mapping of employment opportunities for internally ... and reports... · vranje. a smaller...

MAPPING OF EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES

FOR INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS

Serbia

Analysis of situation in Kragujevac, Kraljevo and Vranje

MAPPING OF EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS

Analysis of situation in Kragujevac, Kraljevo and Vranje

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is the UN’s global development network, advocating for change

and connecting countries to knowledge, experience and resources to help people build a better life. We are on the ground

in 166 countries, working with them on their own solutions to global and national development challenges. As they

develop local capacity, they draw on the people of UNDP and our wide range of partners.

Short extracts from this publication may be reproduced unaltered without authorisation, on condition

that the source is indicated.

The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of UNDP.

MAPPING OF EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR INTERNALLY

DISPLACED PERSONS

ANALYSIS OF SITUATION IN KRAGUJEVAC,

KRALJEVO AND VRANJE

Belgrade, August 2009.

SUMMARY

1. INTRODUCTION1.1 Research objectives and basic elements of this Study1.2 Characteristics of IDPs in Serbia, in selected cities, and support system

General characteristics of IDPs in Serbia IDPs in Kraljevo, Kragujevac and Vranje Institutional support networks for IDPs in local communities: Kraljevo, Vranje and Kragujevac

1.3 Characteristics of the relevant socioeconomic context in Kragujevac, Kraljevo and Vranje – the most important socioeconomic trends

2. CHARACTERISTICS OF Internally Displaced Persons’ LABOR FORCE SUPPLY2.1. Position of IDPs in the labor market

2.1.1. Characteristics of employment of IDPs2.1.2. Characteristics of unemployment of IDPs

2.2. Charactetistics of labor supply of IDPs2.2.1. Education and qualifi cation of labor force supply2.2.2. Job seeking patterns2.2.3. Experiences with active employment measures2.2.4. Work readiness and expectations from employment

3. Characteristics of labor force demand in the local labor markets3.1. Successfulness of company’s business3.2. Potential for employment of workers3.3. Practices of employment and human resources management

4. Structure and functionality of local support networks

5. (Lack of) harmonization between the labor force demanDs in the local labor markets and the labor force supply of Internally Displaced Persons

6. Recommendations

Annex 1. MethodologyAnnex 2: Tables and chartsAnnex 3: NES employment incentive measuresAnnex 4: Questionnaire for research on the position of Internally Displaced Persons in the labor market Annex 5: Questionnaire for research on the labor force demand

REFERENCES

7

1719

2121

24

26

3336

3948

49

50

53

55

61

67

7072

77

91

107113

121

127

145

30

85

101

159

7

SUMMARY1.

8

Mapping of employment opportunities for Internally Displaced Persons

9

The Study Mapping of employment opportunities of Internally Displaced

Persons was developed by the non-governmental research organization

SeConS, and it was supported by the United nations Development Program

(UNDP) . The research that served as the basis for this Study was targeted at

examining the current conditions and employment opportunities of IDPs in

three cities: Kragujevac, Kraljevo and Vranje.

The most important objectives of this research were:

to get a precise and systematic insight into employment opportuni-

ties of IDPs in the local labor markets;

to research availability, importance and eff ects of active employ-

ment measures of the local branches of NES from the perspective of

employment of IDPs;

to examine the functional connections between the relevant stake-

holders in the institutional system of support to employment of

IDPs in the local communities of these three cities;

to defi ne, based on insight acquired and analysis of situation,

recommendations of measures targeted at improving the employ-

ability of IDPs.

The research was grounded in a complex methodology that combined quan-

titative and qualitative methods of research within three components:

1. Research on labor force supply of IDPs (on a sample of 600

households);

2. Research on labor force demand in the local labor markets (on a

sample of 150 companies);

3. Research on local networks of support to employment of IDPs (fo-

cus group discussions with representatives of relevant local institu-

tions and organizations);

10


When it comes to presence of IDPs in local population, the situation varies

in the three cities included in this research: they are most present in Kralje-

vo with 16.5%, then in Kragujevac with 7.5% and in Vranje with 7% (SORS,

Municipalities in Serbia, 2008). The majority of households from the sample

moved from Kosovo to Serbia in 1999.

The research on position of IDPs was highly focused on their labor status,

roles, practice and experience, but some more general problems relevant

for positioning in the labor sphere were also examined. It turned out that

the housing situation of IDPs was least favorable in Vranje, and that in a

signifi cant number of cases there was the problem of lacking documents

necessary not only to regulate one’s position in the labor sphere, but also to

access institutions and services in the local community. In addition, there is

a perception of social distance in relation to the domestic population, which

is most pronounced exactly when it comes to relations established in the

domain of labor and economic activities.

Socioeconomic trends in cities included in this research are unfavorable, in-

dicating diffi cult employment opportunities in general, and especially for

marginalized social groups that include IDPs. In all three cities, the level of

people’s income1 is lower than the Serbian average, and there are lower em-

ployment rates and higher unemployment rates in comparison to the Ser-

bian level. In the past two years, there were countless layoff s, while the scope

of newly created jobs couldn’t even remotely compensate for the number

of lost jobs in the economic restructuring processes. Kragujevac is especially

prominent in this regard. However, both in Kragujevac and in Vranje it is pos-

sible to notice a signifi cant trend of increase of entrepreneurs’ participation

in the local economy structure.

The research implemented on the IDP population has confi rmed the fi ndings

on extreme deterioration of position in the labor market after the displace-

ment of this population in Serbia, with only a mild recovery of the labor

engagement in the past ten years, which has never reached the level from

the period before the displacement. Activity and employment rates of IDPs

1 Newly created value in a year, obtained by extracting the amortization

from the social product.

11

Summary

are signifi cantly lower, while the unemployment rate is signifi cantly higher in

comparison to rates of general population of working age in Serbia.

Characteristics of employment of displaced persons indicate certain specifi ci-

ties: entrepreneurship and registered self-employment are relatively poorly

present in this population, the majority of employees work for employers,

while the share of informal forms of work is signifi cant, especially in the self-

employed group. The structure of employed IDPs in enterprises and institu-

tions varies signifi cantly from the employment structure in the local labor

markets, mostly in the aspect of considerably higher employment in the

sectors of public administration and social services, and substantially lower

employment in the industrial sector.

The research includes persons that are still registered as formally employed and

receive benefi ts for IDPs – persons who were employed in institutions/organiza-

tions on the territory of Kosovo and Metohija. In Kraljevo, more than 40% of per-

sons from this group are working informally, in Kragujevac there is around 30%

of this kind of people, while employment of these persons was not registered in

Vranje. A smaller percentage of persons from this group are seeking jobs (9% in

Kraljevo, 14% in Kragujevac and 19% in Vranje) while the others are inactive.

Characteristics of unemployment of IDPs are extremely unfavorable: long-term

unemployment is dominant (at the level of around 90% of unemployed), and

there is a high participation of persons without working experience, mostly the

young, whose chances to get their fi rst employment are extremely low.

In the labor supply of IDPs, alongside with the unemployed, there are informally

employed, a certain number of employed who would like to change employ-

ment, as well as students and pupils who are hired for temporary jobs. In the

whole sample, 1/4 of persons of working age (15-64 yrs) are active jobseekers.

According to educational qualifi cation, most of them are qualifi ed production

workers of various profi les, white-collar workers and technicians. One half of the

job seeking examinees underwent additional forms of education, mostly courses

and trainings that issue the appropriate certifi cates.

Research results indicate that the examinees use mostly proactive methods

to seek jobs: they address the local branch of NES or the informal networks

12


of friends, acquaintances and relatives, they directly go to employers, or they

read and respond to job ads in the papers or on the Internet. Addressing the

private employment agencies is relatively rare.

The share of those who are actually trying to initiate an independent busi-

ness is pretty low, and the majority of the examinees seek to work for an em-

ployer. Among the jobseekers, 71% are registered in the records of NES. The

jobseekers are generally well informed about the existing active employment

programs of NES, but only a few of them were involved in such programs.

The examinees have identifi ed the training programs and the subsidized em-

ployment as the most adequate solutions to their problem, and one third

declared themselves as ready to prequalify in order to get a job. However, the

examinees usually state that they would get prequalifi ed for jobs which do

not have a high share in the employment structure, or that are even decreas-

ing in the past few years (commerce, personal services, administration).

Various forms of IDP’s readiness to engage in fl exible forms of work were exam-

ined, as well as their readiness to adapt their working orientation to conditions

in the local labor markets. This readiness and these orientations indicate the

fl exibility and adaptability of the labor force in the conditions of intense restruc-

turation of local economy, transformation of the labor market, and especially

changes caused by trends of economic crises, but they also refl ect the changes

that the IDPs have experienced after moving to another social environment.

Research has shown that IDPs jobseekers are more willing to accept geographi-

cal mobility for work. They show fl exibility by accepting various jobs available

at the labor market, even those below the examinee’s qualifi cations, as well as

contract-based work. They are ready to work more intensely (longer working

hours, additional tasks), as well as to get self-employed. Their readiness is low

only when it comes to informal work and uniting into cooperatives.

When they decide to accept a job, the most important thing for examinees is to

receive salary on regular basis, then to have a formal job, and then to have their

contributions paid, to work full time and to have some rights guarantees (mostly

right on vacation and sick leave). The examinees are ready to work for a salary

lower than the average in the local labor market, while they believe that the

employers value hard work, diligence, trust and effi ciency of their employees.

13

Summary

The research on labor force demand included 150 companies, among which

the majority were private companies from the industrial production sector,

then companies engaged in commerce and service providing. The companies

form the sample employ more than 18000 persons, among which the employ-

ers have identifi ed 267 IDPs. In medium and particularly large enterprises the

managers usually could not tell the exact number of employees from this social

group, given that they do not keep records of this kind. Therefore the percent-

age of IDPs among employees from sample companies (around 1.4%) should

be taken as the bottom perimeter of their presence.

According to various indicators, slightly more than a half of companies are

working well, while the companies facing severe business diffi culties are

mostly large industrial enterprises.

In the previous two years, the sample companies have laid off thrice as many

workers (6224) than they had employed in the same period (2016). Such a

great number of dismissed workers can be explained by a few large enter-

prises that are facing the problems of survival and restructuring. In the whole

sample in the stated period, 76% of companies employed new workers, while

the percentage of companies that laid off workers stood at 48%. It is im-

portant to notice that a lower percentage of companies (38%) laid off more

workers than they employed, 10% of companies did not mark either a drop

or an increase of number of employees, while 52% of companies employed

more workers than they had laid off .

The most important reason for employing new workers is expansion of

business, which is a positive sign indicating that there is a significant

number of developing companies in the local economies. Data on pro-

fessional profile of newly employed and laid off workers indicate that in

the relevant period there was an intense restructuring of local economy,

including individual large production enterprises. This is especially evi-

dent in the high share of skilled production workers among workers laid

off from companies within the sample, while the same qualification pro-

files got employed in more prosperous production companies, but in a

significantly lower extent.

14


One third of employers from the sample plan to increase the number of em-

ployees in the next period of time, and 90% of employers are ready to hire

new workers with certain support programs.

One fi fth of employers from the sample claim that they need a certain profi le

of workers that are not available in the labor market supply, such as engineers

of certain specializations, metallurgy and machine workers, factory machine

operators, and similar.

When seeking new human resources, the employers in most cases address the

National Employment Service (that only 18% of employers does not collabo-

rate with), then they rely on formal and informal contacts with other employ-

ers, social networks of their current employees and in a small number of cases

they hire staff through media ads, or in a very s mall number of cases they seek

employees through youth cooperatives and private employment agencies.

Generally speaking, the level of employer’s awareness on programs of sup-

port to employment is rather good. Slightly less than one half of employers

have used some of the available support programs (usually the support to

hire probationers, then support through job fairs, but also support in the

form of tax relief from paying contributions for employing members of vul-

nerable social categories). The most important criteria based on which the

employers select their new employees are: expertise, working experience

and good recommendations.

Unfortunately, the research has recorded tendencies to discriminate against

IDPs for employment (27% of employers have explicitly stated that they

would give advantage to a domestic inhabitant, rather than to an IDP), which

indicates the need to profi le special incentive measures that will stimulate

the employers to abandon discriminatory practices.

IDPs jobseekers face at least three serious obstacles. One obstacle is unfavor-

able general condition in the local labor markets, which have experienced

a drop in the number of available jobs. The second obstacle would be the

inadequate qualifi cation structure, while the third is unfavorable social envi-

ronment in the sense of noted discriminatory practices against IDPs.

15

Summary

Three local labor markets face huge problems with layoff s. This increases pres-

sure on existing and newly created jobs, and creates conditions in which the IDPs

obviously aren’t competitive enough, judging by the above average unemploy-

ment rates in comparison to local population, as well as by a high share of long-

term unemployment. However, in given circumstances, there still are companies

that stand out with their potential to employ, that show stability in business and

tend to develop, and that will hire new labor force in the period to come.

The most wanted professional profi les in planned employments are various

profi les of skilled production workers, who make up to more than two thirds of

announced labor force demand, and who are not common among the IDPs. On

the other hand, in the labor force supply of IDPs, white-collar workers, techni-

cians, skilled service providers and unskilled workers have a signifi cantly higher

share, but their share in the labor demand is substantially lower.

The fi ndings of this research impose a conclusion that, for now, in the exam-

ined local environments no systematic forms of support, which would act in

the direction of successful linking of labor force demand with the labor force

supply of IDPs, have been provided. The initiatives to connect concrete em-

ployers and IDPs for training programs or employment are mostly sporadic

project actions.

