Romanian Labour Migration: Employees Perspective

Authors: Cristina Boboc*, Valentina Vasile, Simona Ghi, Mihaela Covrig

* Corresponding author: cristina.boboc@csie.ase.ro

Main goals
representing the profile of the employees who have a favorable opinion about external emigration for work identifying the most reliable ways of migration for the employees identifying the characteristics of employees who are in favor of emigration for work for better earnings

Methodology
Survey on SME employees from urban areas of the country The survey was conducted with the support of the Romanian Institute of Public Opinion Survey (IRSOP Market Research & Consulting) The survey had three main directions according to the major weaknesses of the Romanian labor market: the respondents opinion on discrimination, migration and undeclared work.

Data set description

Interviews were conducted by telephone in early June of 2012 by IRSOP operators The duration for completing the questionnaire was about 15-20 minutes The questionnaire had 33 questions The sample size was set to 500 employees

Data set description

The first part of the questionnaire included questions for respondents selection the employees of private companies, non-agricultural, having between 1 and 249 employees The sample structure: by SME size:

21.6% employed in micro-enterprises 24.7% employed in small enterprises 53.7% employed in medium enterprises 27.06% - in industry, 8.63% - in constructions 22.35% - in trade 5.49 % - in transport 36.47% - in other services.

by the activity domain of the SME:

Data set description

The next part of the questionnaire includes general questions about the employee's activity and their work.
These questions are useful to identify the profile of various categories of employees, based on their perception regarding the vulnerabilities on the labor market.

The next section of the questionnaire includes specific questions to the study, namely the respondents opinion on discrimination, migration and illegal employment.

Since all these issues are sensitive, by making the respondent to hesitate in giving the true answer, we opted for general formulations, often without direct reference to the interviewee.

The last section of the questionnaire includes sociodemographic questions.

These will be used for studying the profile of the employees with an attitude about discrimination, informal work or emigration.

Empirical results
How much trust do you have in these ways of searching for a job (none / low / high)?
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% International DB National Agency for Employment Private agents Relatives/friends Job search in destination country 31 27 14 3 Posted w orkers 55 42 62 23 40 38 71 29 78 9 28

24

52 28

None

Low

High

Ways to migrate for work

Empirical results

72% of employees do not seen migration as a positive solution

11% of those interested to go to work abroad consider that it is not a good solution, because it may cause family problems. Profile of those interested to work abroad: from the western part of the country, males, young people, without high educational levels, with low experience at work, not members of trade unions Ways to migrate for work:
Confidence in the international databases: employees working in services or industry Trust in private agents: employees with higher education Confidence especially in relatives/friends or acquaintances: very young workers (under 30 years) Confidence in emigration by relocation: female employees in medium companies in Bucharest, activating in industry or transport

Empirical results
Results obtained by applying binary logistic regression
Potential migrant for work Coef. There have been layoffs, wage or non-wage benefit cuts Female gender Male gender 1 year work experience 2 years work experience 3-5 years work experience 6-10 years work experience over 11 years work experience Trade union member Constant Hosmer-Lomeshow Test (2) R2 Cox&Snell R Nagelkerke Percentage correct
2

Statements regarding justifying the emigration for work Coef. Exp (coef.) 4 -0.881*** 0.415 Ref

Exp (coef.) 0.607 0.387 Ref

-0.499** -0.950***

1.306*** 1.069*** 0.883*** 0.560*

3.690 2.914 2.419 1.751 Ref -0.769*** Ref 0.464 0.620

-1.338*** 2=6.398, Sig=0.603 0.068 0.105 78.6%

0.262

-0.478*** 2=0.035, Sig=0.983 0.047 0.067 71.8%

Policies to reduce migration

stimulating entrepreneurship could be a solution for keeping young people in the local economy encouraging investments in the local economy: business development would produce local development in a sustainable manner, which would lead to maintaining the employees in the local economy. organizing workers in unions attract specialists in Romania through: stimulating business by financial aid for starting a new project, stimulating young people in starting a business, stimulating innovation, research development