Hungary: EWCO CAR on Working conditions of nationals with a foreign background

Disclaimer: This information is made available as a service to the public but has not been edited or approved by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. The content is the responsibility of the authors.

The following text gives a summary about the working condition of nationals with foreign background in Hungary. Due to the lack of data the focus of the text is rather the ethnic minorities of Hungary than the immigrants or people with immigrant origin. Among the 13 legally recognized ethnic minorities this summary focus on the two largest minority groups: German and Gypsy population. Due to the available data the text contains more details about the different social background and working activities of these groups. The discrimination against Gypsy population is a major point of the analysis as well. On the other hand working time, training and health issues won't be detailed here, due to the lack of necessary data.

As nationals with a foreign background are considered:

(1) Nationals having acquired the nationality, born or not in the country of the acquired nationality, and their descendants. Depending on the history of nationality, following groups in bold are relevant: (example for Belgium):

Native Belgians:

Nationals: Native-born with native-born parent(s) (and grand parents) and having the Belgian nationality

Immigrants

Nationals: Foreign-born and Belgian by naturalisation
Non-nationals: Foreign-born and non-national

Second generation

Nationals: Native-born with foreign born parent(s) and Belgian by birth or by naturalisation
Non-nationals: Native-born with foreign-born parent(s) and non-national

Third generation

Nationals: Native-born with native-born parents and foreign born grandparent(s) and Belgian by birth or by naturalisation
Non-nationals: Native-born with native-born parents and with foreign-born grandparent(s) and non-national

(2) Not only nationals with a foreign background but also nationals with a specific ethnic affiliation (different from the typical of the country) need to be taken into consideration because their outcome on the labour market can also be less positive.

The questionnaire focuses on the following topics:

The availability of statistical sources and studies on the labour market situation and working conditions of nationals with a foreign background.
The current debate in the country on the use of ‘ethnic categorisation’ and measuring immigrant origin or immigration-related ethnicity in statistical sources related to work and employment. See for background information on this issue Simon, 2007.
Mapping of the population of nationals with a foreign background in the country, their employment situation and working conditions.
Overview of the key policies related to the employment situation and working conditions of this group and the role anti-discrimination legislation and complaint procedures, social partners and labour inspectorate play in this regard.

The contributions will be light-edited as “national contributions’ and published independently on the web.

1. Sources of information

1.1 Statistical sources

Are there statistical sources (administrative databases, census, survey’s, other administrative reports by for example labour inspectorate) in your country which cover (1) the employment and/or (2) working conditions of nationals with a foreign background/specific ethnic affiliation?

If no data are available, is the basic information available to construct (some categories of) nationals with a foreign background? If so, which categories for which information?

The only available and ordinary collected data on employment and working conditions of nationals with a foreign background or specific ethnic affiliation are the census data.

This is a census based data. It is gathered at national level. Answering in mandatory for all inhabitant of Hungary, but there is no penalty for not answering. The Hungarian Central Statistical Office (KSH, www.ksh.hu) is responsible for data gathering.

Data are collected for ethnic or national affiliation and the living place at the time of birth. In this way data are available for nationals with a specific ethnic affiliation (different from the typical of the country) and for immigrants (but only on the basis of birthplace; there are no question for the history of nationality). These data are based on self categorization and self report, but in the case of nationals with specific ethnic affiliation there are four questions in the questioner (in the case of the last census in 2001):

'Which of these nationalities do you think you belong to?'
'Which of these nationalities' cultural values and traditions do you feel affinity with?'
'What is mother tongue?'
'In which languages do you speak with family members and friends?'

The interviewee might choose three of

the thirteen recognized ethnic and national minorities, or
the category Hungarian, or
they could mention other nationality.

Answering for the questioner was mandatory in general, but in the cases of ethnic affiliation answering was not mandatory. English language questioner available here: http://www.nepszamlalas.hu/hun/kerdoiv/eng_1.html

Mainly simple frequency data available for these questions free of charge on the internet. Although it is possible to buy any comparative tables for any questions of the above mentioned questioner (this way it is possible to compare answers for any question by different ethnic affiliations or by people with Hungarian or non-Hungarian birthplace).

In the Census database there is no information for second or third generation immigrants.

