Investigative

Procedures Make it

Difficult to Detect

Violations Affecting

Employees in Nonstandard

Work Arrangements
Page 19 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

By not going on-site, investigators lose the opportunity to observe the

worksite or interview employees. Also, in some instances, the

investigations focus on a single worker, a single minor violation, or a

particular timeframe. All of these are activities that reduce WHD’s and

OSHA’s ability to uncover potential violations affecting day laborers. In

addition, FLSA provides Labor with no authority to assess penalties for

failing to keep accurate payroll records.31 Without the threat of a financial

penalty from WHD and because employers may hire day laborers to

purposely avoid costs, such as overtime and taxes, wage records may not

reflect actual payments made to workers, such as day laborers. Without

visiting the workplace, WHD cannot compare employers’ wage records

with individuals actually working at the site to make sure that the payroll

records accurately reflect all the workers and the payments made. WHD

data show that WHD is five times more likely to find violations of

recordkeeping requirements when it visits the workplace or collects

additional information.

When WHD does visit worksites, the procedures it uses may reduce the

likelihood of uncovering potential violations related to day laborers.

According to WHD guidance, investigators have the discretion to give

employers advance notice of an impending investigation, but it would be

inappropriate to provide such notice when there is reason to believe that

the employer’s behavior will change as a result of advance notice. The

local WHD offices we visited provided advance notice for the majority of

their investigations. Given that employers hire day laborers sporadically,

employers may choose not to hire day laborers on the day of the

investigation or alter records for the investigation, limiting WHD’s

opportunity to find day laborers.

Applying FLSA and the OSH Act to day laborers is challenging for a

number of reasons. In some cases, WHD lacks the necessary information

on potential violations or the resources to determine coverage under

FLSA. In other cases, the extent to which these laws cover day laborers is

uncertain. Even when these laws cover day laborers, they may not account

for the nonstandard work arrangements of day laborers, which could

jeopardize their economic or physical well-being.

 31A court can assess a penalty if an employer is convicted of willfully violating

recordkeeping requirements. 29 U.S.C. §§ 215(a)(5), 216(a).

Labor Faces Challenges

When Applying Provisions

of FLSA and the OSH Act

to Day Laborers
Page 20 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

Applying FLSA and the OSH Act to day laborers is difficult because

coverage may depend upon the type of employer or the specific work a

day laborer performs. Under FLSA, day laborers employed by enterprises

with an annual business volume of more than $500,000 and some

employees engaged in interstate commerce are covered; this could include

day laborers working for large temporary staffing agencies. However, it is

not always clear how coverage would apply to day laborers employed by

enterprises making less than $500,000 per year because only those

workers determined to be engaged in interstate commerce or in the

production of goods for commerce are covered. According to WHD

officials, in some cases, WHD officials are unable to obtain the information

needed to determine this coverage. For example, we found that many day

laborers work for small construction subcontractors performing manual

labor, such as installing drywall. According to WHD officials, a

determination would have to be made that the building the day laborer

worked on was to be used for interstate commercial activity in order for

the day laborer to be covered. However, this kind of information is not

always available. In other cases, information on the employer location and

hours worked is not readily available. Proving such coverage can be

difficult and resource-intensive. Because WHD’s resources are limited, it

must determine the potential impact of investigating smaller employers

that may have violations affecting a small number of individuals versus

larger employers that may have greater numbers of individuals and more

violations.

In other cases, coverage may depend on how local offices determine

whether an employee is engaged in the production of goods for commerce.

For example, a worker may be covered if engaged in an activity that is

“closely related or directly essential” to the production of goods for

interstate commerce. In applying this provision, WHD officials explained

that a day laborer serving as a security guard for a building that houses

companies involved in the production of goods would be covered because

that activity is closely related or directly essential to these interstate

activities. Yet, a day laborer mowing the lawn at the same building would

not be covered because that function would not be considered closely

related or directly essential to these interstate activities. The distinction is

not always obvious and Labor has recognized this in its regulations.

According to Labor, coverage cannot always be determined with precision

Some Provisions of FLSA and

the OSH Act Are Difficult to

Apply
Page 21 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

and may require authoritative decisions of the courts for a final

determination.32

Regarding domestic service work, FLSA provides that employees doing

household chores are covered if they meet certain requirements. Not all

WHD officials appeared to recognize the application of this provision to

day laborers. WHD officials at headquarters said that day laborers picked

up from street corners would be covered by this provision of FLSA, while

officials in the WHD district offices we visited had differing views. For

example, one office interpreted this provision to cover only long-term

domestic employees. As a result, day laborers performing domestic service

work may be protected under this provision in some areas but not in

others.