Apart from a slightly better situation in Kragujevac, individual actors in sup-

port networks, as well as networks as a whole, do not recognize IDPs in an

adequate manner as a specifi c vulnerable social group that needs suitable

programs in order to improve its employability.

Based on the analyses contained in this Study, three key areas were identifi ed

that demand simultaneous intervention in order to improve the employment

conditions of Internally Displaced Persons, but also their overall socioeconomic

position, as well as better inclusion into the local community. Recommenda-

tions were defi ned for three most important areas: improvement of IDPs’ em-

ployability, encouragement of employers to provide more favorable conditions

for employment of IDPs in their domain, and strengthening the functionality

and the effi ciency of local support systems.

17

INTRODUCTION

1.


18

19

1.1 Research objectives and basic elements of this Study

The Study Mapping of employment opportunities of Internally Displaced Per-

sons was developed by the non-governmental research organization SeConS,

and it was supported by the United nations Development Program (UNDP)2.

The research implemented for the purposes of this Study was targeted at

examining the current conditions and employment opportunities of IDPs in

three cities: Kragujevac, Kraljevo and Vranje. The most important objectives

of this research were:

to get a precise and systematic insight into employment opportu-

nities of IDPs in the local labor markets in three above stated cities.

This included examining the characteristics of labor force supply

of IDPs and the characteristics of labor force demand, as well as

determining their harmonization.

to research availability, importance and eff ects of active employment

measures of the local branches of NES from the perspective of em-

ployment of IDPs;

to examine the functional connections between the relevant

stakeholders in the institutional system of support to employ-

ment of IDPs in the local communities;

to defi ne, based on insight acquired and analysis of situation, rec-

ommendations of measures targeted at improving the employ-

ability of IDPs.

The research was grounded in a complex methodology that combined quan-

titative and qualitative methods of research within three components:

2 Within the project Improving the living conditions of IDPs in Serbia,

implemented by UNDP in collaboration with UNHCR


20

The fi rst component was the research of labor force supply of IDPs. Within

this component, a survey was carried out on a sample of 600 IDP house-

holds in which at least one household member belonged to the labor ac-

tive population category.3 The survey was complemented by a qualitative

research that used the method of in-depth interviews to gain insight into

some more complex processes, labor and employment problems, expecta-

tions from employment, as well as employers’ perspectives and needs. The

qualitative research included 12 examinees of diff erent socio-demographic

characteristics (gender, age, education), who had diff erent positions in the

labor market (formally and informally employed, unemployed).

The second mapping component consisted of the research on labor force

demand in the local labor markets in Kragujevac, Kraljevo and Vranje. The

survey was carried out on a sample of 150 companies (50 in each city). Large,

medium and small enterprises of various ownership structures and economy

branches were included. This component also had a quantitative part, when

in-depth interviews on needs and selection process of employees, as well as

on human resources management policies, were carried out with representa-

tives of nine companies.

The third component consisted of examination of local networks of support

to employment of IDPs, through focus groups discussions that included vari-

ous relevant stakeholders participating in the local institutional framework,

employers’ associations representatives, IDP associations representatives,

and representatives of other NGOs that provide services to this category of

population (see more details on methodology in Annex 1).

The Study presents the analysis through the following thematic sections:

The fi rst part provides a summarized description of specifi c posi-

tion of IDPs as well as socioeconomic characteristics and trends in

three cities whose context was used to shape and analyze employ-

ment opportunities for IDPs. Local support networks for IDPs are

also described.

3 Labor active population consists of persons of working age (15-64)

who are employed or unemlployed (active jobseekers).

Introduction

21

The second part elaborates the analysis of characteristics of IDPs’

position in the labor market, as well as their current and potential

labor supply. It also shows the job seeking patterns, participation

in active employment measures, assessment of eff ect of these

measures, as well as a set of subjective perceptions of IDPs on

job supply, employment processes, expectations from employ-

ers, and readiness to get engaged in various forms of working

engagements.

The third part presents the analysis of labor force demand, bearing in

mind the current employment potentials of local companies and the

employers’ estimations on scale and structure of needed labor force

in the nearest future. It also shows employment practices, human

resources management policies, as well as subjective perceptions of

adequacy of current labor supply.

The fourth part provides the analysis of structure and functional-

ity of local support measures for IDPs, especially when it comes to

employment.

The fi fth part lists the conclusions on the adequacy of the labor

supply in relation to the labor demand. It also analyses the har-

monization of mutual expectations of the labor force and the em-

ployers. It examines the perception of roles of the local support

systems in the processes of bringing closer and harmonizing the

labor force demand and the IDPs’ labor supply.

The last part lists the most important recommendations targeted

at various aspects of problems and competences of various local

stakeholders in the process of improvement of employability of

IDPs in the local labor markets.

1.2 Characteristics of IDPs in Serbia, in selected cities, and support system

General characteristics of IDPs in Serbia

In the past few years, in Serbia there have been a number of researches aiming to

analyze the position and problems of IDP population in Serbia (Cvejić, Babović,

2009, 2008a, 2008b, Group 484, 2008, UNHCR, Praxis, 2007). These researches


22

usually tried to analyze the characteristics and problems of the entire socioeco-

nomic position of IDPs in Serbia or in selected regions, as well as their enjoyment

of various rights. The fi ndings that were achieved and presented in the studies

that came out of these researches indicated the key characteristics of the IDP

population in Serbia, so in that sense they off er a relevant framework for analyz-

ing the IDP population in Kraljevo, Kragujevac and Vranje.

The number of IDPs did not signifi cantly vary in the past few years, and it

is estimated that it stands at about 205000 persons. The majority of IDPs

from Kosovo are located in Belgrade and bigger cities near Kosovo (Kraljevo,

Niš, Leskovac, Kruševac). There is much fewer of them in Vojvodina, with the

exception of Roma IDPs. The majority of IDPs came from urban areas from

Kosovo, but a part of them got the opportunity to migrate from villages to

towns when resettling, so the proportion of IDPs living in urban areas in-

creased from 70.6% as it was before the displacement, to 83% as it is today.

This fact has certain implications to their positioning in the labor market, as

well as the data that IDPs have a similar educational structure to the one of

the domestic population (Cvejić, Babović, 2008a). This shows that IDPs add

pressure to those labor market segments that suff er from harshest forms of

competitiveness in the fi rst place.

There are many specifi cities and problems that the IDPs in Serbia are facing,

but here it is vital to list the most important ones, that should be taken into

consideration when analyzing their employment opportunities4:

Lack of personal documents is an important problem mostly for

Roma IDPs, but it is interesting that Serbian IDPs usually do not

have their employment booklets (2.6%) (Cvejić, Babović, 2008a)

Only slightly more than a half of IDP households own some form

of residential space, while one quarter lives without paying rent

in premises that someone has given to them for free use. Around

21% live in rented space, which is around 6 times higher propor-

tion than among the domestic population, and this percentage is

around 6 times higher than the percentage of IDPs living in collec-

tive centers. (Cvejić, Babović, 2008a);

4 The stated characteristics are based on previous researches whose full

tiltes are given in the list of references

Introduction

23

Unlike the general population, among the IDPs the poverty risk is

higher in urban areas than in rural, and it is lower in the south of

Serbia that in other parts of the Republic that have concentrated

IDP population (Ibid);

The economic position of IDPs in unfavorable, bearing in mind

that they participate to a much higher extent in the structure of

receiving various forms of social aid in comparison to the local

population (more than twice as much, and more than three times

as much for child allowance). (Ibid);

The position of IDPs in the labor market is unfavorable given

that their employment rates are lower than those of the domes-

tic population (around 34% in comparison to around 52%), while

the unemployment rates are higher (around 35% in comparison to

around 19%). The labor experience of IDPs from the sample indi-

cates an extreme instability of employment and a substantial share

of informal labor (Ibid). The number of IDPs interested into working

in agriculture is rather low (only 7.2% own land or work the land,

out of which barely one half live in the countryside);

In the IDP population, there is a high share of households without

a single employed member (Cvejić, Babović, 2008b);

The social capital of IDPs is narrowed down by relying on mostly

informal networks of friends and relatives who usually belong to

the same marginalized group and rarely participate in social and

cultural activities of the local community, while around one quar-

ter of IDPs from the sample states that they feel that the domestic

crowd is not tolerant towards them. (Ibid).

Taking into account the relevant fi ndings and conclusions of the above stated

studies and documents, this research aims to be precisely targeted at current

and potential employment opportunities of IDPs in three cities to which this

research was limited to, eventually off ering rather concrete recommenda-

tions for improving their employability.


24

IDPs in Kraljevo, Kragujevac and Vranje

Three cities included in this research are diff erent in relation to the share of

IDPs in local population. The share of IDPs in overall local population is high-

est in Kraljevo – 16.5%, then in Kragujevac with 7.5% and in Vranje with 7%

(SORS, Municipalities in Serbia, 2008). The data on trends of forced migrations

indicate that in 90% of the cases the households from Kraljevo and Kraguje-

vac samples moved there in 1999, while 75% of households came to Vranje

in that year, with the rest of them arriving in waves after 1999.

In relation to accommodation of IDPs, the situation is harshest in Vranje. The

majority of IDP households in Kragujevac and Kraljevo live in apartments or

houses that are actually in their ownership, while in Vranje there are only one

third of such households. (Table 1.1.).

Table: 1.1. Households according to type of accommodation and place of residence

Type of accommodation% of households

Kraljevo Kragujevac Vranje

Living in residential unit owned by the household

62.3 68.7 33.0

Living in rented residential unit 20.0 14.4 39.2

Living in residential unit given to them by a relative/friend for use

8.2 5.1 6.2

Living with relatives/friends 1.0 7.2 5.2

Living in residential unit given to them by the municipality/company/state

1.3 3.1 5.2

Living in collective accommodation 7.2 1.5 11.3

Total 100 100 100

The data indicates that the problem of lacking elementary personal docu-

ments, needed to regulate various types of status and rights, as well as to ac-

cess institutions, is still present. As much as 20% of households from the sample

Introduction

25

reported that at least one member does not have one of the elementary docu-

ments (birth certifi cate, wedding certifi cate, citizenship certifi cate or diploma).

Further on, 6% of households reported that one of their members did not have

the IDP identifi cation card, 4.5% lack IDs, and as much as 16% of households

have a member without the employment booklet, which is the key document

to regulate the labor status. It is most concerning that 7% of households have

reported that at least one member does not have the health card.

According to ethnicity, most examinees are Serbs (95%), then Roma 2.5%,

and Montenegrins 1.8%, while there is very few of the other ethnical groups

(0.7%). When observing the adaptation of IDPs into their new local commu-

nity in Serbia, as well as their social capital measured by inclusion into local

organizations, it can be noted that social participation of IDP population is

not lower in comparison to the general population, but it is diff erent in con-

tents, i.e. in structure. When comparing data from this research with data

obtained from research on value orientation in Serbian general population5

it is noticeable that IDPs are more prone to participate in church and religious

organizations, while they are included less into trade unions and professional

associations than the urban domestic population in Central Serbia (Table 1

Annex 2). This could be an indicator of insuffi ciently open “channels” for social

inclusion in the sphere of economy, when viewed in the light of analysis of

this group’s position in the labor market, which will be elaborated into details

further on.

Among the examinees from the sample, the perception of social distance

in relation to domestic population is rather diff erentiated. It is more pro-

nounced regarding the generalized social relations at the level of Serbian

society or local community, then concerning the evaluation of direct, close

social relations between the IDPs and the domestic population. Therefore,

it was noted that the highest level of social distance was perceived by the

majority of examinees in relation to professional and business relations and

possibility for an IDP to reach a decision-making position superior to that

of a domestic population member. Social distance is also present when it

5 Data taken from database of a large scale international research Social

research in Southeastern Europe, Tromsoe University and the Govern-

ment of Norway, INSERT YEAR


26

comes to cohabitation in the same country or in the same neighborhood. The

perception of social distance is the lowest in relation to direct, more intimate

relations, such as children making friends, or marriages between IDPs and

domestic population members (Table 1.2.).

Table 1.2: Perception of social distance between IDPs and domestic population

Type of social relation % of examinees assessing that the

domestic population is bothered by it

Is the local population bothered by living in the same country with IDPs?

27.5

Is the local population bothered by living in the same neighborhood with IDPs?

25.5

Is the local population bothered by working with IDPs?

24.2

Is the local population bothered by having an IDP boss?

42.9

Is the local population bothered by seeing their children making friends with IDPs?

12.5

Is the local population bothered by seeing their close relatives and children marrying IDPs?

11.2

It is diffi cult to assess why the perception of social distance in relation to

the domestic population is diff erentiated in the way presented in the table

above. Based on the presented data, one can conclude that IDPs perceive

themselves as a distinctive group that is more socially distant from the do-

mestic population in the sphere of public and professional relations, than in

the sphere of private relations.

Networks of institutional support to IDPs in local communities: Kraljevo, Vranje and Kragujevac

Institutions/organizations that make up the support system for IDPs in cities

included in the research are similarly regulated and they rely on the same

Introduction

27

stakeholders. Each institution and organization has its own defi ned role in

the social services system, but the roles and tasks are often overlapping and

modifying taking into account the daily problems that need to be solved.

