The labor governance model of Saudi Arabia has come into sharp focus once again amid warnings from UN experts and labor rights activists regarding the reportedly abusive environment in which migrant workers live. The question is whether or not the reforms that have been implemented in Saudi Arabia have indeed put an end to the abuse of migrant workers or have simply improved the country’s image without addressing the root cause of the issue, which involves the imbalance of power.
This is a problem that extends well beyond the borders of Saudi Arabia since Saudi Arabia depends heavily on foreign labor to fuel its construction industry, domestic sector, hospitality industry, and large development projects such as those associated with Vision 2030. Thus, any accusation of systematic abuse involves not only issues of human rights but also economic and reputational concerns. The current critique being raised by UN-affiliated experts is simply part of a larger trend wherein labor reform has been done on paper, but not enforced.
Why the System Is Under Fire
The major issue emphasized by the critics is the sponsorship-based labor system similar to the kafala system. In such cases, the worker’s legality and right to remain in the country largely depends on the employer, and consequently, making any move like switching jobs, complaining about issues, or quitting becomes difficult or impossible for the worker. Many human rights organizations have been arguing that this type of dependency allows for abuse due to the power imbalance between the employer and employee.
Regarding the claims of abuse made in the reporting and advocacy campaign, it is not restricted to a single industry. These claims usually include passport confiscation, failure to pay wages, long working hours, lack of days off, dangerous workplaces, threat of deportation, and other forms of abuse. Moreover, domestic workers and workers who earn less wages face greater risks of abuse because of their isolated nature of work.
What makes the latest alarm noteworthy is that it is being framed not merely as a list of isolated complaints, but as a governance issue. Critics argue that a labor system can be considered abusive when the legal and administrative structure itself makes exploitation more likely and accountability harder to achieve. That argument has become central to the debate over whether Saudi Arabia’s reforms are transformative or incremental.
The Broader Human Rights Concern
The international experts on the UN panel, as well as labor activists, tend to put the problem of Saudi Arabia into the context of international labor standards, which include the prohibition of forced labor, guaranteeing decent working conditions and protection from any form of coercion, and access to appropriate remedy for violations of those rights. The logic here is that the worker unable to move to another job, collect overdue salary, and contest any kind of abuse does not exercise her/his labor rights.
Moreover, this issue fits into the broader discourse of migrant labor in the Gulf region. Saudi Arabia is not an exception in terms of being criticized for employing workers via sponsorships, but being one of the biggest importers of labor worldwide makes its policies particularly influential. This is why UN expert statements often cause so much resonance, since they are seen as either evidence of genuine change or empty rhetoric regarding labor reforms in the region.
This contradiction becomes particularly obvious when governments emphasize reforms while human rights organizations claim that nothing much has changed for most of the workers. In particular, critics suggest that the focus on legislative changes in this case may mask whether these reforms have been effective for those who are supposed to benefit from them.
What Critics Say Is Still Happening
In most cases, the most significant accusations made during these talks tend to follow a similar trend. The victims are lured by the promise of good pay but end up experiencing delays in getting paid, deductions, or non-payment of salaries. Some claim that they are forced to stay with the employer since the legality of their status depends on the employer who can prevent them from transferring or leaving. Other victims claim that they are overworked and unable to get proper rest, especially in industries that are labor-intensive.
Other common accusations include document withholding, which includes withholding of documents such as passports. According to the critics, this leaves the workers helpless since they cannot leave the situation. Document withholding can also be considered a method of controlling the workers, even if it is illegal.
UN-backed criticism and NGO reporting also tend to emphasize the barriers to justice. A worker who fears retaliation may never file a complaint. Even when complaints are filed, the process can be slow, complicated, or inaccessible in a language the worker understands. The result, critics say, is a system where wrongdoing can persist because the costs of speaking up are too high.
Saudi Reform Claims and the Counterargument
The government of Saudi Arabia has also argued that the labor reforms are part of their greater modernization efforts. The general argument from the government officials has been that there have been improvements regarding the improvement of labor mobility, labor contract reforms, and labor protection in accordance with economic reforms and international standards.
This is the general defense made against the criticism. Supporters of the labor reforms in Saudi Arabia claim that it is not right to see the system as fixed because legal reforms have taken place. They believe that the labor market is too big to change in one day and that gradual enforcement is a better way compared to sudden disruption..
But critics respond that workers cannot wait for incremental progress when abuse is already happening. They contend that partial reform can produce a misleading image of progress while leaving the most vulnerable people exposed. In their reading, the absence of effective enforcement means the underlying system still permits exploitation, even if the language around it has improved.
Statements in Context
In controversies like this, the language used by watchdogs often matters as much as the policy details. UN experts and labor-rights organizations tend to use strong wording because they want to signal that the issue is not routine labor friction but a structural rights concern. That tone reflects the seriousness with which they view coercion, labor dependency, and the absence of remedies.
A trade-union style statement in this context typically stresses collective urgency.
“Migrant workers are not protected by promises alone; they need enforceable rights, access to justice, and freedom from coercion,”
such advocacy groups often argue. The emphasis is on the lived consequences of governance failure rather than abstract legal reform.
On the Saudi side, the most common stance is that modernization is underway and that national policy must balance labor-market efficiency, investor confidence, and social reform. A government-style response in this context would generally insist that abuses are exceptions, not the norm, and that the state is working to address them.
“Reform is being implemented step by step to improve conditions while maintaining stability and economic growth,”
that position would likely frame the issue.
The gap between these positions is significant. For critics, the key question is whether workers can exercise rights without fear. For defenders, the key question is whether the state has adopted reform measures and whether enforcement can be improved over time. That disagreement defines the entire debate.
The Stakes for Vision 2030
This controversy carries added weight because Saudi Arabia’s economic transformation strategy depends heavily on foreign labor. Mega-projects, infrastructure expansion, tourism growth, and domestic service sectors all rely on a large migrant workforce. If labor abuses are seen as systemic, they can damage the kingdom’s image as a stable and modern investment destination.
That makes labor governance a strategic issue, not just a moral one. Companies, governments, and global institutions increasingly assess supply chains and labor conditions as part of due diligence. A country that seeks global capital and partnerships faces greater scrutiny when labor-rights groups warn that reforms do not match reality. In that sense, the current alarm is part of a wider reputational test.
The stakes are also practical for workers and employers alike. Better labor protections can reduce turnover, improve productivity, and lower conflict. Weak protections, by contrast, can create instability, hidden costs, and international criticism. That is why the debate has become so closely tied to the kingdom’s broader ambitions.
What This Means Now
For now, the most important takeaway is that Saudi Arabia’s labor governance remains under a cloud of skepticism despite reform claims. Critics are not simply arguing that isolated abuses exist; they are arguing that the structure itself still allows abuse to occur too easily. That is what makes the UN experts’ alarm politically and legally significant.
The issue will likely remain active unless enforcement becomes visibly stronger and workers gain real freedom to move, complain, and recover unpaid compensation without retaliation. The criticism will also remain hard to dismiss as long as reports continue to describe the same pattern: dependence, vulnerability, and limited remedy. In journalism terms, that makes this not a one-off labor story, but an ongoing test of whether reform in Saudi Arabia is substantive or superficial.