Because of the difficulty in asserting coverage for individuals working for

small employers, WHD often refers such potential violations to state

enforcement agencies.33 In some cases, state laws may provide greater

protection than FLSA. For example, all four states we visited protect the

wages workers were promised, which can exceed the federal minimum

wage. (App. III compares selected wage provisions under FLSA and the

laws and requirements of the four states we visited.) However, we found

that, in practice, advantages associated with relying on state enforcement

agencies may not be realized. First, not all states’ laws cover small

employers, for example, neither Virginia’s nor Illinois’ law covers

employers with four or fewer workers. As a result, day laborers working

for very small employers may be unlikely to get protection under FLSA or

the state law. Second, most of the state officials we interviewed said that

their investigations were “complaint-driven.” Officials in Illinois and New

York, for instance, reported spending all of their time responding to

complaints. This, combined with their limited resources, makes it unclear

that they could pursue all referrals from WHD. Third, officials in some

states we visited told us that their investigators rarely pursued

enforcement actions that required on-site investigations, relying primarily

on telephone or fax investigations. As a result, like WHD, state agencies

may also miss violations. This reliance on state enforcement agencies may

be even more problematic for day laborers not covered by FLSA in those

 3229 C.F.R. § 776.17.

33WHD might also inform the individuals of their private right of action to file suit in state

or federal court.
Page 22 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

states with less stringent protections, such as no minimum wage or

overtime provisions.

While day laborers employed by temporary staffing agencies are covered

by the OSH Act, the exact responsibilities of temporary staffing agencies

and that of their clients is not always clear. According to OSHA, temporary

staffing agencies are responsible for general safety training and the

provision of general personal protective equipment. Yet, there is no clear,

centralized guidance from OSHA on the legal responsibilities of temporary

staffing agencies or their clients to properly ensure the safety of the day

laborers they employ. Neither the OSH Act nor the implementing

regulations elaborate on these responsibilities. Furthermore, OSHA has

provided interpretations of the requirements in response to inquiries, but

temporary staffing agencies are not required to follow them. Determining

whether the temporary staffing agency or client employer is responsible

for providing training and can be cited for failing to ensure the safety of

their workers is a complex area that may be confusing, which may leave

day laborers without sufficient safety and health protections at the

worksite. For example, a local OSHA office cited both the temporary

staffing agency and client employer after temporary workers suffered

injuries at the client employer’s worksite for failing to provide sufficient

training and concluded that each employer believed the other employer

was responsible for training the workers. On the other hand, some OSHA

officials said that they would be less likely to cite temporary staffing

agencies. If temporary staffing agencies are not appropriately cited, day

laborers working for these agencies may be subject to inadequate safety

and health protections. A centralized source of information clarifying the

role of temporary staffing agencies and client employers could allow

OSHA to more uniformly apply the law and make it easier for both

temporary staffing agencies and client employers to understand their

responsibilities.

Even when WHD and OSHA are able to enforce protections under FLSA

and the OSH Act, certain practices allowed by these laws may adversely

affect day laborers’ economic and physical well-being. The unique

characteristics and nonstandard work arrangements of day laborers make

them more susceptible to these practices than workers in traditional work

arrangements. These practices relate to wage deductions, transportation

safety, and compensation for time waiting to be employed. Addressing

these issues is difficult because any resolution would involve complicated

tradeoffs between the potential benefits to day laborers and the potential

costs to employers.

Certain Practices under

Existing Laws May Adversely

Affect Day Laborers
Page 23 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

Under FLSA, an employer can take a variety of deductions from wages.34

Employers can deduct charges for items such as meals, lodging,

transportation, or cashing of payroll checks as long as the item is for the

employee’s benefit and acceptance is voluntary and uncoerced. Employers

can deduct these items even if they bring wages below the federal hourly

minimum wage.35 Employers can also deduct charges for other items, such

as tools or uniforms, as long as those items do not take the employee’s

wages below the federal hourly minimum wage.36 Representatives of

temporary staffing agencies told us that they generally pay minimum wage

or whatever the local market will bear and generally take the standard

deduction for taxes as well as other items, such as transportation, from

day laborers’ pay. Agencies we interviewed that work with day laborers

reported that most day laborers relied on employers for some of these

items.37 As a result, the hourly wage received by day laborers can often be

much less than the originally established wage. Nonprofit and local

government agencies working with day laborers told us that some day

laborers receive $2 an hour as a result of several deductions. These

practices do not generally affect traditional workers because they do not

rely on employers for services such as transportation, check cashing, or

meals.