In methodological point of view apart from the above mentioned problems (four different questions for ethnic affiliation, lack of direct question for the history of nationality), the self identification of ethnic affiliation seems to be problematic as well. It is especially problematic for roma (gypsy) population, where the consensus number among social scientists is 4-6 times higher than the number of respondents who reported themselves as roma or gypsy in the Census. The hindrance of ethnic affiliation also problematic in the cases of legally non-recognized ethnic minorities (those groups of ethnic minorities that living in Hungary for shorter than 100 years such as Turks, Chinese, Vietnamese etc.).

The following data are available for employment and working conditions from the Census (where others not mentioned data for nationals with foreign background are not available for free):

employment status (number of people not employed are available for all ethnic minority)
occupation
number of employees (if any)
number of working hours on a usual week
employer's name, address and main activity
name and locality of workplace, number of persons working at a particular workplace
working in agriculture
occasional or seasonal work
data about job seeking
time and type of transportation of journey to work

Reference link: http://www.nepszamlalas.hu/eng/volumes/volumes.html

Apart from the census data only occasional researches are available mainly about the working conditions and employment of migrants and gypsy population. There are no data about second or third generation migrants and apart from the above mentioned census data nothing is available about the other ethnic minorities. The Labour Force Survey, conducted by the KSH, includes a question for the country of birth, but publicly available data doesn't include data comparing working conditions or employment status of persons with Hungarian and non-Hungarian birthplace.

1.2 Debate on measuring immigration-related ethnicity and labour statistics

What is the current debate in your country on the use of ‘ethnic categorisation’ and measuring nationals with immigrant origin or immigration-related ethnicity in statistical sources related to work and employment?

Employment statistics in Hungary don't contain any information about ethnic affiliation or history of nationality, and no data collected about these information. The policiy hasn't been changed in the last few years. As these kinds of information is not collected, the social partners has no oppinion about this question. Only some scientific research available in this field, especially about roma (gypsy) population and migrants.

2. Population

2.1 Main groups of nationals with a foreign background/specific ethnic affiliation

Which are the main groups in your country? Very briefly summarise the key reasons how these groups ended up in your country? What was the role and place of labour market evolutions and policies in this regard?

The main source of data for nationals with a foreign background is the Office of Immigration and Nationality (BÁH, http://www.bmbah.hu/). Unfortunately the statistics that are publicly available doesn't contain information about the country of previous citizenship in the case of those who gain Hungarian citizenship (this kind of data available for other groups such as asylum seekers, etc.). The total number of those who applied for Hungarian citizenship between 2005 and 2009 varied between nearly 4000 and almost 10,000 per year (in 2009 there was 3917 applicants). The total number of those who gained Hungarian citizenship between 2005 and 2009 varied between about 6000 and about 10 000 per year (in 2009 6027 persons got the Hungarian citizenship – decision on the application usually not in the same year). According to the Clandestino report (Futó, 2008) 'those who obtaining Hungarian citizenship (...) dominated by ethnic Hungarians' (mostly from the neighbour countries. There were two major factors that influenced the immigration of those people who had a citizenship in a neighbour country but whose ethnic affiliation was Hungarian. The first reason was that they were seeking better living standards, and after the transition the general living standard was higher in Hungary than in the neighbour countries (except for Austria). The other important reason was that the state or self-government services were and are available only a certain level in the neighbour countries for a Hungarian speaker, and it was a disadvantage for those of Hungarian mother tongue (especially in the case of education). The role of labour market was only secondary comparing to the above mentioned general factors (much more important in the case of undocumented migration).

As for the groups with specific ethnic affiliation the Hungarian legislation recognizes 13 ethnic minorities (that have special additional rights, such as electing minority self-governments, keeping up schools, etc.). The size and history of these recognized ethnic minority groups vary. Only the size of the two largest ethnic minority groups reach the 0,2% of the total population of Hungary (on the basis of non mandatory self-report). The largest ethnic minority group is the Roma (Gypsy) population; the second largest is the German (mainly Schwab) population.

The arrival of Roma (Gypsy) groups to Hungary was a long term and continuous process since the 15^th century until recent days. The role of labour market (or maybe better to say the economic niche) was one of the most important factors of this immigration. Roma (Gypsy) population usually occupied those economic niches that the majority didn't want to or legally weren't able to occupy. Other important factors were the attacks and legal constrains against gypsies in other countries and nomadic (or in the cultural anthropological literature: peripatetic) cultural background.

