Rolling Back Protections for Migrant Workers
- ACRI
- Oct 19
- 3 min read
Since the outbreak of the war, there has been a rollback of protections regarding the recruitment and employment of migrant workers in Israel. Three government decisions concerning the commerce and services sector are one area in which it is apparent that these protections, which were won after decades of intense work, are being removed.
The three government decisions defined the "commerce and services sector” in a way that renders it, in practice, a random collection of occupations and jobs, to which migrant workers can be recruited privately and without oversight, without bilateral agreements, and without any policies to ensure their protections. The government decisions were made after employers’ claims of a worker shortage in certain areas due to the suspension of work permits for Palestinians, but has been expanded to include a diverse and wide swath of employment fields.
On December 31, 2024, Kav LaOved and ACRI petitioned the Supreme Court to demand the revocation of the decisions. The petition argues that the change infringes on the rights of migrant workers, because it allows for the collection of prohibited "brokerage fees" from the workers, and does not include policies for workers to leave abusive employment situations or to find permitted employment if they were fired. The change also infringes on the rights of vulnerable Israeli workers (due to wage depreciation and the expansion of a low-wage labor market), organized labor in Israel, and the feasibility of integrating minority and socioeconomically vulnerable populations into the employment market over time.
The petition argues that the process of changing the employment classification was carried out without being supported by facts or data, without examining alternatives, without proper consultation with labor organizations, and while ignoring the broader socioeconomic implications. The move also goes against longstanding policy, Israel’s international obligations, and Supreme Court rulings that established bilateral agreements and recruitment regulation as the central instrument for protecting the rights of migrant workers and preventing prohibited brokerage fees, debt bondage, and exploitation.
In its preliminary response to the petition, the State argued that it has the authority to make these decisions; that they stem from a shortage of workers; and that it was done in a way that would ensure that workers' rights would not be harmed.
ACRI responded in October 2025 that even if the State has the authority to bring workers into a new sector and jobs, this does not mean they have the authority to remove all of the protections regarding their recruitment and employment, which were established over time via Supreme Court rulings. We argued that the decision-making process did not take into account what would benefit the workers and the need to protect their rights; the decision stems solely from employers' claims of "need," which are not supported by evidence. We further emphasized in the response that since the petition was filed, the State has significantly expanded the arrangement and added new sub-sectors and employers to it, and that official reports testify to the serious violations of workers' rights that have taken place, including the collection of prohibited brokerage fees, partial employment instead of full-time positions, difficulty in transferring to work for another employer, and the involvement of unlicensed brokerage entities (some of which have confiscated workers’ passports). ACRI argued that in light of the data, an urgent hearing on the petition should be held.
HCJ 82469-12-24
Kav LaOved v. The Directors-General Committee for Foreign Workers Attorneys: Michal Tajer (Clinical Program for Workers' Rights at Tel Aviv University, Association for Civil Rights), Elad Cahana (Kav LaOved)
The petition, December 31, 2024 (Heb)
Preliminary response on behalf of the State, September 2025 (Heb)
Petitioners' response, October 2025 (Heb)