Another practice that may have greater repercussions for day laborers

than for traditional workers concerns physical safety when commuting to

and from the worksite. Over the past 2 years, there have been several

reports of day laborers being killed or injured while being driven to a

worksite by an employer. In 2001, for example, a temporary worker was

killed as she was being transported by the temporary staffing agency to a

job assignment. OSHA did not investigate the case because it was outside

its jurisdiction. In general, individuals commuting to and from work are

not considered to be working, so their transportation safety is not covered

under the OSH Act. However, the commuting pattern for day laborers is

different than the pattern for workers in traditional work arrangements.

 34See 29 U.S.C. § 203(m); 29 C.F.R. pt. 531.

35These items can be deducted only if they are customarily provided and priced at a

reasonable cost or fair value. 29 C.F.R. §§ 531.30-.33,.36-.37. Check cashing fees or other

such deductions are illegal in some states.

36See 29 C.F.R. § 531.36(b).

37One temporary staffing agency we interviewed dispenses pay using a cash machine that

charges a fee ranging from $1 to $1.99. A pending class action suit in three states alleges

this practice is illegal.
Page 24 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

Most workers in traditional work arrangements rely on their own car, a

carpool, or public transportation to get from home to the workplace. Day

laborers, on the other hand, travel from their homes to a nearby location,

such as a street corner or a temporary staffing agency, to obtain work.

Because day laborers often do not have access to a car or work in

locations inaccessible by public transportation, they depend on the

employer to get them from the street corner or temporary staffing agency

to the worksite. Federal law covers transportation for migrant and

seasonal agriculture workers to and from the job site if they are

transported by their employer.38 Additionally, because employers are not

required by OSHA to record an injury that occurs during transport, OSHA

cannot determine how often this occurs. Assuming that day laborers are

less likely to receive workers’ compensation or have health insurance, any

medical costs associated with the injury would be incurred by the

community at large.

Compensation for waiting time is another issue that may affect day

laborers differently than workers in traditional work arrangements. Most

workers in traditional work arrangements have a steady employer and

regular work location and go directly from home to the worksite. Day

laborers, on the other hand, must wait at particular locations to obtain

employment—even if they are employed by temporary staffing agencies.

We found that, in many cases, day laborers wait 3 to 4 hours before being

assigned a work assignment, spend between 1 to 3 hours in travel time to

and from the worksite, and generally work at least 8 hours on the job. This

could add up to a 12- to 15-hour day. According to WHD officials, waiting

on a street corner for a job offer or at a temporary staffing agency for an

assignment to a client is not counted as wait time. In addition, even after a

worker is provided a work assignment, WHD generally would not consider

the time it takes to get to the site to be compensable work time under

FLSA.39

Both WHD and OSHA acknowledge that those individuals working as day

laborers are some of this nation’s most vulnerable workers. Moreover,

both struggle with the problem that the characteristics that make day

 3829 U.S.C. § 1841.

39Labor’s Office of the Solicitor commented that, depending on the particular facts, some

waiting time may be compensable, such as when the waiting time occurs between the first

and last tasks performed during a workday.

Conclusions
Page 25 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

laborers most susceptible to workplace abuses also make it difficult for

Labor and others, especially in light of limited resources, to find and

protect them. It is also difficult to protect a group of workers that may not

want to be found. These difficulties may lead to workers who are not

receiving the protections they are entitled to under law, as well as larger

problems associated with an underground economy, illegal immigration,

and unreported income. Both WHD and OSHA have made a commitment

to protect these workers and others like them, but they are hampered by

incomplete data and difficulty in applying some of the legal protections

available to these workers.

Both agencies’ efforts to protect day laborers could be enhanced by having

better information about where day laborers work and what violations

they may face. While current efforts to provide education and outreach

and collect additional data on day laborers have promise, such efforts can

be expanded. For example, efforts by OSHA and WHD may benefit from

greater involvement with temporary staffing agencies or a larger network

of agencies representing day laborers to ensure that day laborers are

aware of their rights. Also, WHD and OSHA could benefit by exploring the

results of their local efforts to collect additional data on day laborers

working for temporary staffing agencies. By not doing so, WHD and OSHA

lose the opportunity to identify better ways to obtain valuable information

about where day laborers work and the potential violations they face.

Moreover, unless OSHA refines and permanently implements its data

collection procedure for fatality investigations, it may not get a complete

picture of the number or characteristics of day laborers killed on the job.

Finally, WHD officials did not uniformly understand how to apply FLSA’s

domestic service provision to day laborers. Because of this apparent lack

of understanding, day laborers providing identical services for

homeowners may be treated differently depending on the knowledge level

of WHD officials. Furthermore, with respect to OSHA, in the absence of

regulations or a centralized source of information that specifies the

responsibilities of temporary staffing agencies for the health and safety of

their workers, OSHA’s local offices may risk inconsistent application of

the OSH Act and joint employers may fail to provide sufficient safety

protections.

