Monthly Income of the Spouse

(in

%)

Amount in DM Turks Yugoslavs

50 - 600 9.0 9.2

601

-

'800 20.1 14.6

801 - 1,000 32.9 38.8

1,001 - ^{1,200 17.9 8.7}

1,201 - 1,400 10.3 10.2

1,401 - 1,600 5.2 7.8

1,601 - 2,000 3.5 5.5

2,000+ 0.4 5.6

'Total n = ^{1072 817 255}

mean amount

1004 1092

in DM

#

86

Table 50

Monthly Household Income

(in %)

Amount in DM Turks Yugoslavs

-O -

850 10.8 11. 6

850 - 1,000 12.0 26.8

1,000 - 1,200 11.7 13.8

1,200 - 1,600 15.7 13.5

1,600 - 2,000 16.7

9.4

2,000 - 2,200 10.5 6.0

,2,200 - 2,500 8.1 11. 7

,2,500 _. 2,800 5.4 2.3

2,800+ 3.3 4.8

Total n == 2277 1565^_, 712

mean _DMamount in 1651. 1446.

~

their first job here. Of the rest, 20.1% of the began piece-work immediately upon commencement of

at a later point in time. If we look at the latter Yugoslavs and 28.1% of the Turks began piecework

group (Table 51), we find that the majority of them (61.2% of the Yugoslavs and 78.3% of the Turks) be gain piece-work within the first three months of their ~irst job abroad. The next highest percentage began this type of work within the second three months of their employment.

§tab~li t_y._of Employment and Job Mobil'ity

About one-third (29.0%) of the total sample never had changed their place of work since their arrival

in Germany; 26.6% and 34.5% for the Turks and Y~goslavs, respectively, (Table 52). One half of the sample had changed their employment once or never, (47.7% of the Turks and 54% of the Yugoslavs). The mean number of

job changes was very close for both groups¡ twice for the Yugoslavs and 2.1 times for the Turks. There is

#

indication of slightly higher job stability among the Yugoslavs (34.5%) who, never changed their place of work when compared to the Turks (26.6%). However, even this must be double-checked against the average length of

88

Table 51

Months of Labor until Piece Work Began

~

Number of Months Turks Yugoslavs

1

-

^{3 78.3 61.2}

4

-

^{6 13.6 26.4}

7

-

^{9 2.5 3.4}

10 - 12 3.7 6.1

13+ 2.0 2.8

Total n

=

^{590 443 147}

mean number of 3.4 4.6

mord"'hc:.::..

(in %)

"

"

Table52 NumberofTimesJobChangedinGermany NumberofTimesJobChangedInGermany(in%) Nationality

I I

MeanO123456789 Turkish26.621.118.4

I

15.O7.34_.42.81.51.92.02.1 n=1540

I !

I

I

¡ Yugoslav34.519.320.0113.17.42.62.70.30.00.152.0 n=663

I I I

.I

I I

L

90

stay of both groups in this category. Although cross-tabulation will give us better evidence of these relationships, comparing the mean

number of job changes, the mean number of years of stay abroad strength this hypothesis.

One must recall the role of the work permit which has been touched upon in the section dealing with the legal situation of the residence of

foreign workers in the Federal Republic. It might be added that after the first year of employment it is common that the work permit be issued with the stipulation of a particular occupational position or a particular firm. If the worker decides at a later date to change one of these it may be necessary to obtain a new wo rk permit. Over half of our sample held work permits which were to expire within the year of the interview. A noticeably higher percentage of Yugoslav workers (69.5%) than Turks (56.5%) fell into this category (Table 53). Only 7.1% of the

Turkish workers and 5.1% of the Yugoslav workers held work permits which were valid over a two year period.

The mean work permit validity was 14.5 months for the

"

Turks and 11.8 months for the Yugoslavs, a difference which we did not observe in relation to residence permits.

Table 53

Number of Months Until Work Permit Expires

Number of Months Turks Yugoslavs

1

-

^{3 12.7 8.7}

92

If we compare the first sector of employment abroad (Table 46) with the current sector (Table 54) we observe a slight reduction in participation in the industrial sector for both Turks and Yugoslavs. This reduction is, however, more pronounced among the latter than among the former. However, since this question was only asked of those who had changed jobs since their arrival here, further data analysis is necessary before any tendencies can be established. This applies as well to Table 55 which specifies the current occupation. What appears to be an increase in percentage of those interviewed in the categories of foreman or skilled worker may be due to the number of workers not included in this table who are still holding the same job they had at the time of their arrival.

