Content uploaded by Bora Balun
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Bora Balun on Mar 30, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
174
Scientific Journal Virtus, September # 46, 2020
Politology
UDC 325.14 Balun, Bora
PhD., balunbora@gmail.com Turkey, Karabuk
Şişman, Yener
Assoc. Prof. Dr., Anadolu University, ysisman@anadolu.edu.tr Turkey, Eskisehir
FOREIGN MIGRANTS
AND THEIR WORKING CONDITIONS:
A FIELD SURVEY
Introduction. Throughout the history people
kept moving willingly or unwillingly with
different reasons from the places they live to other
places. This movement conceptualized with the term
migration has been related with the individual, society and
place, and has led to many different effects such as
economic, political and social. The effects emerged
examined the social structure together with their direct and
indirect results, and this has continued to become an area
that keeps up to date. (Yılmaz, 2014, pp. 1690–1692).
Turkey has experienced similar processes in both internal
and external migration both before and after Republic was
founded. For instance, USSR invasion of Afghanistan in
1979, regime change in Iran in the same period, Iran-Iraq
This study was reproduced by PhD student Bora Balun, Anadolu
University Labour Economics and Industrial Relations, from the
doctoral dissertation which was prepared and accepted under the
supervision of Assoc. Prof. Dr. Yener Şişman. This work is the
expanded and revised version of the published abstract summary
presented at the XI. IMCOFE (Climate Change and Migration)
Congress held on 7-9 July 2020 in St. Petersburg).
war continued in 1980s, dissolution of the Soviet Union in
the 1990s, public movements called ―Arab Spring‖ starting
from 2010 and lastly Syrian civil war started in 2011 and
continued till today constitute an important aspect of this
issue (Şişman and Balun, 2020, pp. 63). However, Syrian
migration starting with the Arab Spring in 2011 takes the
first place among the migration events Turkey has faced
recently with the social and economical effects it has
created. Other migrations continuing from countries such as
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Iran are seen as an important
part of the process and the problem. (Turkish Grand National
Assembly-Human Rights Inquiry Commission, 2018,
pp. 241-242).
When taking the present situation into consideration, the
number of those under temporary protection and those
requesting international protection is defined by millions.
Almost all these migrants are disseminated in the whole
country, they continue their lives in the cities where their
registration are made and could use some benefits in kind
and cash according to their legal status. However, they may
choose to work due to the reasons such as their crowded
The phenomenon of migration, which emerges voluntarily or due to compelling reasons, continues to affect
migrant receiving and sending societies today in terms of socio-economical, cultural and political ways together
with their indirect and direct results as in the past. These effects emerging from dynamic structure of the
migration keep discussions about migration alive. Turkey, taking place on the important route of regular and
irregular migration and refugee and asylum seekers, keeps its position, with this feature, among the countries
where migration discussions are ongoing. Moreover, because the number of the migrants together with the mass
migrations from Syria has reached to remarkable amounts, together with this discussion fields related with the
social impacts of the migration have also expanded. Although different justifications expanding the dimension of
the discussion are presented, impacts emerged in the working life of the migrants constitute the most important
point of the discussion.
Migrants are involved in the labour markets for reasons such as insufficient benefits, crowded populations
and desire to continue their lives. However, either the criteria related with their work permits are heavy or the
places they work are mostly of hidden economy because of the factors caused by the structure of the labour
markets. The reality that migrants are working unofficially both prevents them from reaching the socio-
economical rights and affects the labour markets. In connection with this thought, it is thought that, by putting
the current working conditions of the migrant into the centre, their level of accessing to the social rights and in
which direction and how this affects their working lives can be examined.
The study conducted within this framework is realised by using a survey method with unofficially working
346 foreign migrants under international protection in Karabük province (Turkey) selected by convenience
sampling method and by using surveys. Descriptive statistical methods were used to analyse the data. As a
result of the study it is found out that foreign migrants are affected by the negative conditions of hidden
economy and they also affect the labour market.
Key words: Refugee, Asylum Seeker, Migrant Worker, Unregistered Employment.
175
Scientific Journal Virtus, September # 46, 2020
population and insufficient benefits and basic concerns such
as continuing their lives. Desire to take place in labour
market itself is not enough at this stage.