To further WHD’s and OSHA’s efforts to obtain better information

concerning the presence of and potential for violations involving day

laborers, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor:

Recommendations for

Executive Action
Page 26 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

• direct WHD and OSHA, as a part of their education and outreach

efforts, to enhance the procedures they use to reach day laborers, such

as expanding their contact with temporary staffing agencies or other

agencies that work with day laborers;

• direct WHD and OSHA to review the results of local efforts to obtain

additional data on the presence and violation experience of day

laborers working for temporary staffing agencies for possible

replication in other locations or agencywide; and

• direct OSHA to finalize its current effort to collect data on fatalities

and catastrophes and refine it by asking first whether someone is a day

laborer, including whether the individual worked for a temporary

staffing agency.

To ensure that Labor’s local offices have consistent policies and an

understanding of how and when to enforce protections afforded under

FLSA and the OSH Act, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor:

• instruct WHD to clarify when day laborers may be covered under the

domestic service provision of FLSA; and

• instruct OSHA to consider the development of regulations to specify

temporary staffing agency responsibility for safety and health under

the OSH Act, or at a minimum, centralize existing information on

temporary staffing agencies’ responsibilities.

WHD and OSHA provided us with written comments on a draft of this

report, which are reproduced in appendixes IV and V, respectively. WHD

agreed with all of the recommendations that applied to it. OSHA agreed

with our recommendation regarding enhancing the education and

outreach procedures it uses to reach day laborers and did not object to the

others. The agencies also provided technical comments, as did BLS and

Labor’s Office of Solicitor, which we incorporated in the report where

appropriate.

Both WHD and OSHA emphasized their commitment to protecting day

laborers under FLSA and the OSH Act. WHD said that it is strongly

committed to providing effective compliance assistance to those workers

covered by FLSA. OSHA said that employers of day laborers have the same

obligations as any other employer. Nonetheless, OSHA acknowledges that

particular outreach and enforcement efforts may be necessary to address

the particular circumstances of day laborers.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation
Page 27 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

Both agencies provided additional information on their outreach efforts.

For example, WHD is developing a plain language fact sheet, in English

and Spanish initially, covering the application of wage and hour laws to

the employment of temporary workers such as day laborers. OSHA has

formed an alliance with the Hispanic Contractors of America to expand

outreach and communication on safety and health awareness and best

practices for Spanish-speaking employers and employees in the

construction industry.

WHD and OSHA commented on our assessment of particular procedures

affecting their ability to detect violations involving day laborers. Both

agencies said that off-site investigations, such as telephone and fax

contacts with employers, are the most timely and effective method of

securing last paychecks for workers. They noted that these investigations

can be used as an indicator that an on-site investigation of the employer

might be warranted. We agree that this method may be efficient and have

value for workers who are likely to complain about working conditions;

however, we continue to believe that this method may not be the most

effective for day laborers, who generally may be reluctant to complain.

OSHA also said that its construction targeting, which generally reaches

larger sites, does not preclude OSHA from inspecting sites where day

laborers can be found because small contractors regularly subcontract

work at large construction sites and at many projects valued over $50,000.

However, several experts told us that larger construction contractors with

higher-value projects tend to use unionized subcontractors who rarely hire

nonunion workers, such as the day laborers we encountered.

We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional

committees, the Secretary of Labor, and the Assistant Secretaries of Labor

for Employment Standards and Occupational Safety and Health. We will

also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report

will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
Page 28 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

Please contact me or Lori Rectanus on (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff

have any questions about this report. Other contacts and staff

acknowledgments are listed in appendix VI.

Sincerely yours,

Robert E. Robertson

Director, Education, Workforce, and

 Income Security Issues
Appendix I: Identification and Selection of

Agencies Serving Day Laborers

Page 29 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

To determine what is known about the size and nature of the day laborer

workforce in the United States, we initially examined demographic data on

day laborers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Current Population

Survey Contingent Work Supplement. Although this information is

collected directly from individuals working as day laborers, it lacked

detailed data about the characteristics of day laborers and their work that

were necessary to address this objective, such as the number of hours or

days worked, means of transportation used to get to job sites, and

frequency and method of payment for work completed. Moreover, data

available from other studies and reports focused on day laborers in certain

geographic locations. As a result, we collected supplemental information

through structured interviews from agencies that work with day laborers.

We identified two types of agencies that assist day laborers. One type

consists of nonprofit and local government agencies that work with day

laborers seeking employment on street corners. The second type includes

temporary staffing agencies that employ day laborers.