When asked how long they were employed at the present job, more than one fifth of the respondents replied over 3 years. The mean was 22.3 months for the Yugoslavs and 24.7 months for the Turks (Table 56).

"

-------

..

Table54 CurrentSectorofEmployment

I

...Current.Sector.OfEmployment(in%)

I

Nationality

I

Agri-

I

Industry

I

SerticeConunerceConstruction

I I

Other culture

I .

I!

I

I¡¡, Turkish0.967.019.63.5'7.11.8

I

n=1162 I

I

! I I I

I'

¡

I

Yugoslav0.080.82.0

I

5.88.23.1 n=449

I

I

L

-----------------

I

I _._._---_.------

_._._---_.--- ----~-----.

..

Ta.'..Jle55 CurrentTypeofJob CurrentOccupation(in%) Nationality Un-and.)Skilled

I

Foreman

I

ClericalOther semi-skilledLaborer

l~o~r

j

¡ --- -

I

I

I

I !

Turkish65.427.15.42.20.0 n

=

1158

I

Yugoslav49.839.010.80.2 0.7

_J

n

=

446 -

I

---- ----------------

---\O ~

Table 56

Number of Months at Current Job

(in %)

Number of Months Turks Yugoslavs

1

-

^{6 months 17.0 13.0}

7

-

^{12 months 26.5 24.5}

12

-

^{18 months 9.7 19.5}

18

-

^{24 months 10.3 9.9}

over 24 months 12.6 13.4

over 36 months 12.3 11.1

over 48 months 6.1 4.8

over 60 months 5.1 5.4

Total n == 2035 1468 567

-mean number ofth 24.7 22.3

mon s

"

96

In addition to requesting the workers to categorize their current employment according to the breakdown of economic sectors, we have acquired the name and address of the firm where they were employed.1) This

information was then coded in three different ways.

First, the individual firms were coded according to sectors2) (Table 57) which yielded a distribution very similar to the one obtained by the workers' direct responses to the question as presented in Table 54 earlier.

Secondly, the firms were coded once more according to their size, measured by the number of employees in the firm, Table 58.3) It became apparent that over one-half of the Yugoslavs (54%) and nearly one-half of the Turks

(47.2%) were employed in firms with 5,000 and more

employees. These large firms were then listed to indicate the distribution of foreign workers in our sample (Table 59).

This distribution showed tha·t half of the workers in large firms were employed at Siemens, while 27.1% and 27.3% of each group were at AEG/Te1efunken, whereby the

"

1) Frequently the respondent could not name his firm, but either solely the location, i.e. street or the branch it belonged to, e.g., restaurant, cleaning agency, etc.

2) Our Definition of sectors were based on the system used in the Berlin Statistical Yearbook.

3) The list of firms was supplied by the Industrie and Handelskammer Berlin. Establishments with under 100 employees are likely to be underrepresented because the workers seemed to remember the names of larger well known firms more easily (AEG, Siemens, etc.).

Table 57

Distribution of Foreign Workers by Sector of Employment

Nationality Current Sector of Employment (in %) Public Industry Private

Service

Turkish 14.0 79.6 6.3

n = 1390

Yugoslav 3.3 86.0 10.7

n = 598

I

"

98

Table 58

Distribution of Foreign Workers According to Size of Firm

Number of workers in firm· (in

%)

Nationality

100- 250- 1.000 2.000 5.000 249 999 1.999 4.999

&

more

Turkish 13.1 15.4 15.6 8.7 47.2

n

=

⁸³⁵

Yugoslav 8.5 5.8 22.3 9.4 54.0

n

=

⁴⁸⁰

"

~ T"ilile59 DistributionofForeignWorkersbyLargeFirms NationalityLargeFirms(in%) AEG

I

Bertie

I

Osram

I

Siemens ITelefunkenBewagBVG

I

Borsig I Turkisho27.10.55.83.01.012.949.6 n

=

395

I -

Yugoslav27.30.40.43.81.218.548.5 n

=

260

l __

oooooo•• _____[------

---100

smallest percentage were employed by the public service firms of BEWAG and BVG, and the private service sector, such as Hertie Department stores.