The arrival of German population was as long or longer process than arrival of Roma people. This process has begun parallel with the founding of the Hungarian Kingdom (in the beginning of the 11^th century) and ended in the end of the 19^th century. Apart from political goals of germanization (by the Habsburg rulers) the labour market was an important factor in this long immigration process. Most of the ancestors of recent German ethnic minority were agricultural workers who came to Hungary (in the 13^th century after the invasion of Tatars and in the 16^th century after 150 years rule of Ottoman Empire) to the villages that were ruined by war periods.

2.2 Demographic data (including recent trends in the 2000-2010 period)

For the different groups described:

Total number by gender, age, background country/origin, history of nationality (national by naturalisation of by birth? Immigrants vs. second generation,…), education level. As a reference, please provide the same relevant information for other groups (nationals with a non-foreign background, non-nationals/foreigners)
As a percentage of total population by gender, age, background country/origin, history of nationality (national by naturalisation of by birth? immigrants vs. second generation, …), education level.

As it is mentioned above, detailed data available only for groups with specific ethnic affiliation. The following tables contain the main and available demographic data for 5 largest of the 13 legally recognized ethnic minority groups based on the last available census (2001). Further data will be available in the end of 2011 or in 2012.

**Table 1 Population of five largest ethnic minority groups in Hungary (Census KSH, 2001)**
.Ethnicity	N				% of Hungarian citizens
.Ethnicity	Nationality	Affiliation	Mother tongue	Language usage	Nationality	Affiliation	Mother tongue	Language usage

Romany (Gypsy)	190 046	129 259	48 685	53 323	1,86%	1,27%	0,48%	0,52%

German (Schwab)	62 233	88 416	33 792	53 040	0,61%	0,87%	0,33%	0,52%
Slovakian (Tót)	17 693	26 631	11 817	18 057	0,17%	0,26%	0,12%	0,18%
Croatian (Horvát)	15 620	19 715	14 345	14 788	0,15%	0,19%	0,14%	0,15%
Romanian	7 995	9 162	8 482	8 215	0,08%	0,09%	0,08%	0,08%

**Table 2 Changes in population of the five largest ethnic minority groups between 1960-2001 (Census, KSH)**
.Ethnicity	N				% of Hungarian citizens
.Ethnicity	1960	1980	1990	2001	1960	1980	1990	2001
Romani (Gypsy)	56 121	6 404	142 683	189 984	0,56%	0,06%	1,33%	1,83%
German (Schwab)	8 640	11 310	30 824	62 105	0,09%	0,11%	0,29%	0,60%
Slovakian (Tót)	14 340	9 101	10 459	17 693	0,14%	0,09%	0,10%	0,17%
Croatian (Horvát)	14 710	13 895	13 570	15 597	0,15%	0,13%	0,13%	0,15%
Romanian	12 326	8 874	10 740	7 995	0,12%	0,09%	0,10%	0,08%

**Table 3 Changes in Romani (Gypsy) population of Hungary (based on estimations from representative samples, Kemény, 2005)**
	1971	1993	2003
Total number	320 000 (270 000 – 370 000)	468 000 (420 000 – 520 000)	570 000 (520 000 – 650 000)
% of Hungarian citizens	3,09%	4,52%	5,62%

	Under primary school	Primary school	Secondary school	Higher education	Total	% of Hungarian citizens of similar age
7-14	34549	394	0	0	34943	n.a.
15-24	12542	22074	4354	51	39021	2,64%
25-44	20288	35931	7533	469	64221	2,29%
45-59	11631	8392	1543	237	21803	1,02%
60-74	6807	1296	88	62	8253	0,56%
75-	1251	139	14	13	1417	0,23%
Total	87068	68226	13532	832	169658	1,79%
% of Hungarian citizens with similar level of education	4,59%	2,34%	0,36%	0,09%	1,79%	-

**Table 4b Demographic data of the two largest ethnic minority groups (age of 7 or older)**
Ungarndeutsche (German) minority
	Under primary school	Primary school	Secondary school	Higher education	Total	% of Hungarian citizens of similar age
7-14	7076	387	0	0	7463	n.a.
15-24	167	5324	7783	811	14085	0,95%
25-44	97	3296	19115	9055	31563	1,13%
45-59	288	7227	15383	7035	29933	1,40%
60-74	5288	11575	3638	2787	23288	1,59%
75-	7057	2255	1031	857	11200	1,81%
Total	19973	30064	46950	20545	117532	1,24%
% of Hungarian citizens with similar level of education	1,05%	1,03%	1,25%	2,20%	1,24%	-

Are there particular reasons for recent trends (recent growth or increase) in the group of nationals with a foreign background (change in law on becoming a country national? / external events?).