Given the lack of a national directory of agencies that work with day

laborers, to identify as many agencies as possible, we interviewed experts;

visited local agencies in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area; and

reviewed research studies and reports identified by experts, a literature

review, and the Internet. We sought to obtain the broadest ethnic and

geographic representation possible. We found that the majority of the

agencies on our list were Hispanic-based groups, which may have some

effect on our findings regarding the ethnicity of day laborers. We observed

and were told of day laborers of other ethnic backgrounds, such as Asians

in New York, and Polish and other eastern European groups in Chicago,

but few, if any of the organizations on our list focused solely on serving

these groups. We ultimately identified 84 agencies representing 14 states;

the overwhelming majority of the agencies (61) were located in California,

with Texas having the next highest number (4).

To identify temporary staffing agencies, we started with a list of 11 firms

identified by the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial

Organizations (AFL-CIO) as the primary employers of blue-collar workers

in the United States. The American Staffing Association, an organization

that represents temporary staffing agencies, confirmed that these were the

major employers of skilled and/or unskilled blue-collar workers.

Appendix I: Identification and Selection of

Agencies Serving Day Laborers

Identifying Agencies

Serving Day Laborers
Appendix I: Identification and Selection of

Agencies Serving Day Laborers

Page 30 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

To identify nonprofit and local government agencies for our structured

interviews, we chose one agency from each of the 14 states represented on

the list of 84 and added 4 agencies each from California, Illinois, New

York, and Virginia to interview during our site visits. We also added 1

agency each from California and Texas because they represented the

largest number of agencies on our list. In total, we selected 20 nonprofit

and local government agencies and all 11 temporary staffing agencies we

initially identified.

From February to June 2002, we contacted the 31 nonprofit, local

government or temporary staffing agencies (20 nonprofit or local

government and 11 temporary staffing agencies). We asked these agencies

about (1) the characteristics of the day laborer workforce, such as race,

age, and education; (2) types of work day laborers typically perform;

(3) working conditions that day laborers face in the areas of wages, safety,

and health; and (4) litigation concerning federal wage, safety and health

provisions that involved day laborers. We did not independently verify the

information provided by the agencies.

Three of the 20 nonprofit and local government agencies we interviewed

worked with day laborers employed by temporary staffing agencies. We

included their results with the 11 temporary staffing agencies—for a total

of 14. Three temporary staffing agencies declined to participate and

3 others did not employ day laborers as we defined them, leaving a final

total of 8. As a result, the information in this report represents 17 nonprofit

and local government agencies and 8 temporary staffing agencies in which

3 street agencies were re-categorized as temporary staffing agencies.

(See table 3.)

Selecting Agencies

Serving Day Laborers

Delivery of Structured

Interviews
Appendix I: Identification and Selection of

Agencies Serving Day Laborers

Page 31 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

Table 1: Agencies Participating in Structured Interviews

Agency name Location

Nonprofit and local government agencies

Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles California

San Diego County Jobs for Progress California

San Francisco Day Laborer Program California

American Friends Service Committee Colorado

Roswell Intercultural Alliance Georgia

Latin Union of Chicago Illinois

CASA of Maryland Maryland

Wind of the Spirit Immigrant Resource Center New Jersey

Latin American Workers Project New York

Workplace Project New York

Association of Latino Workers of North Carolina North

Carolina

VOZ: Workers’ Rights Education Project Oregon

Denton Humanitarian Association Texas

Oscar Romero Workers’ Center Texas

Culmore Family Resource Center Virginia

Shirlington Employment and Education Center Virginia

CASA Latina Washington

Temporary staffing agencies

Adecco a

Chicago Coalition for the HomelessbIllinois

Day Laborers’ Organizing CommitteebOhio

Labor Connection a

Labor Finders International a

Labor Ready a

Primavera WorksbArizona

Tandem Staffing Solutions a

a

These temporary staffing agencies have offices in locations nationwide or in certain regions of the

United States.

b

The responses we received from these agencies related to day laborers working for temporary

staffing agencies.

Source: GAO.
Appendix II: Services Provided to Day

Laborers by Selected Nonprofit Agencies

Page 32 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

As part of our efforts to identify what was known about the nature and

size of the day laborer workforce, we conducted on-site visits with one

nonprofit agency that works with day laborers in each of the four states

we visited. During these visits, we obtained information on the

characteristics of the day laborer workforce, as well as how these agencies

broker employment for day laborers and work to improve day laborers’

working conditions.

The four nonprofit agencies we visited seek to improve the welfare of a

population broader than day laborers, to include low-income workers, the

homeless, and local citizens. All of the agencies provide information to

workers to educate them about their rights in the workplace. They also

help day laborers obtain employment and provide them with a range of

social services, from teaching English and offering classes on childcare to

providing medical screenings. At one of the locations of the Coalition for

Humane Immigration Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA), day laborers can

receive English classes from a local welfare agency representative while

they wait to be assigned to a job. In some cases, these services are offered

to workers who stay at the site after it closes. (See table 2 for a description

of these agencies and the services they provide to day laborers.) In

addition, the agencies provide legal support by referring workers for legal

assistance or litigating cases themselves on behalf of workers.