Among large firms the Borsig firm appeared to be an exception in the hiring of foreign labor, with only slightly over 3% of our total sample employed there.

Although further investigations are needed on the determinants and implications of concentration of foreign workers in given sectors and firms, we have an impression, on the basis of interviews we have conducted in a number of firms, that there are tendencies to hire 'workers from just one or two

ethnic groups to minimize communication problems and the firmIs infra-structural costs. At a later point in the extrapolation of this data we hope to study the significance of concentration in certain branches,

departments, and work groups in industry upon the integration of the workers concerned, on the degree of their language competence, unionization, job mobility, etc.1)

~ 1) For more accurate information this data should be supplemented with a survey of firm data on foreign worker concentration.

Turkish and Yugoslav workers differed greatly in their membership in unions; while 41.9% of the Turkish workers claimed they were members, this ~igure went

down to 22.4% for the Yugoslavs (Table 60). Since the distribution of the workers in large firms is about the same for both groups,union membership is not likely to reflect the degree of contact with German workers. It may be more of an indication of the

activities of the Turkish unionists, or Turkish officials working for the German labor unions, as opposed to the less active role of Yugoslavs in this regard.

"

In our interview schedule we allowed for two

similar questions to obtain data on the job aspirations of the workers upon repatriation. Particularly, the Turkish workers manifested interesting tendencies

(Table 61). In regard to the "desired work" upon return, the largest percentage of Turks, 25.3%, said they did not want to work; they either planned to secure 'efficient financial resources to retire, or, if women,

to return to their roles as housewives. (This tendency can be more clearly seen in the coding of the second question presented on the right hand side of Table 61).

102 Table 60

Membership in Unions

(in _%)

Nationality Yes No Do not Refused

know to answer

Turkish 41.9 57.9 0.2 0.1

n

=

¹⁵⁴⁸

Yugoslav 22.4 72.8 2.4 2.4

n

=

⁷⁰⁵

-"

Table 61

Occupational Interests Upon Return to Home Country

Turks ~:>nl:i Turks Yugoslavs

Retire 25.3 7.8 2.3

Self employment

(small business) 23.4 34.6 3.6

Clerical 4.9 4.4 5.8

Current Occup. 9.1 6.2 78.8

Commerce 10.8

-

-Agriculture 5.2 7.1 1.2

"free-lancel! 2.7 14.7

-Housewife

-

^{22.0 7.3}

Building trade

-

^2.8

-Other 18.6

-

-'rotal n ::::: 1533 1378 689

..

-1 "Desired Occupation" was open-ended. Currently, only the Turkish data is available.

2 "Work plansl! was closed.

..

104

The second largest groups of Turks replied that they intended to establish their own work place. It is notable that as many as 14.0% did not know what they wanted to do, 10.8% desire to go into commerce, and 9.1% desired to continue in their "current occupation".

Column 2 of Table 61 exemplifies the great differences between the plans of the Yugoslav and Turkish workers upon return to their home country. While 78.8% of the Yugoslavs plan to continue as workers in industry only 6.2% of the Turkish workers have similar plans.

The largest percentage of Turkish workers are found in the group who plan to be self-employed, or start their own business upon return to Turkey. It is also

remarkable that although 22.0% of the Turkish workers plan to be housewives upon return, this is true of only 7.3% of the Yugoslavs. Furthermore, 7.8% of the Turks plan to retire upon return in contrast to 2.3%

of the Yugoslavs. Only in the category of clerical work, the plans of both nationalities are roughly the same. These desires, no doubt, reflect workers'

subjective evaluations of the objective conditions

"

^{open to them upon} repatriation; while the clarity of

the economic conditions enable the Yugoslav migrants to make realistic plans for their future, the instability

of the Turkish scene encourages adventurous and po~sib1y self-destructive hopes as well as actual

investments along such unrealistic lines.

In order to estimate the impact of the energy crisis at the time of the interview (Summer 1974) we

inquired about the current employment status (Table 62). At the time 7.7% of the Turks and 3.8% of the Yugoslavs

were unemployed. The mean number of months unemployed was 6.8 for the 23 unemployed Yugoslavs, and 5.9 for

the 108 Turks. We then attempted to establish the reasons underlying their unemployment as they perceived the situation. However, the Yugoslav reply was too negligible to berecorded¡ 15.7% of the Turks indicated that it was due to the impact of the energy crisis, while the rest showed either family (17.6%), health reasons (19.4%), or other reasons (27.4%), or they did not really know (18.5%).

