¡ I III II II ITotal I

I ,

I

14.6.

I

3.8I n

=

18317.737.933.52.1

I

I

I

¡I

i

I-' co 0'1

If we focus on respondents who make some payment for utilities, we observe first of all, that t.he mean amount paid increases t.o 43.6 DM and, second, that the ethnic differences mentioned directly above are reversed as to parallel those discussed in relation to rent levels; while the average amount paid for ut.ilities by this group of Turks is 43 DM, a slightly higher figure, 45 DM, is obtained for the Yugoslav tenants. All three observations made above in relation to trends in rent levels hold true consistently for utility payments as well and will, therefore, not be repeated here.

In addition to rent and utilities, a considerable riumber of workers were required to pay key money in order to be able to gain tenancy of an apartment;

38% of all Turks and 37.7% of all Yugoslavs were obliged to make such a payment, to obtain their current residences. Since key money is t.ypically paid for private apartments rather than for Heime, the above figures need to be calculated for occupants of private apartments; in so doing, we obtain 44.7

(.

and 56.7 as respective percentages of Turks and

key money is shown in 'l'able96 for each et.hnic group.

Yugoslavs. Aggregated distributicn of amount of

..,.

Table 96 Key Money Payments for Current Residence 1-- - -l-~~~ Key Money Payments (in

%)

Nationality

í

¡ 500 - 750 !

I, I.

O - 250 25Q - 500 750 - 1000 1000 - 1500 1500 + Mean

I

DM DM DN DM DM DM Amount

I D

I I Turkish I I 15.1 I n = 596 9.2

I

19.9 25.1 20.3 10.2 932.1

I

I I

i

I I

I

I

!¡

I I Yugoslav I I I n = 269 I

8.5 26.7 I

18.5 28.9 11.1 5.9 I 833.1

¡ ¡ I

! I I ~I -

I I

Total I I

I I

I I I n = 865 9.0 22.0 16.1 26 '~_I 17.4 8.9 895.0 I

I lII I-' co .'ro ---_.~-------

---_.~---189

Accordingly, although a large portion of Yugoslav workers pay key money, the amount involved is lower,

923 DM for Turks and 833 DM for Yugoslavs.

on the average, in the case of Turks; the mean is

Recalculating these figures with the inclusion of all eli~ible respondents - tenants of private

apartments - we obtain 412 DM and 472 DM, respectively.

This amount divided by the average length of stay in an apartment, must be added to rent and utilities

to obtain a more realistic picture of foreign workers' housing expenses.

The development of key money payments for and within each of the housing sub-samples are shown in Table 97 for cases where total number of observations permit analyses. First of all, the table reveals

that the mean payment increased over years as inferred from column "first". For instance, those currently residing in their third apartment paid less as key money for their first quarters than the group living

in their first apartment. This trend can be observed for each column referring to the subsequent moves of each sUb-sample. Secondly, within a sub-sample, not

(,

only fewer workers paid key money for their first residence than for the second, an¿ fewer for the second than for the third, etc., but also they paid, on the average, increasingly more as they moved from

o'} .•___._...:.:'~••__••••••_......._.__,,~...._'"•••••0,-.••_•.•• Table97 KeyMoneyPaymentsforeachConsecutiveResidence(in%l FirstSecond n1II---~--· Currentlv. residing"

id!

Min~Ma".Med.

I

MeannIMin..!Max..

l

Med.IMea..~tn

Third

!---._---_.•. FourthFifth I'Min_i ~in_'Max_Med.Mean¡¡Min.Max..Med.Min.Mean~!eanMax.nn 1str;:-~13:5001-7Ú-r

8991--15411

h<e~~~;

~¡¡-lõõ15-~601

825

9~_j__:TI I I ! II I i ¡-~ bS!~~ei ~:-p__-~2:00~-I--~~0-1-8-0-'-r_9-+ï2Õ-i~o:öl-~n6-i2¡ 809 1. 16711--_:_+-~-f-·· -1---1--l1-~1

t

I I

3::;d

-11_:::_1-1100/2.400.1

Y':',I

6:_81_2_8_~ __l5_j3,_oo~I 7~·~I_?_~~1_9711~114.0011__?~-I~_:~2ip-.-l_2711·H'. -(--[-1--1-1--1-1--[--·--·-11'

ResLd-'Y.