Migrants acting with the aim to work can face various
obstacles arising from the difficulty of application criteria
for work permits or socio-economic reasons such as
structural, widespread and intense unemployment and thus
competition in the labour market and the prevalence of
informal work. The wish to overcome these obstacles may
lead the migrants to different options; informal working can
be seen as an easy and short-cut solution as it does not
require formal permission and it is an easy way to enter the
sector. As a result of this, it can be stated that foreign
migrants and informality, which includes many negativities
with its socio-economic aspect, meet at the same point.
1. Method of the Study.
Quantitative research method is used in this study.
Independent variables in the study are demographic
characteristics of the migrants working unofficially and the
information about their labour and salary levels. Dependent
variables in this study are future migration plans of the
participants and working conditions in Turkey.
While preparing the research questions, sources like
books, theses, articles and reports have been scanned. It is
aimed to choose which questions should be included in the
study with the literature scanning. After preparing the
questions, statisticians and linguistics experts are asked
about their opinions. Questions were structured in
accordance with the feedback. In the following process pilot
implementation was started in order to determine the validity
and conformity of the questions. Pilot implementation was
realised with the 20 migrants working unofficially in
Karabük province. With the experience gained in the pilot
study conformity of the statistical analysis of the data was
controlled and repetitive or uncertain answers depending on
the nature of the question were re-arranged.
The population of the study consists of 3,876 foreign
migrants living in the province of Karabük. In order to
determine the population of the study the latest official
statistics published by Directorate General of Migration
Management on the date this study was carried out were
taken into consideration. An important condition to
determine the sample size is that it has the smallest amount
capable of representing the ground mass. In social sciences,
if the standard deviation/mistake of the average is smaller
than 0.05, it is stated that, the sample size, in other words,
5% of significance level will be sufficient. (Yazıcıoğlu and
Erdoğan, 2014, pp. 84-85-88). Hence, in the study, for the
5% deviation amount, sample size at the 95% accuracy level
(0.05 significance level) was taken as the base. Considering
the number of samples needed for the defined population size
according to α = 0.05 significance and ± 5% margin of error, it
is stated that the questionnaire is sufficient in the range of
333–357. (Yazıcıoğlu and Erdoğan, 2004, pp. 50). Within the
framework of the study, after the assessment of usable
surveys, those belonging to 346 persons were taken for the
assessment. Field work was conducted between the dates 1
January and 15 April 2019 and limited within these periods.
2. Research Findings.
2.1. Demographic Characteristics. Foreign migrants
participating in the study stated that 1,5% are Iranian, 32,6%
are Afghan, 28,3% are Iraqi, 26,3% are Syrian and 1,1% are
Pakistani. 43 of the participants (12,4%) are women and 303
of them (87,5%) are men. When looking into the marital
status of the participants, 43,0% are single and 56,9% are
married. 62,4% of the migrants interviewed under the
research are between the age of 18–24. When considering
the age distribution by the groups, there are 63 people
(18,2%) between the age of 18–24, there are 153 people
(44,2%) between the age of 25–30, there are 52 people
(15,0%) between the age of 31–35, there are 36 people
(10,4%) between the age of 36–40, there are 18 people
(5,2%) between the age of 41–42, and 24 people (6,9%) at
the age of 46 and above.
When considering the education level of the foreign
migrants participating in the study, the largest group with
113 people (32,6%) consists of high school graduates. The
second is secondary school graduates with 71 people
(20,5%). As for the others, 53 of them (15,3%) are literate,
62 people are (17,9%) primary school graduate, 32 people
(9,2%) are university graduate, 11 people (3,1%) are with
two-year degree, and 4 people (1,1%) are with post-graduate
degree. 184 people participating in the study stated that they
had children. Considering the numerical distribution of this
group, 40 people (11,5%) have 1 child, 78 people (22,5%)
have 2 children, 43 people (12,4%) have 3 children. Those
with 4 or more children are 23 (6,6%). 75,3% of the
participants mentioning their children have 2 or more
children. Among the participants 11 people (3,1%) have
been in Turkey less than a year, 17 people (4,9%) have been
in Turkey for a year, and 87 people (25,1%) for 2 years, 83
people (23,9%) for 3 years, 56 people (16,1%) for 4 years,
53 people (15,3%) for 5 years, 28 people (8,0%) for 6 years
and 11 people (3,1%) for 7 or more years respectively.