Table 2: Description of Agencies GAO Visited and the Services They Provide

Agency/location Purpose Services provided to day laborers

Shirlington Employment and Education

Center, Arlington, Va.

Provides employment and training

 services to individuals in the community.

• Provides services, such as classes in

English and computers.

• Brokers employment.

Coalition for Humane Immigration Rights

 of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, Calif.

Organizes workers and provides social

services to improve the overall welfare

of low-income workers.

• Provides services, such as English and

literacy classes.

• Litigates cases.

• Brokers employment.

Chicago Coalition for the Homeless,

Chicago, Ill.

Seeks to empower homeless individuals. • Organizes day laborers to address

grievances.

Latin American Workers’ Project, New

York, N.Y.

Provides outreach and education to

workers to help them organize.

• Offers English classes.

• Litigates cases.

• Brokers employment.

Source: Shirlington Employment and Education Center, Coalition for Humane Immigration Rights of

Los Angeles, Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, and Latin American Workers’ Project.

Appendix II: Services Provided to Day

Laborers by Selected Nonprofit Agencies

Description of

Nonprofit Agencies

Visited
Appendix II: Services Provided to Day

Laborers by Selected Nonprofit Agencies

Page 33 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

Several of these agencies began to serve day laborers because local

communities were increasingly displeased at seeing day laborers

congregating on street corners or at convenience or home warehouse

stores.1

 Local citizens reported that they feared for their safety or they

feared that congregating could affect local commerce. Advocates for day

laborers feared for the safety and welfare of day laborers—either they

were being injured as a result of running into traffic to respond to

employers’ solicitations for work or they were complaining about not

receiving promised wages or adequate working conditions. Local groups—

including social welfare agencies, worker advocates, local government,

and police—often worked together to develop and fund solutions to

connect day laborers and employers.

Toward that end, three of the four organizations worked with local groups

to build or identify locations that could be used to broker employment

between day laborers and employers. (Chicago’s Coalition for the

Homeless does not broker employment.) The Shirlington Center has a

building where day laborers wait for work. The Latin American Workers’

Project operates two sites in New York: one in the basement of a church

and the other on a parking lot along the banks of the Atlantic Ocean. A

tent was recently donated to the latter site to provide shelter. CHIRLA

operates three sites around the Los Angeles area that are also located in

parking lots.2

 The agencies publicize these new locations to employers and

encourage them to use these sites to find workers. In one location, police

will ticket employers or day laborers who use street corners. However,

some day laborers refuse to use these sites, believing that their

employment opportunities are better at unorganized sites. It is hard to

reach all day laborers and unorganized sites continue to exist. For

example, New York officials identified 26 unorganized sites around New

York City, while CHIRLA representatives identified about 150 unorganized

sites in Los Angeles County.

The agencies established procedures at these job sites to facilitate the

brokering of employment. These procedures were often developed with

the input of day laborers and typically require that they provide basic

 1

Representatives from all of these agencies said that many local communities continue to

make efforts to pass anti-loitering ordinances in an effort to prevent day laborers from

gathering at street corners. In at least three states—Virginia, California, and Illinois—those

ordinances or efforts have been struck down by the courts.

2

CHIRLA provides mediation and other services for six unorganized corners.
Appendix II: Services Provided to Day

Laborers by Selected Nonprofit Agencies

Page 34 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

information, such as their name, address, and telephone number and abide

by certain rules. For example, day laborers at one agency must do some

community work to “pay off” the services provided by the agency. At two

agencies, employers who participate must also provide information,

including their name, address, telephone number, and license plate

number. One agency, however, does not request such information, fearing

that those requirements may scare away employers.

When the day laborers arrive at the site around 6 a.m., they sign in, listing

their name, skills, and level of English proficiency. When employers arrive

seeking a worker for a particular job, a representative of the agency will

select a worker’s name from the list or pick a name through a lottery

system. Employers may request certain workers, for example, one that has

a certain skill or speaks English. The agencies let the day laborers

negotiate wages with employers. However, one agency established a

certain minimum wage that employers must pay. At several sites, the day

laborers have informally agreed among themselves on a minimum hourly

wage and will not go below it.

All the agencies help day laborers remedy workplace problems involving

wages or safety and health. To resolve the problem, they first contact the

employer directly. In some cases, it works well; but in other cases, some

day laborers do not have information about the employer, such as a

telephone number or address, making it difficult to pursue. To address this

problem, CHIRLA and the Latin American Workers’ Project have begun to

provide books and cards to the day laborers where they can track the

hours they work, the locations where they have worked (to help assert

individual coverage under FLSA), and other information that will help

identify the employer.