¡

1501.50050764042II503.0001800

824

56fl'I "nee,I_.,LI._,III

.!4t·1

T•jl

i I

I5-IIIOOJ'~s-;;-°I-92011.0141·2l11110

l

z.000¡·SS(T684-.3s11,·\00'2,Oool·9251-;;'530

I

IIIIn..--1---.-----:"11----1----

C-¡----.- ---.----.---.---.-.--- ¡

Resia-Y.,2IS!11

liso

1.500550173714,i 5:~IT.,I'/.IJ)11

.~1-_·9.

¡1)·--__l_?:1''1

1

_'1

1 --- 1

'---1-

6I1103.6Q_d9001.051_j._l,,7_¡ ReSid-I'Y~

·-ï---¡---·---·----··---liI . . .. 21'

Siil¡ii4II2 ence.Ii¡___,, •t I 1I I !

I-0J'-

-I"· -

! -,-'--_---- •Sincetotalnumbersyieldedfromthoselivingintheirfifthresidenceweresmaller, thissub-samplewasleftoutofthetab~e. ¡-s 1..0 O

one apartment to another. Thus, with reference to the Turks currently residing in their third apartment, for instance, we observe that of the 328 total

respondents belonging to this group, only 28 paid key money for their first house, 97 for the second and 127 for their third. Moreover, the mean amount involved increased from 698 DM for the first house

to 792 DM for the second and 'to 1.013 DM for the third.

Thirdly, as observed in Table 97, except for the housing sub-sample "1st Residence", Yugoslav workers

tend to pay less key money than their Turkish colleagues.

The workers were also asked to whom they have made the payment of the key money, and the responses are shown in Table 98 for the current residences.

Accordingly, two-thirds of the workers had paid this money to the previous tenant and another 16% to the

landlord. Nationality breakdowns indicate that a significantly greater portion of Turks than Yugoslavs were forced to make such a payment to the previous tenant, while more than one-third of the Yugoslavs

made the payment directly to the landlord. Examination of the trends over and within each of the housing

(,

sub+s amp Le s yield two results: a) Key money payments to the previous tenant by both of the ethnic groups

·') Table98 RecipientsofKeyMoney forCurrentResidence

I

Nationality

t I

ToWhomKeyMoneywasPaid(in%) Previous tennant

¡

I

Landlord

I I

Housekeeper

I

Broker

I

Donot

I I I

know

Other

I - ---

II-- !II

I

I .Total

I 'Ii i I

I

I I' I I

n

=

828

I

66.616.O

I

3.9

I

2.2

I

2.28.6

I

II¡

¡

I

I I

;¡

I

^Turkish

¡ I

n

=

566

I

I!

72.67.2

1.0 I ~-- I .

II.

¡

YUgOSlaV',

I

I' In=262!53.8

I

35.1 I

I .

I

J

I

6.9

I

0.6I3.412.5

I

¡ 3.8

I· J

0.4 !-' ,l..O tv

gained increasing importance over time as indicated by the fact that those currently living in their fifth residence had a far smaller tendency than those living in their fourth to make such a payment to the previous tenant for the quarters they first occupied. Thus, although 33% of the Turks currently residing in their fourth apartment made this payment to the previous tenant, this percentage was much higher (60.7) among those currently resident in their third house;

b) Each sub-srunple exhibited a greater tendency to

pay the previous tenant as they moved from one apartment to another. Thus, those resident in their third house, for instance, tended less frequently to pay the previous tenant to move into their first apartment than to their

~econd, and even less to the ~econd than to the third;

of the Turks 60.7% paid the previous tenant for

their first quarteis and this percentage increased to 67 for the second and to 72.4 for the third.