IDPs are often put into priority groups for social support, and this was rec-

ognized in various national plans and action documents (housing, employ-

ment). The stakeholders of social support network are communicating be-

tween each other, but with various degree of intensity. Even though there

are formal bodies that group these stakeholders, such as Council for Migra-

tion and Permanent Solution or the Employment Councils, as well as docu-

ments defi ning activities and priorities (various strategies and action plans),

the functionality and networking vary from one city to another, and that is

caused by personal initiatives and sensibility of those who are leading these

institutions/organizations. The most important stakeholders in the support

network are the following: local administration, Commissariat for Refugees,

National Employment Service, center for social welfare, housing agencies,

local NGOs and IDP associations.

Local administration – Concerning the IDPs’ issues, the local administra-

tion plays the leading role in establishing the support network, given that it

created various administrative bodies, defi nes plans and action documents,

defi nes the local budget for various activities and negotiates with the central

institutions. In selected cities, the local administration did show interest into

the needs of this group – migration councils were formed, and the most

important strategic documents were adopted. However, frequent political

changes in Kraljevo are an impediment for continuous dealing with this prob-

lem. In all three cities, the problem is also lack of funds, as well as decrease of

support from the central level.

Commissariat for Refugees – Even though it is stationed in the local admin-

istration, it actually represents a part of the central institution – The Commis-

ariat for Refugees of the Republic of Serbia. Although one part of the working

hours of the Commissariat in these three cities is focused on the issue of

collective centers, they are often the entry point in the support system for

IDPs. Here, it is possible to solve the basic problems related to status regula-

tion of an IDP, but also to get information on institutions and organizations

one needs to address in order to solve a particular problem, or to regulate a


28

specifi c right. In these three cities, there is a lot of pressure on the Commis-

sioners, especially in Kraljevo where the majority of IDPs are.

National Employment Service works under the same rules and same regime

in all three cities. This is the natural consequence of the centralized position

of these institutions – they are a part of the Ministry of Economy and Regional

Development, and they are nothing but local branch offi ces of the central-

ized National Employment Service. The NES representatives are included in

local employment councils and migration councils. The NES offi ces do not

defi ne special programs for IDPs, but they help the local administration to

initiate public works or to organize training and prequalifi cation programs.

Based on the central decree, the IDPs are placed among the priority groups

(together with the Roma, the young, the long-term unemployed and others)

for inclusion into the active measures of support to employment. An impor-

tant problem here are persons who receive the IDP benefi ts.6 For this reason,

they avoid to activate themselves in the formal labor market because they

fear that not only they might not get employed, but they also might lose that

small but sure income. It is interesting that an earlier research of UNDP has

shown that the treatment of those who receive these benefi ts is not equal.

In Vranje, NES allows the benefi ciaries to participate in non-fi nancial forms

of support in employment.

Center for social welfare has an important role in the support system for

IDPs, both concerning provision of individual support, and in relation to func-

tioning of the support systems. Often, the centers initiate development of

local strategic documents relevant for improvement of IDPs’ social position.

In addition, they are the ones to have the most open communication with

associations and organizations of IDPs in all three cities. An impediment in

the centers’ work is a lack of staff that could deal with these problems in

particular, and a lack of records on IDPs as service benefi ciaries.

Housing agencies are directly related to closure of the collective centers – they

6 Temporary fi nancial benefi ts are given to persons who used to work

in an organization or an institution in Kosovo prior to displacement.

Some of these persons receive benefi ts throughout the headwuarters

of their old employer in Serbia (for example, the National Post Offi ce),

or throughout their competent ministry (for example, educators),

while most of them receive this via NES branches.

Introduction

29

started their work through donors’ initiatives, but now they are organized by

the local administration in all three cities. In Kragujevac and Kraljevo these

agencies are organized as a part of local administration and they collaborate

with CSWs and NGOs when selecting benefi ciaries. In Vranje, solving the hous-

ing problems of IDPs is divided to various segments of local administration.

Local NGOs and IDP associations still do not play a role as important as

they could in consolidating the local support network and bringing it closer

to the benefi ciaries. Many of them have inherited and important experi-

ence from collaboration with the international organizations, and they have

proved that they are capable not only to acquire important information on

the state of the problems that IDPs face, but also to develop provision of

some of the needed services (e.g. home assistance or various forms of train-

ings). However, the latter seldom takes place, mostly because these organiza-

tions were not recognized as service providers by the local self-government7.

It is important to emphasize that our research indicates a clear diff erence

between the NGOs that represent IDPs’ interests and deal with their prob-

lems and IDP associations (which are also NGOs from organizational point

of view) that collect IDPs and also deal with their vulnerability. The former

are more experienced in development and implementation of projects and

more skilled in networking than the latter, which makes them more visible

and more respected by the other stakeholders at the local level, and by the

donors. The IDP-oriented NGOs which are not associations of these citizens

are much more often members of various administrative bodies at the local

level and promoters of IDPs’ interests.

Visibility of needs and problems of IDPs in local communities mostly depend

on activities of the Commissioner for Refugees (who deals not only with the

refugees’ problem but also with IDPs’ issues) as well as on whether an inter-

national donors’ project is being implemented and its contents. What is in

common to all the organizations and institutions at the local level is the fact

that there are no special rules or regulations that defi ne the work of these

organizations with IDPs, but it depends on project choices or short-term ini-

7 Basically, these conclusions coincide with the conclusions from UNDP’s

regional workshop with IDPs’ associations, held in December 2008 on

Zlatibor (CIR-a, 2009).


30

tiatives. In addition, it should be emphasized that there are no clear records

on use of various services by IDPs, given that this group is put among the

other vulnerable categories.

1.3 Characteristics of relevant socioeconomic context in Kragujevac, Kraljevo and Vranje – most important socioeconomic trends

It is not possible to appropriately view the employment opportunities and

problems of IDPs without a basic insight into the characteristics of a wider

socio-economic context. All three observed cities, in spite of some specifi ci-

ties, face serious diffi culties in the transition process: according to available

data, they have a lower people’s income in comparison to the Serbian aver-

age8, and a signifi cant drop of employment and increase of unemployment

in the processes of economic restructuring. Kragujevac and Kraljevo have

had a negative birthrate between two censuses, standing at -0.59, in spite of

a signifi cant infl ow of IDPs, while Vranje has a mild positive birthrate of 1.8.

In all three cities there are lower activity rates10 in comparison to Serbia11, but

in Vranje this rate is much lower than in Kragujevac and Kraljevo (Table1.3).

Employment rates12 were also much lower in comparison to the Serbian level

(51.5%)13, while the unemployment rates were signifi cantly higher (18.8%

for Serbia).

8 Unfortunately, data are available for 2004 only (SORS, Municipalities

in Serbia, 2006).

9 This is the average annual increase or drop of inhabitants per 1000

inhabitants, in the period from 1992 to 2002 (SORS, 2006: 34-35).

10 Activity rates stand for the proportion of employed and unemployed

population in the overall working age population (15-64), indicating

the total labor force supply in the labor market.

11 For working age population, the activity rate in Serbia stood at 63.4%

in 2007 (SORS, LFS for 2007).

12 Employment rates are the proportion of employed in relation to the

overall number of working age persons.

13 SORS, LFS for 2007.

10

11

12

13

Introduction

31

Table 1.3: Indicators of socioeconomic situation in three cities

Indicators Kraljevo Kragujevac Vranje

Number of inhabitants1 in 2007 119994 174626 87095

Activity rate in 2007 60.4 60.4 48.8

Employment rate in 2007 43.7 40.0 34.7

Unemployment rate in 2007 27.6 33.8 28.9

Almost a half of unemployed in all three cities were fi rst-time jobseekers

without any working experience. The qualifi cation structure of unemployed

is unfavorable, given that in Kraljevo and Kragujevac one third of unem-

ployed are persons without qualifi cations (non-skilled workers and trained

semi-skilled workers) while in Vranje there are 20% of them. In addition, in

all three cities there is a high share of women among the unemployed. (58-

59%) (SORS, 2009b).

It is important to note several trends of signifi cance for analysis of IDP’s em-

ployment opportunities. In all three cities, there was a drop of scope of overall

employment if the sector of business companies, institutions, organizations

and cooperatives, in the period between 2007 and 2009. This drop was the

harshest in Kragujevac: there are almost 7000 workers less in the above stat-

ed sectors than in 2007. In Kraljevo, the drop of employment was marked by

2000 workers less, while in Vranje it was around 1200 workers less. The drop

of employment is closely connected to structural changes in local economy

of the cities. In Kragujevac, it is mostly due to a severe decline of employment

in the processing industry sector, which employed 15666 persons in 2007

and 8848 persons in 2009 (SORS, 2009c). In Kragujevac, there has also been

a drop of employment in the sector of transport, storage and communica-

tions (from 2818 to 1922), and there is a mild drop of employment in educa-

tion and agriculture. The other sectors have mild growth of employment,

but it is not enough to compensate for the employment drop in industry,

transport and storage. In Kraljevo, the employment drop is also mostly due

to the layoff s in the processing industry (around 1600 workers less in 2009

than in 2007), while the remaining loss of employment was caused by a drop

in agriculture, commerce, hotels and restaurants business, and other com-


32

munal and personal services. The other sectors mark a very slow increase of

employment that wasn’t able to compensate for pushing the labor force out

of the industrial sector. Unlike Kraljevo and Kragujevac, in Vranje, the drop

of total employment is mostly caused by a drop of employment in sectors

of commerce and hotels and restaurants business, as well as by a relatively

milder drop in sectors of transport, storage and communications, real estate

business, energy and water supply. In the observed period, the processing

industry sector even marks a small increase with 300 new employees.

By the way, the three cities are signifi cantly diff erent in relation to structure

of employment in sectors of economic branches. Vranje has a much higher

share of workers in processing industry in comparison to Kragujevac and

Kraljevo, while it also has a lower share of employment in classic and social

services (Table 2, Annex 2).

In Kragujevac, and especially in Vranje, the share of entrepreneurs and em-

ployees working for entrepreneurs has increased in the total scope of em-

ployment in that period, while in Kraljevo there is a reversed trend. Namely,

while in Kragujevac in 2007 the sector of entrepreneurs participated with

20% in total employment, and in Vranje with 9.5%, the share of this sector in

Kragujevac increased to 25% while in Vranje as much as to 22%. At the same

time, the share of this sector in total employment in Kraljevo dropped from

39% to 32%.

The above stated trends in the local labor markets indicate very unfavorable

conditions within which it is necessary to view the employment opportuni-

ties of IDPs.

33

CHARACTERISTICS OF LABOR FORCE SUPPLY OF IDPS

2.


34

35

The research conducted on a sample of IDPs with the purpose to identify

the characteristics of this population’s labor supply in the local labor markets

included 600 households with at least one member belonging to the active

population category. The basic data on the position in the labor market, qual-

ifi cations, additional jobs, job seeking practices and professional advance-

ment are collected for all household members of working age, meaning that

the sample for the aforementioned aspect is increased to 1937 examinees.

Only one household member answered the more detailed questions on

working experience, job seeking, experience with active employment mea-

sures and working readiness, and this person would be selected randomly

among the labor active household members. In addition, as it was already

said, 12 in-depth interviews were carried out with displaced persons from

the included households, with diff erent socioeconomic characteristics and

diff erent status in the labor market.

Households from the sample are averagely larger than households in the

general population of Central Serbia. They averagely have 4.4 members,

which is signifi cantly more that the average number of household members

in Central Serbia which stands between 3.1 and 3.4 members, depending

on the region.14 Among the household members from the sample, 19% are

children younger than the age of 15, 7% are persons older than 64, and the

remaining 74% are persons of working age. Men and women are almost

equally represented (50.3% in relation to 49.7%).

14 Data for Central Serbia are taken from the Living Standard Mea sure-

ment Study implemented in 2007, according to which the average

size of a household in Western Serbia and Sumadija was 3.2. mem-

bers, in Eastern Serbia 3.1 members, and in Southeastern Serbia 3.4

members (SORS, 2008).

14


36

The following chapter will present the characteristics of labor market position

of all working age household members from the sample (more detailed ex-

planations on methodology applied and sample can be found in Annex 1).

2.1. Position of IDPs in the labor market The research collected data on the subjective status of examinees according

to their activities in four time intervals: before displacement, one year after

displacement, during the last year and in July 2009. Comparative data show

that there has been a drastic deterioration of IDPs’ position in the labor mar-

ket immediately after displacement. This can clearly be seen in the drop of

share of formally employed and in the increase of share of unemployed. After

a mild drop in 2008, the share of unemployed is experiencing a renewed

growth in 2009, reaching the same level as one year after displacement. The

share of entrepreneurs and self-employed has mildly increased, and the share

of informally employed remains stable at around 5%.

Table 2.1: IDPs according to activities – subjective assessment: comparatively before displacement, one year after, in 2008 and in 2009.

Status according to activity

% of working age household members

Before displacement

One year after the

displacement

During the last year

2009

Entrepreneurs and self-employed

2.9 0.5 4.1 4.5

Formally employed, working for an employer

56.9 25.2 30.9 30.2

Informally employed 0.8 5.9 5.2 5.0

Employed outside of formal employment

0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8

Unemployed 6.7 37.8 34.3 37.1

Retired 1.0 1.5 4.9 5.2

Characteristics of labor force supply of IDPs

37

Housewives/Men staying at home 4.3 5.7 7.4 7.5

Students/pupils 24.3 20.7 11.9 9.3

Other inactive members 2.3 2.0 0.6 0.4

Total 100 100 100 100

It is necessary to note that there some diff erences can be seen when com-

paring the subjective data (self-assessment of examinees) and the objective

data (reconstructed using several variables of behavior and activities) on the

status of IDPs according to activity. Namely, the data grounded in multiple

variables of real behavior of examinees in the labor market indicate some-

what higher employment and lower unemployment in comparison to data

collected through self-assessment.