If the problem is not resolved by dealing directly with the employer, the

agencies may conduct a community action to push the employer to resolve

the issue. For example, one agency organized a protest in front of the

employer’s premises. Other strategies include picketing the employer’s

work or home and seeking media attention. The agencies also help

workers file complaints with state or federal agencies, or in small claims

court. However, the agencies reported that most workers are reluctant to

do so.

If the problem persists, the agencies may litigate cases on behalf of day

laborers (to recover unpaid wages or obtain workers’ compensation for a

work-related injury, for instance), provide legal advice, or refer cases to

Resolving Potential

Violations Involving Day

Laborers
Appendix II: Services Provided to Day

Laborers by Selected Nonprofit Agencies

Page 35 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

local or state legal agencies for litigation. All four agencies partner with

private law firms or local, state, or federal agencies that can also litigate

cases. The Latin American Workers’ Project, for example, refers cases to

the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund or the New York State Attorney

General.

As a result of these efforts, these four agencies reported that, collectively,

they retrieved over $280,000 in wages owed to workers in 2001. In

addition, two agencies reported a significant reduction in the number of

complaints regarding wages, safety, and health.
Appendix III: Selected Features of FLSA and

Requirements in Four States

Page 36 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

This table compares selected features of FLSA with state wage laws,

regulations, and administrative orders in the 4 states we visited. It

highlights only those provisions that are most applicable to day laborers.

State requirements play an important role in supplementing FLSA’s

protections because states may enact more stringent provisions. This

means that a state could cover employers and individuals not covered

under FLSA. If an employer is covered under FLSA and a state

requirement, the more stringent provision will generally apply. We

supplemented this table with information provided by state officials.

Provisions FLSA California Illinois New York Virginia

General

coverage

All individuals employed by

• employers earning

$500,000+ annually in

sales, and employees

engaged in interstate

commerce, or in the

production of goods for

commerce;

• employers earning less

than $500,000 and

individual is engaged in

interstate commerce, or

in the production of

goods for commerce, or

closely related and

directly essential to

interstate commerce; or

• homeowners performing

domestic services, such

as house cleaning or

gardening for 8+ hours a

week or earning at least

$1,300 in 2002.

Individuals

employed by an

employer,

including

homeowner, with

certain

exceptions.

Individuals employed

by an employer, with

certain exceptions.

Individuals employed by

an employer, including

homeowners, with

certain exceptions.

Individuals

employed by an

employer, with

certain

exceptions.

Exclusions

most relevant

to day laborers

Individuals working for

companies earning less

than $500,000 and

employees are not

engaged in interstate

commerce.

None Workers

• employed by

employers with

fewer than four

employees or

• employed by a

homeowner

performing

domestic service in

a private home.

None Workers

• employed by

employers

with fewer

than four

employees;

• employed by

a

homeowner

performing

domestic

service in a

private

home; or

• covered by

FLSA.

Appendix III: Selected Features of FLSA and

Requirements in Four States
Appendix III: Selected Features of FLSA and

Requirements in Four States

Page 37 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

Provisions FLSA California Illinois New York Virginia

Wages Minimum wage:

$5.15/hour.

Established rate

of pay but no

lower than

$6.75/hour.

Established rate of pay

but no lower than

$5.15/hour.

Established rate of

pay but no lower

than $5.15/hour.

Established

rate of pay but

no lower than

$5.15/hour.

Overtime For over 40 hours in any

workweek, workers earn 1-

1⁄2 times the regular rate of

pay.

Same as federal

law.

Daily overtime:

workers earn 1-1⁄2

times the regular

rate of pay for

every hour

worked over 8

hours in 1 day

and double the

regular rate every

hour worked after

12 hours in 1 day.

Same as federal law. Same as federal law. None

Deductions

most relevant

to day laborers

Can deduct items

considered to be an

employee benefit, even if it

brings workers below the

minimum wage, such as

meals, lodging; must be at

the actual cost.

Can deduct for check

cashing or transportation if

the services are voluntary

and considered to be an

employee benefit.

Can deduct items

considered to be for an

employer’s benefit, such as

transportation and

uniforms, but deductions

cannot bring wages below

the minimum.

Employees must

provide written

authorization for

deductions.

Can deduct items

that take workers

below the

minimum wage,

such as meals,

but the law sets a

cap.

Cannot deduct for

personal

protective

equipment.

Employers must

provide itemized

statement of

deductions at time

of payment.

Can deduct the

reasonable cost of

meals and lodging, if it

is for the employee’s

benefit, even if it

brings workers below

the minimum wage.