VII. Sa~"ings and Remittances

The survey instrument was designed to obtain as

<fi

detailed information as possible on the savings

behavior of foreign workers interviewed. This was done with the intention of analysing this against the

Table 62 106

Current Employment Status

Nationality Current Employment Status (in %)

Unemployed Employed

Turkish

7.7

92.3

n

=

1549

Yugoslav 3.8 96.0

n

=

681

"

"

Work in West-Germany before .coming to Berlin

Nationality Work in West-Germany. .(in .%.)

Employed Not employed Do not know ^..

Turkish

32.0 66.9 1.1

n ₌₌

1548

--Yugoslav

11.0 89.0

n ₌₌

709

108 Table 64

Current status of House in Horne Country

(in %)

Current status Turkish Yugoslav

of House

empty 4.5 3.1

part of my family

lives there 62.8 83.7

sublease 6.5 2.5

whole house rented 24.7 10.3

just left 0.1

-other 1.0 0.3

n

=

^{2256 1546 710}

"

)

I

, 109

:

'lIable65

Ownership of House in Home Country

(in %)

Turkish Yugoslav Total

Responses Sample

my property 29.4 27.8 28.9

rented 31. 7 13.8 26.0

did not- pay any rent,

since it belonged to 1.0 3.7 1.8

a relative

was owned by my

parents 37.6 54.7 42.9

other 0.3

-

^0.1

.

'ï'ot.aL n

=

^{1547 711 2258}

"

110

socio-economic background, working experience and motivations of the workers. For the purpose of this report, however, we shall suffice by describing a portion of this information.

The workers were first asked how much they were remitting monthly for the care of their dependents in the home countries. Of the ~ugoslav .workers who had

dependents to care for (a little over half of the total), three-fourths were remitting regular amounts Lo their dependents; this amount averaged 370 DM for this group.

Another 15% of this group claimed remitting irregular amounts, while another 10% pointed out tha't all of their dependents were with them in West Berlin and that,

therefore, they were not remitting any amount for that particular purpose. Of the ~urks with dependents, a group which, unlike the Yugoslav case, constitutes over 80% of the total Turkish sample, an overwhelming majority

(91.7%) remitted regularly; the mean remittances were 345 DM. Thus, while only 41% of the total Yugoslav sample sent an average of 370 DM monthly to their home countries in the form of remittances, 75% of all Turks

~ were remitting 345 DM regularly. Should these amounts be distributed over the two sub-samples, we would obtain 152 DM remittances for an average Yugoslav and 258 DM for an average Turk.

The workers were subjected to another question in relation to remittances. This time the aim was to detect how much was being remitted not just for dependents but for all purposes, including care of dependents. To this inquiry a fourth of the workers responded with a claim that they do not remit anything at all (Table 66), while 61% ·.mentioned various amounts.

As in the previous case, there were significant national differences in this regard; 37% of the

Yugoslavs as opposed to only 19% of the Turks were not remitting. The distribution of remitted amounts yielded an average· of 477 DM for Yugoslavs and 462 DM for

Turks (Table 67). Again, these averages, calculated on the basis of those remitting a specific amount, may be distributed over the two sub-samples yielding

263 DM of total monthly remittances for a typical Yugoslav and 355 DM for a typical Turk. These are, needless to say, very rough calculations and more realistic figures, with respect to delineated socio-economic categories of respondents, will result from further analyses.

"

^{Shifting to the topic of savings,} the workers were

first asked how much of their total household income, which we calculate to be very roughly, 1446 DM for Yugoslavs and 1651 DM for Turks, they were able to

112 Table 66

Total Remittances to Home Country

(in %)

Responses Turkish Yugoslav

Nothing 19.0 36.9

Amount specified

in DM 66.3 48.8

No regular

average 11.7 8.4

Do not know 2.8 5.2

Other 0.2 0.7

Total n

=

^{2227 1534 693}

,

Table 67

Im Dokument by 1974 & of OF THE WEST MIGRANT WORKER SURVEY A OF THE LABOR 2 (Seite 86-114)