Informally employed and self-employed very often subjectively declare them-

selves as unemployed, which will be analyzed in more details later on. However,

for the purposes of this research, it is very important to take into consideration

this subjective assessment of status, given that it signifi cantly infl uences the ex-

aminees’ behavior in the labor market.

Comparative data on the basic indicators of labor market position of IDPs and

general population of Central Serbia indicate a signifi cantly less favorable

status of IDPs.15 Their activity and employment rates are much lower, and the

unemployment rate is substantially higher in comparison to the population

of working age in Central Serbia. Comparative data aim to indicate that the

basic referent framework within which it is possible to note the specifi cities

of the IDPs’ position in an easier way. Unfortunately, the newer data from the

15 It is necessary to elaborate several methodological remarks. Firstly, the

sample of IDPs is not representative for the overall population of IDPs

in Central Serbia (beacuse, among other things, the sample selected

only those households that had at least one astive member), even

though the cities included inh the research have a signifi cant share of

IDP population. However, comparison with the general population of

Central Serbia off ers a relevant framework that allows an easier not-

ing of the specifi cities of the sample population’s position. Secondly,

when calculating activity rates, employment and unemployment, the

SORS’s Labor Force Sruvey Methodology was applied.

15


38

Labor Force Survey at the level of selected cities are not available, meaning

that the data presented are those of Central Serbia.16 When defi ning basic

categories and indicators, LFS standards were applied.17

Table 2.2: Basic indicators of the labor market position – comparative data for displaced persons from the sample and working age population of Central Serbia (without Belgrade)

Labor market indicator Central Serbia IDPs from the sample

Activity rate 66.7 55.8

Employment rate 55.7 41.1

Unemployment rate 16.5 26.4

When comparing IDP structures according to activity in the three selected cities,

similarities can be noted between Kragujevac and Kraljevo, while Vranje is diff er-

ent in comparison to these cities with a lower share of employed and a higher

share of inactive.

16 The las available data for the selected cities are available in the SORS’s

publication Municipalities in Serbia 2008, which provides the basic

data on the labor market position in 2007. In the mean time, the Labor

Force Survey has modifi ed the methodology of monitoring the labor

market situation. This modifi ed methodology was applied to this par-

ticular research, which is why the research data are not comparable

enough to the data from SORS’s publication Municipalities in Serbia

(alongside the inappopriate time lag). The idea to show the new data,

obtained on the basis of same methodologies but without enough

comparison units (level of cities included in the project), was chosen

as the least unfavorable solution.

17 According to these standards, all persons that carried out any form

of work in the previous week (for at least one hour) in order to earn

their livelihood (in money or in kind), as well as persons who were

absent from their regular employment in the previous week, are con-

sidered as employed. This m,eans that LFS does not take into account

the formal status of examinees, but their real activities. zaposlenima.

The unemployed are those who did not carry out any paid work in

the preivous work and who do not have a regular employment they

can go back to after leave, under condition that they have been ac-

tively seeking a job in the past four weeks and that they could start

working within two weeks if a job is off ered. Active population are all

employed and unemployed persons. (SORS, 2009a: 8).

16

17


39

Table 2.3: Structure of working age IDPs according to activity and place of residence

Status according to activity % of working age household members


Employed 42.9 42.5 31.6

Unemployed 14.8 14.5 15.3

Inactive242.2 43.1 53.1

Total 100 100 100

Diff erences are also shown in the share of persons that are formally regis-

tered as employed in Kosovo institutions/organizations, and receive monthly

fi nancial benefi ts even though they do not carry out the work related to the

given formal position. Most of these persons reside in Vranje (9%), then in

Kragujevac (7%), and in Kraljevo (2%).

Analyzing the IDPs’ labor supply characteristics, it is important to view the

characteristics of current employment, as well as characteristics of currently

unemployed. Employment stability, but also other elements of current em-

ployment (lack of formal labor contract, job adequacy in relation to qualifi ca-

tions, working conditions, etc.) infl uence the fl ow of currently employed in

the labor market and their participation in labor force supply, regardless of

current employment.

2.1.1. Characteristics of employment of IDPs

In all three cities, the vast majority of employees have the status of employed

workers, meaning that they work for employers. However, in Vranje this cat-

egory has a lower share than in other two cities, while entrepreneurs, self-

employed and helping household members have a higher share.


40

Table 2.4: Employed IDPs according to status and place of residence

Job status% of employed


(Co)owner of an enterprise/a shop with employees 6.7 1.8 7.8

Self-employed 8.8 13.4 13.0

Employed worker 84.0 82.0 74.0

Helping member in family business 0.5 2.8 5.2

Total 100 100 100

An important part of employment in all three cities subsists through informal

forms of labor. The highest share of informal employment is in Kragujevac.

Table 2.5: Employed IDPs according to labor contract type and place of residence

Labor contract type % of employed


Formal written contract, employment act, license 70.5 59.6 68.4

Oral agreement with the employer 7.7 14.2 5.3

No contract, employment act or license 21.8 26.2 26.3

Total 100 100 100

Viewing the categories of self-employed and employed workers separately, it

is possible to notice a rather high share of informal work among the former. In

Kraljevo and Kragujevac, as much as 89% of the self-employed category are in the

informal economy zone. Among the employed working for employers, in Kraljevo

22.8% of them work informally, while in Kragujevac this percentage stands at

28.6%. In Vranje, 80% of self-employed are not registered, while 19.3% of em-

ployed workers work informally for their employers, without a formal contract.

Just like the previous researches (Cvejić, Babović, 2008a, 2008b), this research

has obtained similar fi ndings on the relatively low share of additional work


41

in the IDP population. In the overall sample from all three cities, only 11%

of working age examinees are engaged in any form of additional work. In

30% of the cases, this work is done independently, in 46% of the cases they

work informally or an employer, and in 24% of the cases, this work has the

form of help in family business. Additional work most often takes the form of

informal work (in 93% of the cases) in domains of agriculture, construction

and personal services.

Characteristics of entrepreneurs and registered self-employed

It is necessary to emphasize that the number of entrepreneurs (owners of

companies, medical clinics, shops etc., who employ other workers) and reg-

istered self-employed was very small in the research sample – only 47 in total,

in all three cities. Bearing in mind the possibility of unreliable statistics when

drawing conclusions from such a small number, only some basic characteris-

tics of this group will be presented, using a more qualitative approach.

Except for two cases, all entrepreneurs and self-employed have registered

their companies after displacement. In Kraljevo and Vranje, entrepreneurs

from the sample usually have companies/shops dealing with commerce,

small repairs, hotels and restaurants, while in Kragujevac there is an equal

number of entrepreneurs working in the aforementioned sectors, and en-

trepreneurs whose companies are engaged in the processing industry. Their

potential to employ other workers is rather small, given that the companies

from the sample are micro enterprises that usually employ up to two work-

ers. It is interesting that before founding a company, or registering self-em-

ployment, only two examinees used to be entrepreneurs, while most of the

others have been formally employed or students/pupils before they started

their own business. For the majority of examinees from this group, the most

important reason for starting an independent business was not being able

to get employed (only 4 of them engaged in entrepreneurship because of a

good business idea). Only two examinees received assistance from the Agen-

cy for Development of Small and Medium Enterprises when starting their

independent business, one half of the others relied on informal networks of

friends and relatives, while the rest did not have any assistance at all.


42

In the majority of cases, entrepreneurs and registered self-employed evalu-

ate their experience as positive, but allowing them only mere survival. The

state the following business problems as the most frequent ones: lack of

money and small buying power of local environment population, overly high

taxes and contributions, and complicated regulations and legal norms of

conducting business. According to examinees’ statements, the average last

earning for this group stood at 28 037,50 RSD, which indicates a poor busi-

ness success of examinees and confi rms that these independent enterprises

came out of the need to provide economic survival, and not to implement a

successful business idea.

Characteristics of informal employment

The number of informally self-employed in the sample is also relatively small,

standing at 74 in all three cities, meaning that due to this fact it is not possible

to present a comparable analysis of cities. Data shows that the informally em-

ployed are mostly grouped in the following sectors: personal services (31%),

construction and commerce (18% each), communal and other social sectors

(9%) and agriculture, while there is a low percentage of those engaged in

other sectors. The majority of informally employed carry out their work in

another person’s house (41%), in the street or at the green market (20%),

while 12% of people work in their own homes, and the rest of them work

in vehicles, on farms, etc. It is interesting that almost one quarter of infor-

mally employed subjectively declare themselves as unemployed. Before they

started carrying out independent informal work, the examinees from this

category were mostly unemployed and students/pupils. For most of them,

the most important reason for starting to work this way was not being able

to get a job. At the same time, they do not show any potential to develop a

sustainable independent business out of their work, because most of them

claim that the nature of their work is such that it is not likely to grow into

a stable job. On the average, they earn much less than entrepreneurs and

registered self-employed (around 16 000,00 RSD).

A signifi cant diff erence between the informally self-employed and the pre-

vious group of entrepreneurs and registered self-employed is refl ected in


43

the fact that a lot of informally employed (37%) actively seek another job.

Therefore, they are an important group in the labor force supply that should

be taken into consideration when analyzing the employment opportunities,

even though they are practically already employed labor force.

Characteristics of employed workers

In Kraljevo and Vranje, the majority of IDPs with the status of employed

workers18 work for state enterprises (52% of employed in Kraljevo and as

much as 67% of employed in Vranje), while in Kragujevac most of the em-

ployed from this category (52%) work for private companies. It is impor-

tant to note that 5.6% of employed for employers in Kraljevo and 13% of

employed for employers in Kragujevac claim that they work for private, yet

unregistered companies.

The structure of IDPs according to economy branch is rather diff erent than

the employment structure of general population in these cities. IDPs from

the sample are mostly concentrated in the sectors of public administra-

tion, social insurance, then in Kragujevac Iin agriculture, and in Vranje in

communal activities and other social activities. It is also possible to not

a low share of employment of IDPs in key economic sectors, such as the

processing industry.

18 Employed for an employer – in companies, institutions, shops, or-

gazniations and cooperatives.

18


44

Table 2.6: Employed workers according to economy branch19 of company/institution, comparable data for IDP sample and general population in three cities

Activity branch

% of employed


IDPs Generalpopulation



Agriculture, fi shing, forestry 5.1 2.9 12.0 0.9 1.9 0.9

Processing industry, mining 3.9 22.9 5.7 27.3 5.7 27.3

Production of electrical energy and gas, water supply

5.4 3.9 4.2 4.6 - 4.6

Construction 11.9 8.0 14.1 5.1 1.9 5.1

Commerce and repairs 15.5 11.6 11.5 11.9 3.8 11.9

Hotels and restaurants 4.3 1.1 1.6 0.9 7.5 0.9

Transport, storage and communication

6.5 13.0 6.8 5.9 3.8 5.9

Financial mediation 2.9 0.9 1.0 2.5 5.7 2.5

Real estate, renting, business activities

1.1 1.7 0.5 3.7 - 3.7

Public administration, mandatory social insurance

23.8 4.7 21.9 5.8 32.1 5.8

Education 5.1 11.2 7.3 11.6 5.7 11.6

Healthcare and social welfare 8.7 14.4 7.3 16.1 7.5 16.1

Communal activities, social and personal services

5.8 3.7 6.1 3.7 24.4 3.7

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

Source for general population: SORS, Employed population in the Republic of Serbia, 2009, communication re-leased on March 31st

19 Classifi cation of economy branches is a simplifi ed version of ISIC inter-

national classifi cation, revision 3.

19


45

It is important to know what kind of occupation the employed IDPs from

the sample perform. The table bellow indicates that among the employed

in Kragujevac and Kraljevo the majority are skilled service providers and pro-

duction workers. It also indicates that in Vranje there is a rather high share of

IDPs employed as experts, as well as a high share of military personnel.

Table 2.7: Employed workers according to occupation20 and place of residence

Occupation% of employed


Managers 0.3 0.5 1.9

Military personnel 1.5 1.4 7.5

Experts 13.8 14.1 30.2

White-collar workers and technicians 23.6 20.9 22.2

Skilled service providers (personal services, commerce, protection staff )

26.8 18.2 18.9

Skilled construction and production workers

20.1 28.6 5.7

Semi-skilled and unskilled workers (helping workers in factories, cleaners, waste collectors, street salesmen and others

13.9 16.3 13.6

Total 100 100 100

From the data given above, it can be seen that the structure of employed

IDPs from the sample is signifi cantly diff erent from the general population

of employed in the given cities, both in terms of employment sector, and

when it comes to occupation structure. It can be assumed that in the pre-

20 Classifi cation of occupations in this research was done in line with

the standards of ISCO international classifi cation – revision from 2008.

Due to sample size, it was not possible to use a more detailed classifi -

cation level, so the level 2 was applied (two-digit occupation codes).

20


46

vious period the employment channels were diff erentially open for diff er-

ent qualifi cation groups, as well as in companies/institutions from diff erent

economy branches, so that the recruitment channels of IDPs for current jobs

were infl uenced by other factors than mere placement of labor force in the

local labor markets. Admissibility on jobs in industry was signifi cantly lower

for IDPs, while admissibility in classical service sector, especially in public

administration and social services, was signifi cantly higher.