When looking into the reasons why migrants moved
from their countries, 38,7% moved because of the
war/conflicts, 24,8% because of reasons such as threatening,
racism, cultural pressure etc., 17,3% for work, 10,4%
because of religious reasons and 8,6% because political
reasons (Table 1). Table 1.
Demographic Characteristics
Characteristic
Frequency
%
Country
Iran
40
11,5
Afghanistan
113
32,6
Iraq
98
28,3
Syria
91
26,3
Pakistani
4
1,1
Sex
Women
43
12,4
Men
303
87,5
Age
18-24
63
18,2
25-30
153
44,2
31-35
52
15,0
36-40
36
10,4
41-45
18
5,2
46----
24
6,9
Marital Status
Single
149
43,0
Married
197
56,9
176
Scientific Journal Virtus, September # 46, 2020
Education
Literate
53
15,3
Primary School
62
17,9
Secondary School
71
20,5
High School
113
32,6
Two-Year Degree
11
3,1
University Degree
32
9,2
Post-Graduate Degree
4
1,1
Number of Children
1
40
11,5
2
78
22,5
3
43
12,4
4 and over
23
6,6
Unanswered
162
46,8
Period of Residence
Under 1 Year
11
3,1
1 Year
17
4,9
2 Years
87
25,1
3 Years
83
23,9
4 Years
56
16,1
5 Years
53
15,3
6 Years
28
8,0
7 years and over
11
3,1
Cause of Migration
Politic
30
8,6
Religion
36
10,4
For Work
60
17,3
War/Conflicts
134
38,7
Other (threatening, racism,
cultural pressure etc.)
86
24,8
2.2. Life and Work Conditions in the Country of
Migration. In the countries where participants moved from
service sector is predominant. Hence, 67,9% of the participants
stated that they worked in the service sector, 18,2% in
agricultural sector, and 13,8% in industrial sector. 281 of the
participants declared their monthly income, those who didn’t
want to declare answered the questions with expressions
such as ―I am earning just enough to survive‖, ―I did not have a
regular income‖, ―My earning was not certain‖. When looking
at the profile of those who declared their income, 61
participants (21,7% of them) seemed to earn less than 120
Dollars a month, 132 participants (46,9% of those who
declared their income)120–400 Dollars a month, and 88
participants (31,3%) more than 400 Dollars a month. Among
the foreign migrants participating in the study 41,3% stated
that they wanted to leave and 45,0% to stay and 13,5% were
indecisive about going or staying. Although the number of
those who wanted to migrate was 143, the number of those
who wanted to move to another country or their origin country
was 175. The reason why this number is more is because
those indecisive 32 people answered the question about
where they intended to migrate. Moreover, those indecisive
32 people answered the question about moving to another or
their own country on the grounds that they feel closer to the
idea of migration in the previous question. 91,4% of those
who thought of leaving wanted to go to their countries and
8,5% of them wanted to go to another country. In addition,
with the addition of 32 people from the undecided (n = 47)
group to the question of where to migrate, the rates
regarding the choice of going – or- staying were revised as
50.7% to go, 45.0% to stay and 4.33% to be undecided.
When asked the participants if they tried leaving Turkey
and the reasons behind this, 34 participants (9,8%)
mentioned that they tried leaving before. And considering
the reasons why this group wanted to leave, 15 people
(44,1%) stated that current work conditions were inefficient,
18 people (52,9%) stated they experienced social and
cultural incapability and 1 participant (2,9%) stated that he
tried leaving because of personal reasons (Table 2). Table 2.