These two developments were consistently observed among each of the ethnic groups. Although the workers were also asked whether they have charged others key money as they decided to move out of an apartment,

I.'

not only did most everyone deny receiving any payment from another but also the administrat.ion of the question was carried out rather unsystematically for the results

to be presented here with some degree of confidence.

194

We do realize, however, the importance of obtaining such data as many of the authorities we have

interviewed with respect to the housing problems of migrant workers communicated that it was rather

frequent for these workers, especially for the Turks, to charge one another key money for the apartment they leave or sublet and that they sometimes do so for houses that they have no 'legal access to, so that a new coming worker, after having paid a considerable sum of money for an apartment and signing all sorts of false documents which he cannot read anyway, finds himself in a position where he does not have any claims oli the apartment and cannot even locate the fellow

who had taken his money and conveniently disappeared.

The overall housing shortage, the acute discrimination against foreigners, especially against Turks, as well as t.he great.er "adjus trnerrt."of some workers who have already spent a number of years in t.he city a.nd acquired knowledge of different norms, including

t.hose regulating the housing market, are some of the factors which are likely to augment the frequency of occurrence of such harmful activities.

(,

These trends which we have pointed out in relation to the pa.yment of key money to the previous tenant is obviously related to the process of search through which for'eLqn workers gain access to apartments in the city. In cases where the worker is brought by a

firm directly from his or her home country, the

! . employer is under obligation to make housing

•

arrangements. This is typically a Het.~ room unless the worker had made other arrangements or unless he is joining his family. If he makes these arrangements on his own or if he wants to leave the Heim at some point, he must, move to the private housing market or, more realistically, to a sector of this market which dictates its own rules to the workers. The public housing sector (social housing) is effectively inaccessible to these workers, a matter which we hope to discuss in our subsequent

topical studies. In their search for apartments, some strategies appear to be more fruitful than

others. Data presented in Table 99 demonstrate ^", the mode through which the two groups of foreign

workers covered by our survey found their apartment.

Accordingly, over two-thirds of all respondents acquired their apartments through an acquaintance, and another 14.3%, many of whom are likely to be

~~ residents, through their employers. A small portion proceeded through the help of the city's

(,

official housing office or through newspapers,

brokers and other agencies includj,ng the translators supplied by the employers. Parallel to the greater tendency of Yuqos Lavs to live in

!i.~iI~,

^{we also}

''i'

Table

99

Acquisition of Current Residence I Nationality I Agents ~hrough which the current residence was acquired (in

%)

I

I

I Do not I Acqua

i

nt- I I I Woh, - lOth

! ¡

I ~ - I Employer . Newspaper Broker I

irrunq

s er I I ! know I ance i-amt! Agency I

II,

! i I ¡

I I

! I

II!I

I Turkish

I

I

n

=

1533II0.8!69.1

I

9.31.82.96.79.3

I

II

¡ I I

Yugoslav

I I I I

In=687I0.6

I

65.8II25.5

I

4.11.,9

I

0.4'I'..J...I'I

I I

II·. ¡I'í

i I ¡ .

I

I

II!I ¡

Total ¡ I

n~2220

I

0.7

I

68.1

I

14.3

I

2.4

I

2.6

I

4.7

I

6.9 Ii.lL l-' \O 0'1

observe in the table, a greater tendency of these workers to acquire their quarters through the intermediary of their employers.

An examination of the trends in this regard, as shown in Table lOO, reveals patterns consistent over time and within each of the housing sub-samples.