“Well, I came to Lađevce straight from Priština and I

worked there till 2005 when I was made redundant. I’ve

never asked for that job, it was all interrelated, they’d

simply transferred me.” (an unemployed woman)

Most of the employed from this category have labor contract on an indefi nite

period of time: 61% in Kraljevo, 59% in Kragujevac, and 62% in Vranje. On the

other hand, 24% of employed in Kraljevo work for a defi nite period of time,

while this percentage stands at 17% of employed in Kragujevac and 23% of

employed in Vranje. Other workers carry out seasonal or occasional jobs.

Employed IDPs in Kragujevac and Kraljevo averagely receive lower wages

than the average in their cities, while employed IDPs in Vranje receive slightly

higher wages than the average for that city. Namely, average net salary of

examinees in Kraljevo stood at 23456 RSD, in Kragujevac 22116 RSD, and in

Vranje 28085 RSD. According to the SORS’s data from June 2009, average

net salary in Kraljevo was 26362 RSD, in Kragujevac 31373 RSD and in Vranje

24304 RSD.

When analyzing the labor force supply, it is important to take into consid-

eration the data that 18% of employed actively seek new employment. The

majority in this group (76%) already work informally. Of course, employed

persons who seek new employment are fewer among the employed on in-

defi nite and defi nite periods of time (only 8% and 15% respectively), while

there is as much as 41% of them among the seasonal workers, and more than

one half among the occasionally employed (51%).


47

Characteristics of persons still registered as formally employed in Kosovo institutions/organizations

It was already mentioned that there was 98 of these persons in the sample,

their highest share being in Vranje. Their behavior in the labor market varies

signifi cantly in these three cities. In Kraljevo, 44% of these persons work in-

formally at the moment, while 9% actively seek employment. In Kragujevac,

29% of persons from this groups work informally, while 14% seek employ-

ment, while in Vranje not a single person from this group works, 19% actively

seek employment, and 81% are inactive in the labor market.

The average age of persons employed in Kosovo institutions/organization is

signifi cantly higher than the average age for the entire sample of working age

persons (44.5 years in comparison to 37.2 years), which is an unfavorable factor

for potential employment. According to qualifi cation structure, this group mostly

consists of persons with medium qualifi cations – mostly white-collar workers

and technicians, and then skilled production workers and service providers.

“Well, see, I was lucky enough to have some relatives in

Belgrade, so I went, y’know, like, straight to this construc-

tion site, like immediately. An uncle of mine had this busi-

ness so that pushed me towards construction in general,

because, y’know, ‘tis the only industry branch in Serbia that

survived at the moment, I mean, in which a man can earn

his living informally… “ (a man, employed in Kosovo)

“We had a problem with an employee who brought a dupli-

cate of his booklet. We saw he was an IDP so we thought it

would be fi ne. But he was already receiving some benefi ts

from his former company, “Electro-Distribution” in Kosovo.

That’s when the problem of double years of service came

up. I have no idea whatsoever how those guys from the

Pension Fund are going to solve that. Anyway, the man’s still

working for us.” (an employer from a medium company)


48

2.1.2. Characteristics of unemployment of IDPs

As it was already emphasized, the unemployment rates of IDPs in selected

cities are relatively high. A more detailed analysis of unemployed labor force

among the displaced persons will be given in the chapter on characteristics

of current labor supply. Here, only the most basic characteristics of the un-

employed are shown. When looking at the age structure of unemployed,

one can notice that the younger population contingent is dominant (up till

35 years of age).

Table 2.8: Unemployed according to age and place of residence

Age% of unemployed


15-24 23.1 30.3 31.8

25-34 33.6 29.3 38.6

35-44 21.6 20.2 13.6

45-54 13.3 14.1 11.4

55-64 8.4 6.1 4.5

Total 100 100 100

Most of the employees from the sample have some working experience,

meaning that they were employed before. In Kraljevo, there are 64% of

such people, in Kragujevac 69%, and in Vranje as much as 74% among the

unemployed.

In the group of unemployed who were previously employed the average

number of years of service is around 13, and as much as one quarter of this

group has more than 20 years of working experience. Most of the unem-

ployed with labor experience list war, dismissal or the fact that it was a tem-

porary job as the reason for their loss of work.


49

The share of long-term unemployed is very high in all three cities. According

to Eurostat standards, long-term unemployment stands for unemployment

longer than 12 months. In Kraljevo, there is 91% of long-term unemployed,

in Kragujevac 89%, and in Vranje 90%. Among the unemployed, the number

of men and women is equal, but there is more women among the long-term

unemployed (58% against 42%). Long-term unemployment status is a very

unfavorable circumstance for persons seeking a new job, because it hinders

them to develop new skills and knowledge needed to fi nd a job, it reduces

their business contacts and it alienates them from information channels im-

portant for better positioning in the labor market.

2.2. Characteristics of labor supply of IDPs

The unemployed do not represent the overall labor supply in the local labor

markets, alongside with them, there are other categories of active population

– temporarily employed, informally employed, even those with formal jobs.

This is why the analysis of labor supply of IDPs will take into consideration the

overall labor supply, with a diff erentiated approach to diff erent categories ac-

cording to their present status in the labor market, because the intervention

measures should be shaped in line with the analysis-based priorities.

One quarter of examinees of working age from all three cities said that they

have been actively seeking for employment during the month before the

research. The diff erences between the cities are not big in relation to this: in

Kraljevo, 25% of working age examinees were looking for employment, in

Kragujevac 28%, and in Vranje 23%.

Table 2.9: Working age IDPs who were actively seeking employment in the previous month, according to present activity status and place of residence

Jobseekers according to present activity status

% in the category of those who were actively seeking employment in the previous month


Formally employed 9.8 5.9 3.1

Informally employed 19.1 22.3 9.2


50

Unemployed 54.9 49.5 64.6

Employed in Kosovo institutions 2.1 10.6 7.7

Inactive (students, pupils, housewives) 14.1 11.7 15.4

Total 100 100 100

Relatively high share of inactive persons among the jobseekers is mostly due

to the high share of students and pupils that probably look for temporary

jobs during the summer break.

2.2.1. Education and qualifi cations of labor force supply

One of the key aspects of labor force supply examination is the analysis

of education and qualifi cation structure of the current labor force supply,

as well as its harmonization with the demand for labor force professional

profi les by employers. When viewing comparative educational structures

of IDPs and active jobseekers, one can notice signifi cant diff erences. In the

educational structure of employed there is a substantially smaller num-

ber of persons with elementary education and vocational high schools for

blue collar occupations, and there are many more persons with secondary

education for white-collar workers and technicians, as well as with tertiary

education, which indicates the labor force with higher education has a bet-

ter access to jobs.

When comparing qualifi cation structures of examinees in the selected three

cities, it is also possible to notice certain diff erences. In Kragujevac and Vranje,

there is a higher share of examinees with elementary school and schools

for skilled and highly skilled workers than in Kraljevo, where there are more

examinees with education for technicians and white-collar workers, as well

as persons with tertiary education.


51

Table 2.10: Highest educational degree obtained among job seeking examinees, according to place of residence

Educational degree

% of IDPs


Job seekers

EmployedJob

seekersEmployed

Job seekers

Employed

No school, incomplete elementary school

3.0 2.0 3.2 2.7 1.6 -

Elementary school completed 13.7 9.0 16.9 11.8 17.2 11.2

Vocational high school for blue-collar occupations (1-2 years, semi-skilled workers)

4.7 2.9 5.3 3.1 3.1 4.5

Vocational high school for blue-collar occupations (3-5 years, skilled and highly skilled workers)

25.2 19.9 32.8 23.2 34.4 19.1

Vocational high school for white-collar workers and technicians

34.3 40.4 27.5 32.5 26.6 23.6

Gymnasium 3.8 6.8 6.9 6.9 6.2 9.0

Higher school (academy) 6.8 7.7 3.2 9.7 6.2 14.6

University 8.5 11.4 4.2 10.0 4.7 16.9

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

It can be noticed that among the jobseekers qualifi ed as workers, the majority

has machine engineering and metal processing backgrounds, followed by com-

merce, hotels and restaurants business and tourism, while among the workers

with white-collar and technical qualifi cations, the majority have economics, law

and administration backgrounds. More detailed educational profi les according

to educational degree for each city are given in Tables 4, 5 and 6 and Annex 2.

One half of job seeking examinees has undergone additional forms of educa-

tion. Among them, 42% went to continuous forms of education (courses, train-


52

ings) that issue certifi cates, 6% went to continuous forms of training that do

not issue certifi cates, 3% participated in seminars and conferences that issue

certifi cates, while 2% went to seminar that do not issue certifi cates.21 Among

those who did not have any additional education, 53% said that they did not

have the money for it, 22% insisted they were not interested, 8% claimed that

they had already fi nished the preferred course, 5% said they did not fi nd the

kind of course they wanted, while the rest stated other reasons.

Examinees were asked to list their additional skills which might be useful for em-

ployment. Only 10% said that they did not have any additional skills, while the

others mostly listed driver license, computer skills and foreign languages, and

there were a substantial number of those who claimed to be ready for physical la-

bor (which essentially means that they do not have any special additional skills).

Table 2.11: Additional skills important for employment 22

Skill % of persons having ir22

Foreign languages 28.9

Work on computer 39.9

Driver license 50.3

Technical and craftsmanship skills 23.4

Musical and artistic skills 6.4

Readiness for physical labor 24.6

Agricultural knowledge 19.5

Skills to produce hand-made goods, ancient and traditional crafts

11.7

The data presented show the current basic educational characteristics of job

seeking examinees. Their readiness to receive additional training in order to

fi nd a job will be presented within the analysis of various forms of readiness

to adapt to the labor market conditions.

21 This question allowed multiple answers, meaning that the total is

more than 100%.

22 Multiple answers

21

22


53

2.2.2. Job seeking patterns

Among job seeking examinees in all three cities, pro-active job seeking meth-

ods are prevalent, which would include the following: addressing the local

branch offi ce of the National Employment Service, addressing the informal net-

works of friends, acquaintances and relatives, directly addressing the employ-

ers and browsing and responding to job ads published in newspapers and on

the Internet. It can be noted that addressing private employment agencies is

not so frequent. It is interesting that in Kragujevac, addressing the NES branch

offi ce is the most frequently used job seeking channel, while in Kraljevo and

Vranje these are informal social networks. Directly addressing the employers is

more common in Kragujevac and Vranje than in Kraljevo, as well as placing ads

and responding to ads published in newspapers and on the Internet.

Table 2.12: Job seeking patterns among examinees who stated that they have been actively seeking employment in the previous months, according to place of residence 23

Job seeking methods% of cases stating the given method23


Addressing the local NES branch offi ce 47.6 60.7 49.2

Addressing relatives and friends 69.3 52.8 76.9

Directly addressing the employers 24.2 41.6 46.2

Placing ads and responding to them in newspapers or on the Internet

20.8 31.5 49.2

Via a private employment agency 4.3 6.2 9.2

Waiting for results of a job application they have sent earlier 4.8 5.6 3.1

Waiting for a call from NES 14.3 19.1 3.1

Waiting for results of a competition for vacancies in a public institution

2.6 5.1 -

It is interesting that there are no significant differences in job seeking

methods among the examinees with diff erent activity statuses (employed,

23 Here, multiple answers were possible (the examinees could list sev-

eral methods they apply), meaning that the total is over 100.

23


54

unemployed, employed in Kosovo institutions and inactive). With some

smaller diff erences, they all rely to the above mentioned most frequent

job seeking methods.

The share of those who are actually trying to initiate an independent business

is very low, and most of the examinees are looking to work for an employer.

In Kragujevac and Vranje there is more employment seekers who would ac-

cept a job with any working hours, while in Kraljevo there are more persons

looking for a full-time job.

“Nope… You get a job if you already know a person work-

ing there, like this Radica woman that you’ve just talked

with. Her son works there for ten years already. We do it

like that ‘cause we have to, ‘tis hard for him to earn a liv-

ing. The guy’s young, he smokes, he wants pretty clothes,

so he has to make money somehow. What happens next,

he goes to a friend and says ”I have a guy living in my

building, a young boy of the age of twenty, or eighteen

– he describes him – the poor thing wants to work for

someone for a couple of days”. And then the friend says

“All right, let him come.” And the boy comes, and then he

gives you 300 bucks.” (an unemployed man)

“Well, I mostly responded to ads from newspapers and

the Internet. But that ain’t how I got my job. At the

time, that couple of jobs that I did, I got them through

connections. Y’know, like, a good friend or a relative or

a guy that I know recommends me a job.” (an unem-

ployed expert)


55

Table 2.13: The type of job preferred by IDPs who actively seek employment

Type of preferred employment% of jobseekers


Self-employed 3.9 1.1 1.5

Employed full-time worker 63.2 41.5 41.5

Employed part-time worker 1.8 5.5 3.1

Employed worker with any working hours 31.1 51.9 53.8

Total 100 100 100

In this aspect, again there are no important diff erences between the cur-

rently employed, unemployed and persons employed in Kosovo institu-

tions/organizations.

Among the job seeking examinees, the vast majority (95%) did not refuse

a single job off er in the past two years. The few of them who did this none-

theless, stated the following reasons for refusal: inappropriate wages, job

inadequate to their qualifi cations, temporary illness, etc.

It is important to note that 89% of examinees who had declared themselves

as active jobseekers stated that they would be able to start working within

two weeks, if they were off ered a job. Among the remaining 11% who would

not be able to do this, the most frequent stated reasons are education, train-

ing, family issues and similar (only in 1.5% of the cases they said that they

wouldn’t be able to leave their current job so quickly).