The changes in the official data since 1960 could be understand on the basis of the attitude of the state toward ethnic minority groups. As it is seen (Table 2), three of the five major ethnic minority there were no significant changes in the last decades (Slovakian, Croatian, Romanian minorities). On the other hand there is a huge fluctuation in the numbers in the cases of German and Romani populations. This significant fluctuation is due to the repression of these two minorities during the communist era.

In the case of Romani minority there is a longitudinal data based on representative sample of the same methodology (Table 3). This data may give a more realistic picture of changes in the Romani population (although some critics exist toward the methodology used for these researches). In the background of the permanent growth of both absolute and relative size of Romani population the main factor is the higher reproduction rate (mainly based on cultural factors).

2.3 Active population (including recent trends in the 2000-2010 period)

For the different groups described:

Total number by gender, age, history of nationality (national by naturalisation of by birth? Immigrants vs. second generation,…), , origin/background country, education level). As a reference, please provide the same relevant information for other groups (nationals with a non-foreign background, non-nationals/foreigners)
As a percentage of the total (sub)population between 15 and 64 (activity rate) by gender, age, history of nationality (national by naturalisation of by birth? Immigrants vs. second generation,…), origin/background country, education level. As a reference, please provide the same indicators for other groups (nationals with a non-foreign background, non-nationals/foreigners)

Data for active population is available only for groups with specific ethnic background and only for gender and age distribution. The next two tables show the data of the two major ethnic minority groups of Hungary.

**Table 5a Age and sex distribution of the active population of the two major ethnic minority groups (Census KSH, 2001)**
Romani (Gypsy) minority
	15–19	20–24	25–29	30–34	35–39	40–44	45–49	50–54	55-59	60-64	65-69	70-74	75--	Total	% of similar Hungarian population
Men	2542	5936	6133	5167	4538	3674	2339	1153	323	51	19	5	26	31906	1,59%
Women	1299	2220	2075	2187	2364	2209	1367	636	109	18	12	5	8	14509	0,86%
Total	3841	8156	8208	7354	6902	5883	3706	1789	432	69	31	10	34	46415	1,26%
% of similar Hungarian population	6,90%	1,96%	1,58%	1,52%	1,57%	1,14%	0,64%	0,41%	0,23%	0,20%	0,24%	0,18%	0,66%	1,26%

**Table 5b Age and sex distribution of the active population of the two major ethnic minority groups (Census KSH, 2001)**
Ungarndeutsche (German) minority
	15–19	20–24	25–29	30–34	35–39	40–44	45–49	50–54	55-59	60-64	65-69	70-74	75--	Total	% of similar Hungarian population
Men	247	1803	2779	3166	3169	3963	4701	3572	2313	496	211	100	69	26589	1,33%
Women	139	1761	2372	2335	2773	3843	4370	2983	816	207	79	31	39	21748	1,29%
Total	386	3564	5151	5501	5942	7806	9071	6555	3129	703	290	131	108	48337	1,31%
% of similar Hungarian population	0,69%	0,86%	0,99%	1,13%	1,35%	1,52%	1,56%	1,51%	1,67%	1,99%	2,27%	2,35%	2,10%	1,31%

3. Employment situation

3.1 Labour market participation

If available, present briefly commented statistics on:

Specific rates of labour market participation: employment rate , unemployment rate, level of long-term unemployed (more than 12 months) (by gender, age, history of nationality (national by naturalisation of by birth? Immigrants vs. second generation,…), origin/background country , education level). As a reference, please provide the same indicators for other groups (nationals with a non-foreign background, non-nationals)
Do the abovementioned indicators vary significantly according with the history of nationality (for instance, second generation compared with immigrants first generation) or for some ethnic affiliated groups? If such variations exist, which are the reasons put forward to explain them?
Do the abovementioned indicators vary significantly according with the country background (for instance, a certain nationality or national background is significantly more or less represented in unemployment?) If such variations exist, which are the reasons put forward to explain them?

