Labor Mobility Shields Workers From Discrimination, Study Finds

Nearly one in five workers across the globe report experiencing discrimination at work over a five-year stretch. That's 18.4 percent of more than 20,000 employees surveyed across 32 countries—a sobering baseline. But the distribution of that harm is not even. Some people within vulnerable groups face discrimination far more often than others, and economist André van Hoorn has identified a crucial variable that explains much of the difference: whether a worker can realistically leave.

Van Hoorn's research, published in Economic and Industrial Democracy, reveals a counterintuitive form of protection. Workers who possess the ability to switch employers easily—because they have marketable skills, live near multiple job opportunities, or have access to reliable transportation—experience discrimination less frequently than their peers in the same demographic groups. The mechanism is straightforward: an employer aware that a valuable worker can walk out the door has a strong financial incentive to make the workplace tolerable. Discrimination becomes bad business.

This operates on two levels simultaneously. First, the threat of departure itself becomes a shield. A worker with genuine options doesn't have to endure the small, grinding forms of discrimination that are hardest to prosecute legally—the dismissive tone in meetings, the exclusion from informal networks, the pattern of being overlooked for advancement. If an employer knows this worker will leave at the first serious misstep, the employer is more likely to intervene before the situation deteriorates. Second, job mobility functions as an actual escape route. Workers stuck in a single job because they lack skills, live in an area with few employers, or face transportation barriers have nowhere to go. Those with mobility can find a more inclusive workplace.

The research examined differences within groups—employees with migrant backgrounds, workers with disabilities, and others typically subject to discrimination. Van Hoorn found that labor mobility, more than group membership alone, predicted who would face discrimination and how often. The implication is stark: the same person, with the same background, experiences radically different treatment depending on whether they can credibly threaten to leave.

Van Hoorn identifies three levers for improving mobility. Geographic accessibility matters enormously. If a region has many employers hiring for similar roles, workers have real options. Government investment in public transportation—more trains, better buses—directly expands the radius of opportunity for workers without cars or resources to relocate. Skills development is equally important. A worker with rare, valuable expertise becomes sought-after by multiple employers, which strengthens their bargaining position and makes their current employer more protective of their wellbeing. The economist notes that developing skills specifically attractive in the broader labor market—not just to one company—creates the most leverage.

Yet van Hoorn is careful not to frame this as a substitute for confronting discrimination at its roots. Current anti-discrimination laws often struggle with the everyday, smaller forms of bias that accumulate into real harm but are difficult to prove or prosecute. Giving workers the ability to leave is not the same as eliminating the discrimination itself. Van Hoorn emphasizes that reducing discrimination is a societal task, not an individual one. The goal is not to tell vulnerable workers to simply develop better skills and move on. Rather, improving labor mobility is one tool among many—a way to protect workers while society continues the harder work of changing the cultures and systems that produce discrimination in the first place.