2.2.3. Experiences with active employment measures

Among the jobseekers, 71% are registered in the NES records. In the sub-

group of currently employed, 65% are registered in the records, which is not

a surprise given that their employment is informal. Among the unemployed,

73% are registered in the NES records, while 14% used to be registered but


56

are not any longer, and 13% have never been registered. There are diff erences

between the selected three cities in relation to this aspect. On one hand, Kra-

gujevac and Vranje have the highest percentage of jobseekers registered in

the NES records (79% and 76% respectively), while in Kraljevo this percentage

is somewhat lower (61%).

An important information indicates the effi ciency of passive labor market

measures, i.e. unemployed benefi ts distribution: the percentage of those

who receive benefi ts in the group of informally employed (27%), and in the

group of actually unemployed (24%) is almost equal.

In sample cities, jobseekers are generally well informed about the existing

active employment programs of NES (description of these activities is given

in Annex 3). Only 3% of job seeking examinees did not hear for any of the

active employment programs. For examinees from all three cities, the most

important source of information on the existing programs is the media: in

Kraljevo, 70% of IDPs heard about the programs in this way, in Kragujevac

this percentage is 47%, and in Vranje it is 55%. It can also be noticed that

examinees from Kragujevac are more active in fi nding information on the

available NES programs, because there are 22% of them who did this, while in

Kraljevo this percentage stands at 14%, and in Vranje at 9%. The local branch

of NES in Kragujevac is somewhat more active in notifying the IDPs about

the available employment programs, because 16% of job seeking examinees

were informed by NES offi cials about these programs, while in Kraljevo this

percentage stands at 10%, and in Vranje at 9%.

Table 2.14: Level of information on NES active employment measures – comparable data for Kraljevo, Kragujevac i Vranje24

Program type% of informed cases24


Subsidized employment of probationers 67.7 76.3 66.7

Training for job 50.4 52.5 25.0

24 Multiple answers 24


57

ICT training 59.1 57.6 41.7

Foreign language courses 61.4 57.6 50.0

Prequalifi cation and additional qualifi cation 59.1 57.6 41.7

Elementary education of adults 38.6 40.7 16.7

Support to talents 30.7 27.1 8.3

Virtual enterprise 15.7 13.6 16.7

Training for active job seeking 55.9 55.9 33.3

Training for self-employment 46.5 42.4 25.0

Subsidies for self-employment 59.8 71.2 25.0

Subsidy “Severence to job” 37.8 35.6 16.7

Active job seeking club 29.9 20.3 41.7

Job fairs 80.3 86.4 66.7

Participation in the active employment programs, however, is much lower

than the information level. In Kraljevo, only 8.5% of job seeking IDPs have

participated in some of the programs, in Kragujevac there are slightly more

of them – 10.6%, while in Vranje they are rather few – only 4.6%. Among

the workers who participated in the active employment programs, most of

them participated in job fairs, then in active job seeking trainings, ICT and

language courses, while only in Kragujevac there is a higher share of those

who participated in trainings for job.

The active employment measures participants have evaluated the program’s

eff ects rather negatively. They were asked to grade from 1 to 5 the eff ects

of the employment program they had participated in, according to various

aspects. The average grades are given in the Table below.


58

Table: 2.15: Average grades of employment measured as given by IDPS who participated in the program: comparable data for Kraljevo, Kragujevac and Vranje

Program contribution’s aspect

Average grades(1=did not help at all, 5=helped a great deal)


Contribution to easier employment 1.7 1.7 1.7

Contribution to better selection of job type 1.7 1.8 2.0

Contribution to harmonization of abilities and skills with the given occupation

1.8 2.0 2.3

Contribution to getting in touch with the mployers

1.9 1.9 2.3

Contribution to a more skilful way of talking with the employers

1.9 2.1 2.3

“What can I say, nothing for now, and I don’t see I had any

help from the Service to get me a job. Maybe it ain’t their

fault, maybe the employers don’t call them, as simple as

that, but I still haven’t had any help from the Service. I’ve

got my own counselor, ‘tis this lady who was very nice

to me when we talked, but it ain’t giving no results – at

least she ain’t giving me any hope of fi nding a job in my

branch. And you know how life goes, as soon as you’re

over thirty, and you still haven’t worked in your branch,

‘tis diffi cult for people to take you for an expert in your

job.“ (an unemployed man)

“Well, usually I fi nd me my own information. Sometimes

when you talk to them they leave out things, so they

don’t tell me all I can expect. But I know it all, I’m familiar

with all the programs they have here in Kragujevac.“ (an

unemployed man)


59

Lastly, 10% of examinees participated in some training program outside of

NES programs. Usually those were computer of language courses.

When asked to state an active employment program that would, in their opin-

ion, contribute the most to better job fi nding, the majority of examinees said

that it would be the program of training and subsidized self-employment (45%).

In addition, 26% said that it would be subsidized work for an employer, 16%

stated active job seeking training, 8% prequalifi cation, and the others said that

they would need assistance in fi nding a concrete job. Such a high rating of the

training program and subsidies for self-employment are not in line with the data

that most jobseekers wish to work for an employer. However, it can be expected

that in circumstances of long-term unemployment and active yet unsuccess-

ful job seeking, some examinees develop a certain degree of awareness that

self-employment is more under their control, meaning that it is a more certain

survival option under current labor market conditions. In terms of this aspect,

there are no signifi cant diff erences between examinees from three cities.

Almost one third of job seeking examinees expressed the wish to prequalify.

Their present qualifi cation profi le indicates that they are mostly skilled workers

(40%), then persons with secondary educational degree for white-collar work-

ers and technicians (24%) and persons with elementary school (14%), while

others, in smaller numbers, are from categories of persons without any school,

with incomplete elementary school or with gymnasium, and there are even

people with university education. The diff erences between examines from

three cities are not great, and they are mostly shown in the fact that in Kragu-

jevac and Vranje there is a higher share of skilled workers and a lower share of

white-collar workers and technicians among those who expressed their wish to

prequalify/receive additional qualifi cations, while in Kraljevo these two groups

of diff erent qualifi cations are equally represented.

Unfortunately, these wishes for prequalifi cation often aren’t in line with the labor

market needs, since the examinees usually opted to prequalify for jobs whose

share in the employment structure is not high, or it has even declined in the past

few years. The majority of persons wish to prequalify for jobs in commerce, per-

sonal services, business and administration. There is also an important number

of those ready to prequalify to any occupation if that would guarantee them


60

employment. This might indicate their readiness to better adapt their qualifi ca-

tions to demand, in the absence of reliable information on needed profi les.

Table: 2.16: Preferred prequalifi cation/additional qualifi cations

Preferred qualifi cation % of those who expressed their wish

to prequalify/receive additional qualifi cations for given profi le

Anything that leads to employment 16.5

Expert for business and administration 6.3

Technician in business and administration 5.1

Healthcare technician 3.8

ICT technician 3.8

White-collar workers with various profi les 5.2

Personal services, care services 11.4

Salesmen 15.2

Protection staff 5.1

Construction workers 6.3

Machine workers 3.8

Printing press workers 2.5

Workers for processing wood, food production and clothes manufacture

5.1

Other 9.9

Total 100

Qualifi cations, educational profi les, additional skills and knowledge are im-

portant labor force characteristics that should be taken into consideration

when examining employment opportunities. However, in addition to these


61

objective characteristics that indicate the professional profi le of labor sup-

ply, it is important to examine a set of subjective aspects that infl uence the

real behavior of the labor force in the labor market. These subjective aspects

include various working orientations, readiness of unemployed and other

jobseekers to get engaged in diff erent labor arrangements, expectations

from future employment, perception of employer’s demands in relation to

preferred features of the employees, etc.

2.2.4. Labor readiness and expectations from employment

The research examined various degrees of readiness of IDPs to get involved

with more fl exible forms of work, or to adapt their orientations to the local la-

bor market conditions. This readiness and orientations indicate the fl exibility

and adaptability of the labor force in the conditions of intense restructuring

of local economy, transformation of the labor market, and especially changes

provoked by economic crisis trends, as well as changes that the IDPs have

experienced by moving into a new social environment. The labor orientations

were examined by use of a set of dimensions that measured readiness for

work-related geographical mobility, fl exibility in acceptance of various jobs

available in the labor market, even those that were below the examinee’s

qualifi cations, contract-based work, work in informal economy, readiness for

a more intense work (longer working hours, additional tasks), and indepen-

dent forms of work (self-employment and entrepreneurship). Readiness to

acquire new knowledge and skills in order to adapt one’s own qualifi cations

to the labor market’s needs was also examined.

The data indicates that the examinees from all three cities are mostly ready

to accept all options off ered, apart from informal employment and uniting

into a cooperative. The readiness for work-related geographical mobility

is also rather high. This data is not surprising, given that the IDP popula-

tion is substantially more mobile than the domestic population in general.

Subsequently, a rather high share of participants expressed their readi-

ness to accept a job below qualifi cations if it provides a higher salary, to

participate in trainings and seminars, and to work longer than the regular

working hours.


62

Table 2.17: Labor force readiness to participate in various forms of labor engagement: comparative data for Kraljevo, Kragujevac and Vranje

Type of readiness

% of cases ready to get involved in the given form of labor


Ready to change the place of residence for employment 69 69 67

Ready to do any kind of paid labor 52 71 47

Ready to work longer than the normal working hours 73 69 88

Ready to do a job below qualifi cations, but for a higher salary 79 82 80

Ready to work informally 21 37 53

Ready to acquire new knowledge and skills 86 80 80

Ready to start an independent business 68 69 80

Ready to unite with others to form a cooperative 34 46 40

Ready to found one’s own company, independently or with other co-owners

42 63 47

It is also important to note this surprisingly high readiness for self-employment,

which might indicate the appearance of some new trends that had been seen

before among the refugee population. Namely, as it was presented in the re-

search on the position of refugee population in the labor market (Babović, Cvejić,

Rakić, 2007), due to long-term insuffi cient participation in the labor market, as

well as to impossibility to provide a satisfying level of employment and a relative

stability of employment, a substantially higher percentage of the refugee popu-

lation started solving the unemployment problem through self-employment

and entrepreneurship, which also provided a more stable economic basis for

ensuring the livelihood of this population. It is very possible that similar trends

are being developed in the IDP population, that keeps facing, for a decade al-

ready, the impossibility to ensure a stable position in the labor market at large,

unsuccessful attempts at getting the preferred job (usually in the form of stable

formal employment) forcing it to turn to self-employment.

In addition to general readiness to get involved in various labor arrange-

ments, the examinees were asked to list the three most important aspect


63

they paid heed to when choosing to accept a job. Regular salary is absolutely

the most important aspect for examinees. After salary, the examinees from

Kraljevo listed the importance of having a formal job, with their contributions

paid and full-time working hours. In addition to regular salary, the examinees

from Kragujevac asked to have their labor rights respected, such as the right

on vacation and sick leave, and then they insisted on the formality of the job.

As for examinees from Vranje, after regular salary they list the importance of

having a formal job, which would be stable and long-term. It is important to

note that in this aspect there are no signifi cant diff erences between jobseek-

ers who are unemployed and jobseekers who work informally.

“I’ve already said ‘tis a respectable job, and by that I mean

working hours. I want some working hours from 7AM to 3

PM. Saturday and Sunday – okay , not Sunday – a couple

of weeks off for vacation, I want a normal life, normal col-

leagues, normal people I can hang out with… They’re my

minimal conditions, them. About the wages – fair enough,

average Serbian wages are way too huge for me. Rumor

has it that an average Serb earns thirty to forty thousand

bucks. Me, I make myself some eight thousands, so that

makes me what – average below average. Now concretely,

that would mean that the average Serbian wage is too high

for me with those working hours. I’m talking ‘bout normal

working hours, from the olden days, the socialist and com-

munist times, when you used to work eight hours a day.” (an informally employed man)

“Err, what motivated me? Well, only thing that mattered

was to earn a buck or two. Like, to save some money on

the side at the end of the month. When all’s said and

done, sometimes it only mattered to cover my expens-

es, to pay the bills, to earn some money, put something

– anything – on the side.” (an unemployed woman)


64

The survey also collected data on the lowest wage that the examinees were

ready to accept. For examinees in Kraljevo, this wage averagely stands at

19800 RSD, for examinees in Kragujevac 22200 RSD, and for examinees in

Vranje 17300 RSD. It can be noticed that the examinees are (on average)

ready to accept wages lower than the average in their city, and even lower

than the average wages earned by the employed from the sample. However,

in this regard there are signifi cant diff erences between the currently em-

ployed, the unemployed and the formally employed in Kosovo institutions.

While the unemployed persons from the sample would accept to work for

19000 RSD on average, the employed would accept a salary of 24000 RSD,

and the formally employed in Kosovo institutions/organizations, wouldn’t

want to work for a wage lower than 28000 RSD.

“Nobody off ered me any job, no, y’know, to give me a rea-

son to prequalify… Not once did my company call me to

say – listen here, we need a cleaner, a janitor, a doorkeeper,

anything… Sure I’d accept, ‘tis a salary of at least 20000 RSD.