Life and Work Conditions in the Country of Migration
Characteristic
Frequency
%
Working Style
Service Sector
235
67,9
Industrial Sector
48
13,8
Agricultural Sector
63
18,2
Income
Under 120 US Dollar
61
21,7
120-400 US Dollar
132
46,9
Over 400 us Dollar
88
31,3
Thought of Migration
Yes
143
41,3
No
156
45,0
Unstable
47
13,5
The place for migration
Another Country
15
8,5
Their Country
160
91,4
Tried Leaving Turkey
Yes
34
9,8
No
312
90,1
Cause of Leaving
İnefficient Work
Conditions
15
44,1
Social and Cultural
Incapability
18
52,9
personal reasons
1
2,9
2.3. Income and Life Conditions in Turkey. The
number of the participants who stated to have a regular job is
33 (9,5%). When looking into the working periods of those
with regular jobs, 11 people (33,3%) have been working for
less than a year, 18 people (54,5%) for 1 or 2 years, 4 people
(12,1%) for 2 or more years. When the sectors in which
foreign migrants participating in the study are examined;
87,5% are in the service sector where irregular and daily
work is intense, 8,9% are in agricultural sector, and 3,4% are
in the industrial sector. And as for the job ideas of the
participants, 58,3% stated that they could do anything,
23,9% stated that they wanted to work in jobs related to their
profession, 17.6% stated that they want to work in jobs
related to their education. As for the weekly working hours,
0,8% work twice a week, 3,7% work 4 days a week, 45,0%
work 5 days a week, 41,9% work 6 days a week, and 8,3%
work 7 days a week.
Daily working hours: 1,1% work 4 hours a day, 30,9%
work 8 hours a day, 64,1% work 12 hours a day. And 3,7%
stated that their working hours varied. 80,3% of the foreign
migrants participating in the study stated that they received
their wages daily, 0,2% received every fortnight and 11,8%
received monthly. When looking into the wages participants
received, it is understood that 136 people (39,3%) got 50
Lira or less daily. 19 people (5,4%) who stated that they
received weekly wages got 400 Lira or less. 24 people
177
Scientific Journal Virtus, September # 46, 2020
(6,9%) who stated that they received monthly salary got
2.000 Lira or less. Only 9 people in this group (2,6%)
received around minimum wage or a little higher (Table 3).
Table 3.
Income and Life Conditions in Turkey
Characteristic
Frequency
%
Having a Regular Job
Yes
33
9,5
No
316
90,4
Working Periods
Under 1 year
11
33,3
1-2 years
18
54,5
Over 2 years
4
12,1
Sector
Service
303
87,5
Industrial
12
3,4
Agricultural
31
8,9
The Job ideas
―Could Do Anything‖
202
58,3
―Jobs Related to Their Profession‖
83
23,9
―Jobs Related to Their Education‖
61
17,6
Weekly Working Hours
2 Days
3
0,8
4 Days
13
3,7
5 Days
156
45,0
6 Days
145
41,9
7 Days
29
8,3
Daily Working Hours
4 hours
4
1,1
8 hours
107
30,9
12 hours
22
64,1
Other
13
3,7
Time to Pay
Daily
278
80,3
Weekly
26
7,5
For 15 days
1
0,2
Monthly
41
11,8
Wages
50 Lira or Less (Daily)
136
39,3
400 Lira or Less (Weekly)
19
5,4
850 Lira or Less (For 15 days)
1
0,2
2.000 Lira or Less (Monthly)
24
6,9
Minimum Wage or a Little Higher
9
2,6
2.4. Work Conditions in Turkey. When how
participants define themselves according to their positions in
the current workplace was questioned, 86,7% of them were
workers, 12,7% were technical staff (those who stated that
they worked at the industrial sector as an operator, computer
repairers in the service industry, electrical and electronics
repairers defined themselves in this group), 0,5% were
defined in the ―other‖ category.
49,1% of the participants said they found the work
conditions as dangerous, dirty and noisy, 28,0% said
precautions in terms of occupational health and safety are
taken, though partially, in the work places. 22,8% said work
places were appropriate in terms of occupational health and
safety. When the level of occupational health and safety
inspection are examined, 47,6% stated that there weren’t any
kind of inspection related with the occupational health and
safety in their work places, 50,2% stated that they had no
information about the issue and 2,0% stated that inspections
were realized. The number of those who expressed that they
were given training and information related to the job they
are doing is only 12 (3,4%).