Data available only for groups with specific ethnic affiliation and there is no data for long term unemployment rate.

**Table 6a Employment, unemployment and inactivity in the two major ethnic minority and the majority by sex and age-groups (Census, KSH, 2001)**
Romani (Gypsy) minority
	Men	Women	-14	15-29	30-44	45-59	60--	Total
Persons in employment	14839 (14,21%)	7340 (7,24%)	--	9006 (15,53%)	9866 (21,8%)	3230 (14,81%)	77 (0,80%)	22179 (10,78%)
Unemployed	17067 (16,35%)	7169 (7,08%)	--	11199 (19,32%)	10273 (22,69%)	2697 (12,37%)	67 (0,69%)	24236 (11,78%)
Economically inactive population	72496 (69,44%)	86809 (85,68%)	71005 (100%)	37770 (65,15%)	25128 (55,51%)	15876 (72,82%)	9526 (98,51%)	159305 (77,44%)

**Table 6b Employment, unemployment and inactivity in the two major ethnic minority and the majority by sex and age-groups (Census, KSH, 2001)**
Ungarndeutsche (German) minority
	Men	Women	-14	15-29	30-44	45-59	60--	Total
Persons in employment	26589 (%)	21748 (%)	--	9101 (42,58%)	19249 (79,3%)	18755 (62,66%)	1232 (3,57%)	48337 (40,17%)
Unemployed	1762 (%)	1345 (%)	--	978 (4,58%)	1124 (4,63%)	961 (3,21%)	44 (0,13%)	3107 (2,58%)
Economically inactive population	28567 (%)	40333 (%)	5267 (100%)	11296 (52,84%)	3900 (16,07%)	10217 (34,13%)	33212 (96,3%)	68900 (57,25%)

**Table 6c Employment, unemployment and inactivity in the two major ethnic minority and the majority by sex and age-groups (Census, KSH, 2001)**
Hungarian majority
	Men	Women	-14	15-29	30-44	45-59	60--	Total
Persons in employment	1 888 512 (41,38%)	1 596 531 (31,53%)	--	931 862 (43,89%)	1 357 070 (71,66%)	1139 543 (56,12%)	56 568 (2,81%)	3 485 043 (36,2%)
Unemployed	241 058 (5,28%)	151 494 (2,99%)	--	156 010 (7,35%)	144 380 (7,62%)	89 482 (4,41%)	2680 (0,13%)	392 552 (4,08%)
Economically inactive population	2 434 690 (53,34%)	3 314 772 (65,48%)	1 567 225 (100%)	1 035 533 (48,76%)	392 226 (20,71%)	801 618 (39,48%)	1 952 860 (97,06%)	5 749 462 (59,72%)

3.2 Sectoral or occupational statistics

If available, present briefly commented statistics or study results on:

Are nationals with a foreign background/specific ethnic affiliation over- or under-represented in specific sectors or occupations? If so, specify which sectors and occupations. Please distinguish whenever relevant or possible between men and women.
If so, what are the possible reasons of such over- or under-representation? What is the role of segregation and discrimination? Please distinguish whenever relevant or possible between men and women.
Does the presence in the different sectors or occupations vary significantly according to the history of nationality (national by naturalisation of by birth? Immigrants vs. second generation, …) or for some ethnic affiliated groups? If such variations exist, which are the reasons put forward to explain them?
Does the presence in the different sectors or occupations vary significantly according to the country background or ethnic origin)? If such variations exist, which are the reasons put forward to explain them?

Data are available only for groups with specific ethnic affiliation. As it is seen before, the status of the German and Gypsy minorities are on the opposite end of the Hungarian society. Table 7 shows that in occupations with higher prestige and higher salary German minority is over represented on the other hand in occupations with low prestige and salary Gypsy minority is over represented.