That’s the salary for high school kids working in healthcare,

you know…” (an informally employed man)

“What, they want you to work for some money, they off er

you meager fi ve or six thousand, is that a solution I ask

you? Then, ‘tis better for you to work a couple of days in-

formally on a construction site or something. ‘Cause you

know, like, you’ll manage to stay at least one month on

a construction site, you’ll earn at least some four or fi ve

hundred Euros. ‘Tis as if you’d worked for an employer

for half a year. So, your fate’s the same, more or less. ‘Tis a

bit easier to survive a month, you know, like, clench your

teeth and live though it, than to put up with exploitation

for half a year. Come to think of it, ‘tis yesterday that I met

this woman who works in a shop for this guy, earning

nine thousand a month.” (an unemployed man)


65

Finally, the examinees were asked to list three personal qualities they be-

lieved the employers wanted the most, or appreciated the most among their

employees. It was an open question, meaning that the examinees could

provide their own answers. The majority of examinees concluded that the

employers appreciate the most diligence and hard work of their employees,

followed by honesty, trust and effi ciency.

Table 2.18: Assessment of personal qualities of employees that employers value the most 25

Personal quality % of cases that stated the given feature25

Diligence, hard work 63

Honesty, trust 36

Effi ciency, skillfulness, cunning 25

Expertise, knowledge, skills 24

Responsibility 22

Punctuality, preciseness, neatness 18

Obedience 15

Working discipline 14

Teamwork, relationship with colleagues 9

Youth 8

Ambitions 7

Experience 4

Persistence 4

The next chapter will present the employer’s attitudes on valuing the quali-

ties of their employees, so it will be possible to assess whether the examinees

perceptions match the employers’ attitudes.

Examination of the characteristics of the labor force supply is only one ele-

ment of mapping the employment opportunities of IDPs. The next important

component is examination of the labor force demand, which was the topic of

a separate research whose fi ndings are presented in the next chapter.

25 The examinees could list three qualities. 25

67

CHARACTERISTICS OF LABOR FORCE DEMAND IN THE LOCAL LABOR MARKETS

3.


68

69

The research on characteristics of labor force demand involved the total number

of 156 companies of various sizes, ownership structures and activity sectors. In

Kraljevo, there were 53 companies, in Kragujevac 51, and in Vranje 52. The share

of companies of various sizes was defi ned by the sample plan in line with their

share in the total number of companies in the given city, while the method of

random selection was supposed to provide their representativeness in terms of

ownership and economy branch (methodology details of this component are

given in Annex 1). Questions from the questionnaire were answered by owners,

company directors and competent human resources managers.

Table 3.1: Companies from the sample according to size and place of residence – comparative data for Kraljevo, Kragujevac and Vranje26

Company size26 %


Large 7.5 15.7 9.6

Medium 28.3 31.4 17.3

Small 37.7 27.5 30.8

Micro 26.4 25.5 42.3

Total 100 100 100

The majority of the companies from the sample are private (76%), with 15%

of public companies and 9% of companies with mixed ownership. Most com-

panies deal with processing industry, then with commerce and retail trade,

and small repairs.

26 The companies were classifi ed in lin with the number of employees.

Micro companies are those that employ up to 10 workers, small com-

panies employ 11-50 workers, medium ones have 51-250 workers,

and those with more than 250 workers are large companies.

26


70

Table 3.2: Companies according to activity branch

Activity branch %

Processing industry 38.5

Production of electrical energy and gas, water supply 5.1

Construction 9.0

Commerce and retail trade, small repairs 25.0

Classical services (hotels and restaurants, storage and communications, fi nancial mediation, real estate, personal services)

13.5

Social services, public administration (mandatory social insurance, education, healthcare, social welfare, communal activities, other social activities)

9.0

Total 100

Companies from the sample employ a total of 18047 persons. The employ-

ers interviewed have identifi ed that they had 267 IDPs among their workers,

although in medium and especially in large companies the managers usually

could not give an exact number of employees belonging to this social group,

since they do not keep such records. Therefore the portion of 1.4% of IDPs

among the employees in companies from the sample should be viewed as

the bottom parameter of their actual share.

3.1. Successfulness of company business

According to examinees, 45% of companies have successful business, 12% of

companies have excellent business, while 30% barely survive, but still have

positive results. The majority of “losers” are among the large companies (35%),

while the majority of those companies whose business is ‘rather good’ and

‘excellent’ are small companies. Of course, this is closely connected to the fact

that among the large companies there is still a great number of old enterprises

that still struggle with restructuring ordeals, as well as public companies.

Around 10% of companies from the sample have stated that the real turn-

over of the company increased signifi cantly in the past year, 36% said that it

Characteristics of labor force demand in the local labor markets

71

increased minimally, while the majority of companies (54%) claim that this

wasn’t their case. Among the companies that have signifi cantly increased

their real turnover in the previous year, the majority deals with industry fol-

lowed by commerce, and concerning the diff erences between the cities, the

majority of companies are from Vranje.

According to examinees, one third of sample companies had important

investments into the modernization of technology, 23% invested minimal

funds in technological innovations, while 44% of companies did not update

technology in the past year. Among the companies with important invest-

ments into technological innovations, the majority are from Kragujevac, while

Kraljevo has the most companies that invested into technological innova-

tions at any rate. Large and medium companies invested into technological

innovations more often than small and especially micro companies.

More than a half of companies changed their labor organization during the

past year, in order to increase productivity and effi ciency. In this aspect, there

are no signifi cant diff erences between the three cities, but there are diff er-

ences between companies of diff erent sizes. Even though the number of

companies that introduced organizational innovations or transformations

is great within each size category, the large companies did have the most of

these initiatives (in 82% of the cases).

Among the sample companies, 69% organize come kind of training for their

employees and therefore invest into improvement of human resources. The

majority of companies (40%) organize trainings on regular basis, 34% orga-

nize occasional trainings (less than once a year), 16% have frequent trainings

(on monthly basis), and 10% have it only once, when newly employed come

into the company. In most cases, employers of companies that do not orga-

nize trainings for employees believe that said employees do not need this

training (59%), while the rest of them does seem to think that some forms of

professional improvement of employees would be necessary.

As their biggest problems, almost one half of sample companies listed col-

lection of claims, one third indicated the economic crisis, unfavorable market

conditions and reduced purchasing power of population, 30% mentioned


72

the lack of money and appropriate equipment, and other important prob-

lems listed were the lack of quality labor force (15%) but also a surplus of

employees (in 4% of the cases).27

3.2. Employment opportunities of workers

In the past two years, the sample companies have laid off three times more

workers (6224) than they have employed (2016). However, it is important to

note that such a great number of laid off workers can be explained by a few

large companies that face the problems of survival and restructuring. In the

given period of time, only one company, “Magnohrom” from Kraljevo, laid

off 1900 workers. In addition, the companies “Zastava” from Kragujevac and

“Yumco” from Vranje have laid off 1000 workers each in the same period. An-

other 1000 workers were laid off in total from four companies “21. oktobar”,

“Diork”, “TP Srbija” from Kragujevac, and “Kavim Jedinstvo” from Vranje.

In order to assess the employment potential of sample companies, it is not

enough to rely on these fi gures, but it is necessary to examine the capacities

and the dynamics of employment in a diff erent manner. It was noted that in

the entire sample, in the given period 76% of the companies employed new

workers. In the same period, the percentage of companies that laid off workers

stood at 48%. In this cycle of employing and laying off workers, it is important

to note that a low percentage of companies (38%) laid off more workers than

they employed, 10% of companies did not have either growth or drop of em-

ployment, while 52% of companies employed more workers than they had

laid off . When it comes to IDPs employed in sample companies, according to

incomplete records (due to reasons already stated) there were 115 IDPs among

the newly employed workers, and 14 among the laid off workers.

As the most important reason for employing new workers, expansion of busi-

ness was stated in 68% of the cases, while loss of workers was given in 17% of

the cases. This shows that development of business was the main reason for

employment among companies that hired new workers, and not high fl uctua-

27 A multiple answer question, maning that the total is over 100 27


73

tion. The majority of companies that stated that they had hired new workers due

to business expansion are from the processing industry sector (33%), followed

by commerce (23%), and then classical services (17%), construction (11%), social

services and public administration (9%) and energy production (7%).

As the major reason for laying off workers, 29% stated the problem of redun-

dancy, in 21% of the cases the cause was violation of labor discipline, in 19%

it was the reduced scope of work, in 16% of the cases the workers volun-

teered to quit, in 6% of the cases the workers were dismissed for incompetent

performance, while the other employers stated other reasons.

Professional profi le of newly employed and laid off workers

It is very important to pay heed to professional profi les of newly employed

and laid off workers. Among the newly employed experts, the majority are

engineers and technical sciences experts, followed by business and adminis-

tration experts. Among the technicians who were employed in the past two

years, the majority are assistants, and science and engineering technicians.

In terms of white-collar workers, this high percentage of newly employed

white-collar workers is related to one single company (“Forma Ideale” from

Kragujevac) that employed 420 out of 507 newly employed white-collar

workers in the past two years.28 In the category of skilled production workers

and crafts workers, electricians and electronic workers are have a somewhat

higher share than workers dealing with food production, wood processing

and clothes manufacture, or metallurgy, machine or construction workers.

In the category of factory machine workers, operators and assemblers, there

is slightly more drivers and workers in mobile plants than factory machine

operators, while among the unskilled workers the majority are physical work-

ers on construction sites.

Almost one half of newly employed are hired for an indefi nite period of

time (49%).

28 These are employees of diff erent profi les: for work with clients, for

administrative work, etc. Some of the profi les of white-collar work-

ers would fi t the traditional defi nition of salesmen, even though the

employer insists that they are white-collar workers.

28


74

Table 3.3: Professional profi les of workers employed in the past two years

Professional profi les % in the group of newly employed

Experts 8.7

Technicians 7.4

White-collar workers 29.7

Skilled service providers 1.9

Skilled production workers, highly skilled workers and craftsmen 27.0

Factory workers, machine operators, assemblers 16.1

Unskilled workers 9.2

Total 100

In terms of laid off workers’ profi les, it can be seen that more than a half of

them are production workers. Among them, the majority are food produc-

tion, wood processing and clothes manufacture workers, followed by elec-

tricians and electronic workers, then machine and metallurgy workers and

others. Among the laid off workers, 67.3% were employed on an indefi nite

period of time.

Table 3.4: Professional profi le of workers laid off in the past two years

Professional profi les % in the group of laid off workers

Experts 1.9

Technicians 7.5



Skilled production workers, highly skilled workers and craftsmen 51.1



Total 100


75

Data on professional profi le of newly employed and laid off workers indicate

that in the given period of time there was intense restructuring of local econo-

my, as well as individual, large production companies. This is especially evident

in the high share of skilled production workers laid off from companies within

the sample, while persons with the same qualifi cation profi le were employed

in more prosperous production companies, but to a much lesser extent.

Among the sample companies 18% have redundant workers. Two thirds of

employers from these companies said that they planned to lay off redundant

workers with severance, while 17% claimed that they planned to prequalify

such workers. The others, for now, did not decide in what manner they will

regulate the problem of redundant workers.

Plans and projections of employment

The employers from the sample were also questioned concerning their plans

and projections in relation to the labor force in the next period of time. Trying

to assess whether the number of employees will reduce, increase or remain the

same, on the basis of the current situation in their company, 32% of the employ-

ers said that the number of employees will increase, 14% of them said that it will

decrease, while 18% were not able to make an assessment. According to pre-

sented assessments of employers, the sample companies should employ around

560 new workers in the next year. Data on professional profi les of workers whose

employment is to be expected is presented in the table below. The high share of

skilled and highly skilled production workers can be explained by the plans of

“Yumco” from Vranje to employ 200 production workers in their factories.

Table 3.5: Professional profi les of workers whose employment is planned

Professional profi les % in the group of planned jobs

Experts 7.5

Technicians 6.3




76

Skilled production workers, highly skilled workers and craftsmen

67.8



Total 100

The employers were also asked whether they would employ new workers is

they were given support in the form of credit or equipment, if they the salary

for that particular job was funded or if they were given a donation for busi-

ness expansion. The majority of employers (90%) said that they would em-

ploy new workers if they were given a business expansion donation, 63% said

that they would hire new workers if their salaries were funded, 60% if they

were given assistance in equipment, and 53% if they were given credits29.

One fi fth employers from the sample claim that they need certain profi les of

workers that are not available in the labor market supply. Among the employ-

ers who complained on the shortage of certain professional profi les, one half

is from Kragujevac, and one quarter from Kraljevo and Vranje each. These

are mostly profi les of engineers with certain specializations, metallurgy and

machine workers, factory machine operators, etc.

In addition to workers that are employed for a defi nite and for an indefi nite

period of time, sample companies hire occasional work force in 73% of the

cases (season workers, through contracts or youth employment agencies,

etc.). Among those who hire occasional labor force, 12% of employers do it

in a continuous manner. According to employers’ statements, this labor force

makes up to 10% of total labor force in company.

29 Multiple answers.

“We have this employment system, see, we hire them on

the basis of occasional work contract. So they spend here

a year or two, and that’s how we see what kind of a person

we’re dealing with.” (an employer, medium company)

29


77

The employers were also questioned on their plans to lay off workers. They

weren’t that ready to discuss this aspect, so the assessments should be taken

with reserve, because it may turn out that the given numbers are substan-

tially under the planned layoff s, or layoff s that might come up as a conse-

quence of the economic crisis. According to the employers’ statements, in

the following year, it is to expect that at least 157 employees from sample

companies will be laid off , among whom there is an almost equal number of

technicians, white-collar workers and skilled production workers.