214 people (61,8%) among the foreign migrants
participating in the study mentioned that they had met quite
a few problems in the work life in Turkey. When looking
into the nature of the problems stated, it can be said that they
are the problems arising from social rights such as salary,
holidays, health. (63,1%).
When the participants were asked if they knew where to
apply when they had problems in the work life, 24,2% said
that they knew. Although there were 214 people (61,8%)
who stated that they had problems in their works in Turkey,
only 21 participants (6,0%) said they had their complaints to
the official authorities. 13 people from 21 who complained
said they complained in-person and the other 8 said they
used other means (such as telephone or internet) (Table 4).
Table 4.
Work Conditions in Turkey
Characteristic
Frequency
%
Positions in the Current
Workplace
Worker
300
86,7
Technical Staff
44
12,7
Other
2
0,5
The Work Conditions
Dangerous, Dirty, Noisy
170
49,1
OHS is appropriate
79
22,8
OHS is partially
97
28,0
OHS Supervision
Implemented
7
2,0
Not Implemented
165
47,6
No Idea
174
50,2
Job Shadowing
Implemented
12
3,4
Not Implemented
334
96,5
Problems in the Current
Workplace
Yes
214
61,8
No
132
38,2
The Crux of the Problem
Related to Customer
17
6,5
Related to Other Employees
27
10,4
Related to Manager
22
8,5
Related to Workplace
26
10,0
Related to Social Rights
163
63,1
Knowing the Complaint Authority
I knew
84
24,2
I do not know
262
75,7
Complaints to the Official
Authorities
Yes
21
6,0
No
325
93,9
Application Method of Complaint
Personal
13
61,9
Other
8
38,0
Conclusions.
66,4% of the participants have been in Turkey for 3 years
or more.
Findings gained from the study show similar results on
the thoughts of the foreign immigrants about going or staying.
178
Scientific Journal Virtus, September # 46, 2020
When we look into the spatial conception of those who
want to migrate on where to migrate, it is seen that 91,4%
wanted to go back to their countries and 8,5% of them
wanted to go to another country.
Results of the study show that foreign immigrants change
jobs so frequently. Hence, this situation should be
considered together with the reality that foreign immigrants
do not have work permits. However, it is thought that social
and economical reasons arising from labour market and/or
immigrants themselves also have an impact on foreign
immigrants’ frequently changing jobs.
Foreign immigrants who participated in the study mostly
work in the service sector (87,5%); in irregular jobs such as
construction, load carriers and waitering.
Results of the study show that 2/3 of the participants
work for 12 hours a day.
278 of the foreign immigrants who participated in the
study (80,3%) receive their wages daily. When considering
87,5% of the participants work in the service sector, daily
payment of the wages is an expected result.
The rate of those who find their work environment
appropriate in terms of occupational health and safety is 22,8%.
165 people from the participants (47,6%) stated that no
inspections were made in terms of occupational health and
safety, 174 people (50,2%) mentioned they had no
information about the issue. Only 7 people (2,0%) said
inspections were conducted. In fact, the rate of the
participants answering the questions about OHS is quite low.
Besides, when considering almost all the participants consist
of those working in the irregular jobs in the service sector
with daily wages, it is expected that the rate of encountering
OHS inspections would be higher.
Only 12 people (3,4%) from the participants said that
they were given training and information related to the job
they were doing.
214 foreign immigrants participated in the study (61,8%)
mentioned that they encountered quite a few problems in the
work life in Turkey. When looking into the nature of the
problems stated, it can be said that the problems arising from
social rights such as salary, holidays, and health are the most
common. (%63,1) The rate of those who know where to
apply for complaints is 24,2%. Although there were 214
people (61,8%) who mentioned that they had problems in
their work life in Turkey, only 21 participants (6,0%) said
they had their complaints to the official authorities.
Literature
1. Şişman, Y. and Balun, B. (2020). Transit Migration and
Turkey. Anadolu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi
Dergisi, 21 (2).
2. Turkish Grand National Assembly- Human Rights Inquiry
Commission. (2018). Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi İnsan Haklarını
İnceleme Komisyonu Mülteci Hakları Alt Komisyonu Göç ve Uyum
Raporu. 26. Dönem 3. Yasama Yılı, 66-242.