**Table 7 Two largest ethnic minority groups and majority in employment by major groups occupations and sex (% of employee of given group) (Census, KSH, 2001)**
	Romany (Gypsy)			Ungarndeutsche (German)			Hungarian
	Total	Men	Women	Total	Men	Women	Total	Men	Women
Legislators, senior government officials, leaders of interest groups and managers of firms	2,12%	2,25%	1,87%	13,63%	16,68%	9,90%	8,11%	9,46%	6,51%
Professionals	2,47%	2,03%	3,35%	19,80%	15,59%	24,95%	12,37%	9,57%	15,67%
Technicians and associate professionals	4,75%	3,44%	7,40%	16,61%	11,26%	23,16%	14,68%	8,88%	21,55%
Office and management (customer service) clerks	0,99%	0,26%	2,47%	5,20%	0,72%	10,68%	5,67%	0,68%	11,58%
Services workers	11,83%	11,45%	12,59%	12,44%	11,24%	13,91%	15,65%	13,67%	17,99%
Skilled agricultural and forestry workers	6,42%	8,09%	3,04%	2,47%	3,40%	1,33%	3,18%	4,38%	1,75%
Craft and related trades workers	23,54%	26,54%	17,48%	17,59%	26,87%	6,24%	20,22%	30,36%	8,23%
Plant and machine operators and assemblers	16,22%	15,15%	18,39%	7,24%	9,92%	3,96%	11,38%	14,99%	7,11%
Elementary occupations	30,97%	29,85%	33,23%	3,91%	2,63%	5,48%	6,88%	5,17%	8,90%
Armed forces	0,69%	0,93%	0,19%	1,11%	1,70%	0,39%	1,86%	2,84%	0,71%

Three major factors may stand in the background of these significant differences. First and most important factor is the difference in the education: among Gypsies the proportion of undereducated persons much higher than the average while among German it is just the opposite. The second factor maybe the place of living: while Gypsy population over represented in small villages and economically lagged behind regions, German minority is mostly living in cities and economically improved regions. The last but not least factor is the prejudice and discrimination: while members of Gypsy minority face with discrimination of majority on daily basis (see more later), researches show that stereotypes of majority about German minority are even more positive than about themselves.

Gender differences are significant among all the three groups, but among the members of the two largest minority groups these differences seemed to be smaller than in the case of majority. Cultural differences may explain this phenomenon.

3.3 Employment status

If available, present briefly commented statistics or study results on:

Employment status: self-employed with employees, self-employed without employees, employee (men, women). As a reference, please provide the same indicators for other groups (nationals with a non-foreign background, non-nationals/foreigners).
Type of contract: open-ended, fixed-term, temporary agency work (men, women). As a reference, please provide the same indicators for other groups (nationals with a non-foreign background, non-nationals/foreigners).
Working time regime: full-time, part-time, (men, women). As a reference, please provide the same indicators for other groups (nationals with a non-foreign background, non-nationals/foreigners).
Do the abovementioned indicators vary significantly according to the history of nationality (national by naturalisation of by birth? Immigrants vs. second generation, …) or for some ethnic affiliated groups. If such variations exist, which are the reasons put forward to explain them?

No data or study available for Hungary.

3.4 Possible determinants

If employment inequalities and labour market disadvantages exist for the groups considered, which determinants are considered in recent studies and reports as key in your country to explain these positions? The following list of barriers can be of help in this regard, please tick off if relevant.

✗ No major inequalities:

✗ Lack of education and training

□ Lack of language skills

□ Lack of recognition of skills and qualifications

□ Lack of access to professions

✗ Lack of integration policies

✗ Stereotypes, prejudices and negative attitudes

□ Disincentives through welfare systems

✗ Discrimination

□ Lack of information/network

✗ Labour market competition

✗ Undeclared work

□ Other: please specify

Describe very briefly the main result/topic and give references and other useful links.

4. Working conditions

If available and where possible, present briefly commented statistics or key study results for your country on the position of nationals with a foreign background/specific ethnic affiliation:

4.1 Training, skills and employability

Level of education and occupational position: over-qualification and under-qualification (including recent trends in the 2000-2010 period)
Participation in training and possibilities for competence development; Is the access to and quality of training or other possibilities of competence development (such as apprenticeship) of nationals with a foreign background/specific ethnic affiliation equivalent to that of other population groups (nationals not with a foreign background, non-nationals/foreigners)

No data available.