Can deduct for

transportation, but not

if it brings wages

below the minimum.

Can deduct the

reasonable cost of

uniforms and

equipment with

employee’s written

consent, but not if it

brings wages below

the minimum.

Employers must

provide itemized

statement of

deductions at time of

payment.

Can deduct charges for

items considered an

employee benefit, such

as meals and lodging,

even if it brings worker

below the minimum

wage; the state sets

caps for these items.a

Allowances for uniforms

are added to not

deducted from wages.

Cannot deduct charges

for transportation or

personal protective

equipment.

Employers must

provide itemized

statement of deductions

at time of payment.

No deductions

allowed without

written and

signed

employee

authorization.

Requires

written

statement of

deductions

upon request.
Appendix III: Selected Features of FLSA and

Requirements in Four States

Page 38 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

Provisions FLSA California Illinois New York Virginia

Recordkeeping Employers must keep

payroll records.

Only courts may assess a

penalty for failure to keep

payroll records.

Employers,

including

homeowners,

must keep payroll

records.

Penalty of $500

for failure to keep

payroll records.

Employers must keep

payroll records.

State enforcement

agency currently not

authorized to assess

penalties for failure to

keep records.b

Employers, including

homeowners, must

keep payroll records.

Penalty for failure to

keep payroll records is

up to $1,000 for a first

violation, $1,000-$2,000

for a second violation,

and $2,000-$3,000 for a

third violation.

None

Other The Day Labor

Services Act (DLSA)

provides additional

protections to day

laborers employed by

temporary staffing

agencies.c

 Check

cashing fees are

prohibited,

transportation fees are

capped at 3% of daily

wages, and other

deductions, such as

meals, uniforms, and

equipment, must be at

the actual cost or

market value.

DLSA also

recommends that

temporary staffing

agencies hire people

who speak languages

that are generally used

near day labor service

agencies.

a

New York State law uses the term “allowances” to denote charges for items such as meals and

lodging. For this table, however, we refer to these allowances as “deductions.”

b

According to state Labor officials, new legislation authorizing the state agency to assess penalties

will take effect in 2003.

c

Although the act only covers “day labor service agencies,” for this table, we are referring to them as

temporary.

Source: GAO comparison of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, with the pertinent state laws,

requlations, and administrative orders of California, Illinois, New York and Virginia.
Appendix IV: Comments from the Employment Standards Administration

Page 39 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

Appendix IV: Comments from the

Employment Standards Administration

Note: GAO comments

supplementing those in

the report text appear at

the end of this appendix.

See comment 2.

See comment 1.
Appendix IV: Comments from the Employment Standards Administration

Page 40 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

See comment 3.

See comment 3.
Appendix IV: Comments from the Employment Standards Administration

Page 41 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers
Appendix IV: Comments from the Employment Standards Administration

Page 42 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

1. We clarified the paragraph that discusses WHD’s Spanish-speaking

 staff to indicate that WHD has about one-quarter of its staff that

 speak Spanish.

2. See discussion in Agency Comments section of report.

3. We modified the report’s language as suggested.

GAO Comments
Appendix V: Comments from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Page 43 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

Appendix V: Comments from the

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration

Note: GAO comments

supplementing those in

the report text appear at

the end of this appendix.
Appendix V: Comments from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Page 44 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers
Appendix V: Comments from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Page 45 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

See comment 1.
Appendix V: Comments from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Page 46 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

See comment 1.

See comment 2.
Appendix V: Comments from the Occupational

Safety and Health Administration

Page 47 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

1. See discussion in Agency Comments section of report.

2. We do not disagree with the number of investigations that OSHA’s

cites in its comments. The data OSHA cites in support of increasing

number of investigations include those conducted by telephone and

fax. As a result, these numbers do not necessarily indicate increases in

worksite visits.

GAO Comments
Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff

Acknowledgments

Page 48 GAO-02-925 Protections for Day Laborers

Lori Rectanus, (202) 512-9847

Monika Gomez, (202) 512-9062

Ronni Schwartz made significant contributions to this report, in all aspects

of the work throughout the review. In addition, Lisa Lim and Torey

Silloway assisted in gathering and analyzing information collected on our

site visits; H. Brandon Haller helped develop our data collection

instrument and our overall design and methodology; Julian Klazkin

provided legal support; and Patrick DiBattista assisted in report and

message development.

Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff

Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts

Staff

Acknowledgments

(130095)
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to

support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help

improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the

American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal

programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other

assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding

decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values

of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,

including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily

E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading.

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents.

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000

TDD: (202) 512-2537

Fax: (202) 512-6061

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, D.C. 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of

GAO Reports and

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in

Federal Programs

Public Affairs