Pirst of all, Yugoslav reliance on the employer for housing arrangement.s within and across all sub-samples have been greater than that of Turks; while, for instance,

77% of those currently residing in their fourth house, 73% of those living in their third quarters, 84% of those living in their second quarters and 52% of those who are still occupyin~ their initial apartment Ln West Berlin, have resorted to their employers for the acquisition of their first residence, these

percentages were 71, 63, 44 and 21, respectively,

for the Turkish workers. The sa~me pattern is detected by the subsequent moves as indicated under each column.

Secondly I wi thin each sub-·sample, reliance on acquaintances have increased as workers moved from one apartment to another. 'rhus, while, for instance,

(, 29% of Turks now living in t.heä.r third apartment relied on their acquaintances in finding their first apartment, this reliance increased rather dramatically to 70% for the second, 71% for the third apartment. The same·

,'" Table100 AcquisitionofC0nsecutiveResidences ConsecutiveResidences(in%) Ii.;

I

I•'!":"!••I·.~. !~lrst

!

Second¡Thlrd!Fourth!Flfth ilornI

I I !

i

!! I I ¡ ¡

C~r1~el_

ti

J2

I

3

I

2

I

3

I

2I32I3I2

!

¡ReS10enCei'!!!3

I in I I I

i'

I ~esli~~nc~ ~~~:: ~ ::;

1¹ ---:..~~.

---li - -1--1-- --1----1·· ·1·· -+---

11'---- I1¡!!I,I'

I

2nd

¡

T.(n~5?O:_

I

45

1._~4_L~:_J_-J_ i l__ l l. I

ResidencEtY.(n=300)

1

13l84I,78

I

11

i I I

¡1

I ! I . ¡

!!

! I I

í ,-r----T-'1---.,.-------,,,r-:!

I!

III¡!I1

¡ . - ~es~::ncJ ~: ~: :mH ~~ ~-~~-I-~~-H~--~·~-h~I---·-r--. --"--1----1---1 I ¡! I! ¡ ji' i !

4-'-h'1

r I 1-

-!-Il

r

j'¡_L.I.!I

I ·

iT.(n=119)

I

1771

¡

55

I

24

I

68i1255

¡

5,

i

...¡----_......!---....~---...."η....,"-"l·'---·..·-1..·...---¡...---.'-'--..·....--i----..---+.----+-.--- IReslCiencïY.(n=35)

I

2077

¡

56

!

44

I

69

I

3171

I

18

I I I,

I

_I

l"!¡II ,5th

l~

T_._(~_.:__50)

L__ 2~J_~?~_J:}:J_~d.~ .... 11.-~?-J-70 [. ~~-J--~-~--ll.---~ .. I

lResldenceY(n=11)¡¡,li

I

'III

I '

,¡.J._.J..II'¡¡I', II'!!

¡

I ,,I¡I¡!!1-'-' ,1.0 CP

. T.=

Turkish Y.=Yugoslav

2

=

throughacquaintance;3

=

throughemployer

pattern is observed, for both ethnic groups, within each sub-sample. At the same time, there has been an increasing reliance on other agencies:

a very sharp decline in the use of the employers.

newspapers, brokers, social consultants, etc., and

Thirdly, parallel to the already discussed tendency of workers to move into private housing

immediately upon arrival, there has been a decreasing reliance on the employer for the Locat.í.onof the initial accommodations. Thus, although 71% of Turks now in their fourth residence, for instance, sought the 'intermediary of their employers for their initial housing, this percentage was gradually reduced among, what we assume ·to be f the late comers, and became 44%

for t.he ini·tial residence of the group living in their second residence and 21% for those still occupying their first apartment.

Wishes

In order to understand what the workers desired in

{- terms of housing accommodations, and how much they would be willing to pay for rent, two additional items were

added to the survey instrument. When asked how much they would be willing to pay maximally for rent, many workers answered that they did not know or that they

Im Dokument by 1974 & of OF THE WEST MIGRANT WORKER SURVEY A OF THE LABOR 2 (Seite 187-200)