4.2 Working hours

Working hours, compared with other groups : (nationals not with a foreign background, non-nationals/foreigners)

average hours usually worked per week, including overtime;

overtime;

diffusion of work at unsocial hours (night, weekend);

diffusion of shift work;

No data or study available for Hungary.

4.3 Health & safety

Exposure to risks and accidents at work; Are the groups considered over-represented in sectors/occupations with higher risks?

Possible studies or statistics on differences in physical working conditions (vibration, noise, high/low temperatures etc.) or psycho-social well-being between the group(s) of nationals with a foreign background/specific ethnic affiliation compared to other groups in employment.

Health outcomes, work-related health problems and occupational illnesses

No data or study available for Hungary.

5. Policies of workplace promotion and combating discrimination

5.1 Anti-discrimination rules in practice: the field of work

If available, provide commented statistics in relation to the anti-discrimination procedures of your country, namely:

the number of work-related complaints by nationals with a foreign background/specific ethnic affiliation received and identified as discriminatory by the competent institutions;
number of these complaints resulting in legal action.
percentage of these complaints resulting in sanctions.

Please provide, if possible, a recent notable example of the latter (work-related complaint resulting in sanction).

In the cases of perceived discrimination procedures can be initiated at the Parliamentary Commissioner for Ethnic and National Minority Rights (Ombudsman), the Labour courts and the Equal Treatment Authority (EBH). Data about initiated procedures are available only for the Equal Treatment Authority and the Ombudsman.

On the basis of the Annual Report of the Ombudsman (Report

ON THE ACTIVITY OF THE

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR

THE RIGHTS OF NATIONAL AND ETHNIC

MINORITIES, 2009) the total number of cases was 1012 in 2009 from which 32 related to employment issues (most cases related to welfare system). Unfortunately this data are not available by ethnic affiliation, but the distribution of the total cases shows that the proportion of Gypsies over 60% according to minorities concerned, while second largest group of cases connected to German minority with less than 2%. The Ombudsman in Hungary has no right to do legal action, in most of the cases the result of investigation was information transfer.

On the basis of the Annual Report of the EBH (Annual report on the activities of the Equal Treatment Authority in 2009) the total number of submissions was 1087 in 2009 of which 47,8% were related to employment issues. Among the employment related submissions only 9,5% were related to affiliation to ethnic minority.

Maybe a more proper picture can be seen on the basis of a sociological research. In the questioner of Labour Force Survey in 2007 there was a block about perceived work related discrimination (Társadalmi jellemzők, 2007). Data show that among members of the 19-64 age group 16,1 % faced with discrimination. On the basis of the distribution of the background of discrimination about 122 thousand people faced with ethnic discrimination during hiring process and about 58 thousand people faced with ethnic discrimination during firing process.

5.2 Public policies

Please indicate whether there are in your country specific public policies to tackle the employment inequalities or to foster workplace promotion of the nationals with a foreign background/specific ethnic affiliation and specifically

Improving of the working conditions or health & safety
Enhancing access to quality jobs
Enhancing progression and well-being in the workplace
Addressing the issues of quality of employment and precarious job
Addressing the lack of skills, in particular language problems
Tackling discrimination in recruitment
Promoting diversity in the workplace

Public policy exists only toward Gypsy population, but these initiatives usually not address directly gypsy population rather people with multiply disadvantaged groups, or long time unemployed people, or people with low level of education, etc. (but in the public policy these initiatives are called as Roma programs while the majority of the possible clients of these programs are not belonging to the Roma minority). Those initiatives that address the Gypsy population directly are not connected to work related issues (typical programs: abolishing the segregated living places (Gypsy settles), reducing segregation in public schools, etc.).

Only one long-term work related initiative could be found, called 'Roma Enterprise Development Program' (Annual Report 2008). The goal of this program is to enhance micro- and small enterprises with Gypsy owner, and also to enable these enterprises to employ more Gypsy employee. Unfortunately only output data are available about this initiative. These data show that between the begging of the program (2003) and 2008 476 enterprises got 1488 million Ft (about 6 million Euro) support. The total value of the development in this program until 2008 was 2933,5 million Ft (about 12 million Euro) including the own found of the enterprises. Unfortunately no data exist about the number of employed Gypsy people in the above mentioned initiative.