3. Yazıcıoğlu, Y. ve Erdoğan, S. (2004). SPSS Uygulamalı
Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık, 50-88.
4. Yılmaz, A. (2014). International Migration: Its Types, Causes
and Effects. Turkish Studies – International Periodical for The
Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic. 9 (2),
Winter, 1687–1692.
Şişman, Yener
Assoc. Prof. Dr., Anadolu University, ysisman@anadolu.edu.tr Turkey, Eskisehir
Balun, Bora
PhD., balunbora@gmail.com Turkey, Karabuk
YABANCI GÖÇMENLER VE ÇALIŞMA KOŞULLARI: KARABÜK ÖRNEĞI
Gönüllü veya zorunlu nedenlerle ortaya çıkan göç olgusu, geçmişte olduğu gibi günümüzde de doğrudan veya dolaylı
sonuçlarıyla göç alan ve göç veren toplumları sosyo-ekonomik, kültürel ve siyasi yönden etkilemeye devam etmektedir. Göçün
dinamik yapısından kaynaklanan bu etkiler ise göç konusundaki tartışmaları canlı tutmaktadır. Türkiye, düzenli ve düzensiz
göç ile mülteci ve sığınmacı göçlerinin önemli bir güzergâhında yer almakta ve bu özelliği ile göç tartışmalarının sürekliliği
kazandığı ülkeler arasındaki konumunu korumaktadır. Üstelik 2011 yılında Suriye‟den başlayan kitlesel göçlerle birlikte
göçmen sayısı dikkat çekici boyutlara ulaştığından, göçün toplumsal etkilerine dair tartışma alanı daha da genişlemiştir.
Tartışmanın boyutunu genişleten birbirinden farklı gerekçeler sunulmakla birlikte, göçmenlerin çalışma yaşamında ortaya
çıkardığı etkiler tartışmanın önemli bir noktasını oluşturmaktadır.
Göçmenler yararlanılan yardımların yetersiz görülmesi, nüfuslarının kalabalık olması ve yaşamlarını devam ettirme gibi
gerekçelerle işgücü piyasalarına dâhil olmaktadırlar. Fakat gerek çalışma izinlerine yönelik kriterlerin zorluğu, gerekse de
işgücü piyasalarının yapısından kaynaklanan faktörlerle çalışma yaşamına dâhil oldukları alan çoğunlukla kayıtdışı
olmaktadır. Göçmenlerin kayıtdışı çalışma gerçeği ise sosyo-ekonomik haklara erişimde sınırlamalara yol açtığı gibi, işgücü
piyasalarını da etkilemektedir. Bu düşünceyle bağlantılı olarak, göçmenlerin mevcut çalışma koşulları merkeze alınarak sosyal
haklara erişim düzeyleri ile çalışma yaşamını hangi yönde ve nasıl etkiledikleri noktasının incelenebileceği düşünülmüştür. Bu
çerçevede yürütülen çalışma, kolayda örnekleme tekniği ile seçilen ve Karabük ilinde kayıtdışı çalışan uluslararası koruma
altındaki 346 yabancı göçmenle, anket yöntemi kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Verilerin analizinde betimsel istatistik
yöntemleri kullanılmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda yabancı göçmenlerin kayıtdışı çalışmanın olumsuz koşullarından etkilendikleri
gibi işgücü piyasalarını da etkiledikleri tespit edilmiştir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Sığınmacı, Mülteci, Göçmen İşçi, Kayıtdışı Çalışma.
Bu çalışma, Anadolu Üniversitesi Çalışma Ekonomisi ve Endüstri İlişkileri ABD Doktora öğrencisi Bora Balun’un, Doç. Dr. Yener
Şişman’ın danışmanlığında hazırlanıp, kabul edilen Doktora tezinden türetilmiştir.
Bu çalışma, 7-9 Temmuz 2020 tarihlerinde St. Petersburg, Rusya’da düzenlenen XI. IMCOFE (İklim Değişikliği ve Göç) Kongresinde
sunulan yayımlanmış bildiri özetinin genişletilmiş ve gözden geçirilmiş halidir.