5.3. Role of the social partners

Please indicate the (most) important actual roles and real contributions social partners (employers’ organisations and trade unions at national, sector, or regional level) play in regard to the complaints procedures of point 5.1. and the policies of point 5.2

Nationals with foreign background or specific ethnic affiliation are not an important issue for the social partners in Hungary.

5.4. Role of the labour inspectorate

Please indicate whether and how the labour inspectorate plays an actual role in especially the monitoring and the control of the anti-discrimination laws.

Due to the Act CXXV of 2003 on Equal Treatment and the Promotion of Equal Opportunities instead of Labour Inspectorate the Equal Treatment Authority (EBH) control monitors the anti-discrimination law (statistics see above). The EBH is an independent organization, which was set up by the Hungarian Government to receive and deal with individual and public complaints about unequal treatment and to implement the principles of equality and non discrimination. The Authority works under the direction of the minister respondent for social affairs; however neither the government nor the Ministry may instruct the Authority when it performs its tasks under the Equal Treatment Act. This provision intends to guarantee the Authority’s independence from the Government.

Commentary by the NC

Please provide your own comments on:

how clear the current statistical picture is on the employment and working conditions of nationals with a foreign background in your country and if the possible lack is a big problem or not.

the success or not of the current policies in your country to promote the working conditions, combat employment inequalities or prevent discrimination at the workplace of nationals with a foreign background/specific ethnic affiliation.

In Hungary the number of first, second or third generation immigrants is quite small and high proportion of these citizens are ethnic Hungarians born and migrated from neighbour countries in the first decade after the transition. Due to this characteristics they don't have as many problems as if they were not ethnic Hungarian. This might be the reason for not collecting data in Hungary about immigrants with Hungarian citizenship.

On the other hand the total proportion of people with non-Hungarian ethnic background is estimated one-tenth. Most of ethnic minorities of Hungary are mostly assimilated, their mother-tongue usually Hungarian, their customs are very similar to the customs of the majority and they don't suffer from discriminations. On the contrary the largest minority, the gypsies are target of continuous and serious discriminations. While legal frame for anti-discrimination is given and fulfil all EU criteria, the enforcement of the law is very weak.

REFERENCES

'2008. évi jelentés a mikro-, kis- és középvállalkozások részére meghirdetett kötött célú állami támogatásokról és -a vállalkozók pénzügyi forrásokhoz való hozzájutását segítő- államilag támogatott- finanszírozó eszközökről'. (Annual Report of the State Aids for Micro-, Small- and Medium-enterprises and State-supported Financing Instruments for Entrepreneurs Enhancing Access to Financial Resources in 2008) Ministry of Economy, 2009. Internet: http://www.ngm.gov.hu/data/cms1983996/monitoring_kkv_2008.pdf
'Annual report on the activities of the Equal Treatment Authority in 2009' Equal Treatment Authority, 2009 Internet: http://www.egyenlobanasmod.hu/data/EBH_angol09.pdf
Futó, Péter (2008): Undocumented migration. Counting the Uncountable. Country report – Hungary - Country report CLANDESTINO Project, European Comission, 2008 Internet: http://clandestino.eliamep.gr/category/irregular-migration-in-the-eu/country-reports/
Kemény, István (2005) (ed.): Roma of Hungary. Social Science Monographs, Boulder, Colorado, Atlantic Research and Publications, Inc., Highland Lakes, New Jersey, Distributed by Columbia University Press, New York, 2005
'Report
ON THE ACTIVITY OF THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR THE RIGHTS OF NATIONAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES, 2009'
Office of the Parliamentary Commissioners
, 2009 Internet: http://www.kisebbsegiombudsman.hu/hir-554-2009-annual-report.html
'Társadalmi jellemzők és ellátórendszerek, 2007' (Social characteristics and social care system) Központi Statisztikai Hivatal, 2008
Internet: http://mek.oszk.hu/06800/06881/ (Hungarian Electronic Library)

Csókay Ákos, Simon Dávid, Solution4.org

Page last updated: 28 July, 2011

^Back to top of page

About this document

ID: HU1012011Q
Author: Csókay Ákos, Simon Dávid
Institution: Solution4.org
Country: Hungary
Language: EN
Publication date: 28-07-2011