3.3. Employment practices and human resources management

An important part of surveying the employers was directed at examination of

employment practices, recruitment channels of employees and experiences

with programs and services of the National Employment Service, but it also

examined the perception and evaluation of labor force satisfaction level, as

well as expectations from employees.

When seeking new staff , the employers mostly address the NES (70%), then

they rely on formal and informal channels of contact with other employ-

ers (60%), which is followed by relying on social networks of their current

employees (57%), while a smaller number of employers recruit their staff

through media ads (38%), and a very small number seek employees through

youth cooperatives and private employment agencies. It is important to note

that 18% of employers have stated that they do not collaborate with the

National Employment Service at all.

“Every worker who’s been hired gets a contract on an

indefi nite period of time. Every single one of them! Our

company’s policy is to help the young, as well as to make

Internally Displaced Persons equal to others.” (an em-

ployer, an IDP himself, medium company)


78

The research questioned the employer’s awareness on measures of NES that

encourage employment, targeted at employers (a description of these mea-

sures is given in Annex 3). The highest percentage of employers are informed

about the program “Probationers and Volunteers”, and then, just like the job-

seekers, about the job fairs. Generally speaking, the awareness level related

to these programs is good, although it is surprising that the smallest number

of employers have heard about the program that should be particularly im-

portant when hiring new workers – selection and classifi cation.

“Well, how to put it…. Those who are so eager to be

registered in the NES records, y’know, most of them

are the very worst candidates. They just want to have

their names in the records so they could receive come

benefi ts, like health insurance, ‘cause they’re, like, unem-

ployed. As for those who really want to work, I’ve said

that my company’s open for them, we need workers, ev-

eryone can get employed, and they don’t even have to

be in the NES records. They can come straight to me!” (an

employer, large company)

“Well, see, this is what I think: given that all companies, all

employers have contracts with the National Employment

Service, so to say, and they know what kind of an educa-

tional profi le a particular company needs, the National

Employment Service should produce a more thorough

analysis, if you catch my drift. They should develop data

on what kind of educational profi le is the most needed

here, and then they should suggest the Minister of Edu-

cation to create curricula for that, or something along

those lines, so that we could get educated people for

jobs that we off er.” (an employer, medium company).


79

Table 3.6: Awareness on NES employment encouraging measures targeted at employers30

Program % of cases informed about it30

Subsidies for creating 50 new jobs 75

“Severance to job” – fi nancial support 69

Mentoring and specialist trainings 44

Tax relief from paying contributions for employment of vulnerable categories

78

Public works implementation 60

Probationers and volunteers 94

Trainings of unemployed for a known employer 55

Selection and classifi cation 36

Job fairs 92

Less than a half of the employers (48%) has used one of the above stated

support programs. Among those who did use the NES programs, the major-

ity (64%) used the “Probationers and Volunteers” program, 43% participated

in job fairs, 31% used the program of tax relief from paying contributions

for employment of socially vulnerable groups, while a very small number of

employers used the other programs.

When asked to evaluate their collaboration with NES on scale from 1 to 10,

the employers gave a relatively positive grade to this collaboration (the av-

erage grade was 7). The employers were also asked to state the three most

important problems they were facing in their collaboration with NES. One

half said that there were no problems in collaboration, one fi fth complained

on the lack of profi ciency and promptness, and a smaller number objected

that NES could not off er the appropriate human resources that they needed,

or that the procedures were overly complicated and ineffi cient.

30 Multiple answers30


80 Special attention was paid to examination of selection procedures that the em-

ployers use to hire new employees. The most important method of evaluating

candidates was interview, which is applied by 91% of employers, then recommen-

dation from a trusted person (71%), then candidate’s CV (69%), probation work

(applied by 67% of employers), knowledge and skills tests (41%), and written

recommendations from previous employers or educational institution (32%).31

31 Multiple answers.

“We don’t have competitions for vacancies in our com-

pany, we didn’t have the opportunity to organize them

lately. We hired twenty-something probationers through

this program “First chance”. It’s a program to hire young

workers, up till the age of 30, who didn’t have any work-

ing experience before.” (an employer, large company)

“Up till now, we had public works, we hired labor force

through public works. I don’t know what the analysis says,

since we hired them a month ago. ‘Tis a joint program of

our municipality and the state, we applied for it, and we

got it. We hired 70 persons through public works. I don’t

know what’s their structure, really. I still don’t know. Hir-

ing them went mostly through the National Employment

Agency.“ (an employer, medium company)

“The last competition for vacancy that we organized was

in 2007, for a position in fi nancial department. We usually

don’t organize them, but we organized it that once. We

don’t have those people on other positions because we

don’t organize competitions for vacancies, so they cannot

apply. When it is about labor force with a higher degree

of expertise and education, they are mostly hired through

recommendations.“ (an employer, medium company)

31


81

The employers were also asked to rank three most important criteria they use

to evaluate the candidates. According to examinees’ answers, the fi rst place

was shared by expertise and qualifi cations, followed by working experience,

and lastly – good recommendations. It is important to note that, even though

they weren’t highly ranked, the criteria such as marriage status and gender of

a candidate do appear among answers, given that 5-10% of employers stated

that they did take these aspects into consideration, which indicates at least

where the bottom parameter of discriminatory practices can be found.

IDPs as employees

However, given that the research aimed to verify whether the IDPs were ex-

posed to particular forms of discrimination related to employment, the em-

ployers were asked hypothetical questions on members of various groups that

face diffi culties in employment. Namely, the employers were asked to imagine

a situation in which two candidates apply for one vacancy, both having same

motivation and qualifi cations. They employers then had to say to whom they

would give advantage: a person younger or older than the age of 45, a man or

a woman, a person with or a person without working experience, an IDP or a

local, a Roma or a non-Roma. Of course, the examinees also had the third op-

tion, as they could select the “Doesn’t matter” answer as well.

“We expect our employees to meet the needs of their

jobs. First of all, we expect them to be responsible. They

should be diligent. We demand timeliness in carrying out

their duties.” (an employer, medium company).

“We expect the new workers to learn new things in a

practical way, to be good workers. We expect them to

be diligent in their work. They should also be loyal to the

company. They should be productive and achieve good

results in their work, they shouldn’t be lazybones.” (an

employer, large company)


82

Table 3.7: Giving advantage to candidates from certain social categories

To whom they would give advantage

A person younger than 45 A person older than 45 Doesn’t matter

68% 2% 30%

A man A woman Doesn’t matter

23% 10% 67%

A person with working experience A person without working experience Doesn’t matter

70% 3% 27%

A local An IDP Doesn’t matter

27% 1% 72%

A non-Roma A Roma Doesn’t matter

37% 2% 61%

The expressed tendencies to discriminate against IDPs in employment, espe-

cially when possible combinations of answers from the Table are taken into

consideration, should be kept in mind when shaping the support measures

for employment of this population. This means that, in addition to other

necessary activities related to awareness raising and implementation of the

Anti-discrimination Law, special incentive measures should be designed in

order to stimulate employers to hire people from this category and abandon

their discriminatory practices.

“The diff erence that I see is refl ected in the fact that IDPs

are unskilled labor force” (an employer, large company)

“Yeah, sure, ‘tis true… We’ve had IDPs, or even refugees

from Croatia and Bosnia, working for us here, some of them

still do, and they get a completely diff erent treatment from

the locals. That’s the way things are, and it’s obvious, you

can easily notice it.” (an employer, medium company).


83

More than one half of employers from the sample (59%) said that their com-

pany undertakes certain activities that could be described as socially respon-

sible business. As examples of these activities, in the majority of cases they

listed humanitarian work (60%), donations, scholarships and material aid for

workers (41%), contribution to environmental protection (30%), and 52%

of employers said that they sponsor sports events.32 When asked directly

whether they would be ready to give scholarships to pupils and students

from IDP families, 32% of employers answered “no”.

Employers’ perceptions and expectations from their employees were also

examined, as well as their level of satisfaction with workers from their com-

pany. The employers were asked to list three qualities that they appreciate

the most among their employees. According to frequency of appearance on

that list, the following qualities were seen as important: expertise, loyalty and

honesty, responsibility, diligence and commitment to work. When asked to

evaluate expertise and knowledge, as well as responsibility and commitment

of employees in their companies (on the scale from 1 to 10), the employers

gave relatively high grades to their employees – for both aspects, the aver-

age grade is 7.6. The employers employing IDPs were asked to rank their

IDP workers the same way. In both aspects, the grades were slightly, but not

signifi cantly lower – the IDPs’ grade for expertise and knowledge was 7.1, and

for responsibility and commitment 7.3.

32 This was an open question, giving the examinees the opportunity to

list three activities of their choice

“Listen, I have no prejudice whatsoever in relation to this

issue. To me, the important thing is to have high quality

workers, people who’re responsible, diligent, educated,

capable to do their job. I have no prejudice whether the

newly employed is a local or an IDP. I’m telling you the

truth. There, you said it yourselves, I’m an IDP as well,

‘tis my fate. What can I say? They didn’t really greet me

with cheers, did they, but ‘tis a specifi c matter, and that’s

about it. “ (an employer, medium company)

32

85

STRUCTURE AND FUNCTIONALITY OF LOCAL SUPPORT NETWORKS

4.


86

87

In order to evaluate structure and functionality of local networks of support

to employment of IDPs, information leading to answers to three key ques-

tions were collected:

1. What are the key institutions and organizations in local communities involved

in providing support to IDPs; what are their forms of support to employment

and economic strengthening of this group, and what is their individual func-

tionality in providing support to employment of local IDP population?

2. What are the current interactions between various institutions/organiza-

tions in relation to support to employment of IDPs? In other words, what are

the scope, structure and functionality of existing networks of social services

relevant for employment of IDPs?

3. What is necessary to change in the network of social services and their

functionality in order to improve support to employment of IDPs? This is

especially important in the situation of worsening economic crisis, given that

the eff ects of employment loss and diffi cult reemployment can severely en-

danger the already weak socioeconomic position of this vulnerable group.

The research on structure and functionality of the local networks of support

to employment of IDPs was implemented using the method of focus groups

discussions, with representatives of relevant institutions and organizations

in three cities (more details in Chapter 1).

Employment support networks

There are three general elements in common shared by all three cities, which

distinguish the space of possible institutional support to employment of

IDPs: formal existence of the Employment Council within the local self-gov-

ernment, existence of NES branch offi ces, and occasional programs of vari-


88

ous international institutions and donors targeting employment support and connecting various stakeholders at the local level. The local Employment Councils are a binding form to connect institutions and organization that can contribute to increase of employment support in the local environment. The NES branch offi ces are the implementers of the central employment poli-cies, as well as important actors in connecting the general trends and the local specifi cities, and the key mediator between the employer and the labor force. The international organizations’ programs for employment support are important not only for employment of a certain number of people from vul-nerable groups, including the IDPs, but also because they helped to develop communication channels between various stakeholders in all three cities, as well as to focus them on a specifi c problem in an coordinated manner.

However, it cannot be said that the aforementioned elements are the center of networks of institutions for support to employment of IDPs in all three cit-ies. The key part of the problem is that in Vranje and Kraljevo the Employment Councils exist, but they haven’t been appointed yet in the new composition of the Municipal Assembly, so there are no formal sessions to examine the problem of unemployment and propose possible solutions. This means that things come down to ad hoc meetings and temporary actions initiated mostly by international organizations. The relations are mostly bilateral and are often put in context of other topic indirectly related to unemployment of IDPs (for example, contacts of local self-government with employers related to investment conditions and busi-ness expansion, which leads to an increase of jobs, or contacts between CSW and NES related to public works for certain vulnerable categories). In Vranje, even the contacts between the NES branch offi ce and other stakeholders are weak, so the Commissioner does not know what are the NES active employment measures that give priority to IDPs, and several members of focus group discussion haven’t even met the branch offi ce director in person.

A good opportunity to improve the situation in this regard is refl ected in the novelties in handling the IDP problems at the local level. One such novelty would be defi ning of local action plans for improvement of position of refugees and IDPs, while the other is establishing local Migration and Permanent Solu-tions Councils. Establishing these councils was recommended by the National

Strategy for Migrations Management and the National Strategy for Readmis-

sion, and their foundation, as well as development of local action plans, is en-

Structure and functionality of local support networks

89

couraged by the Commissariat for Refugees of the Republic of Serbia. These

novelties will allow a more effi cient and organized allocation of attention and

resources to target the problem of unemployment of IDPs, which is the biggest

problem alongside with housing. The local action plans were developed in all

three cities, but in Kraljevo the Municipal Assembly hasn’t adopted it yet, again

due to frequent political changes. The Migration Council was established in

Kragujevac only, while in the other two cities it is in the foundation phase.

In such context, a quality gradation of networks of support to employment

of IDPs in the three cities can be made:

1. In Vranje, there are diff erent elements in the network’s structure, but they are not functional, and even ad hoc networking is rare. All the other stake-holders tend to see unemployment and employment as a problem of the NES branch offi ce or a general problem of economic growth, and none of the stakeholders see their role as crucial, even though they are willing to collaborate if someone else has the initiative. Most of the stakeholders see their role as being implementers of something initiated at the central level and elaborated by the local self-government. The branch offi ce of NES in Vranje allows the recipients of IDP benefi ts to participate in programs of non-fi nancial support, but according to words of the local NES branch of-fi ce, the labor market demand is getting lower and lower, while the unem-ployed IDPs involvement in informal economy is still rather high.

2. In Kraljevo, the connection between the stakeholders is somewhat better, even though it hasn’t been functionally set in the Employment Council yet. The impression is that there are more projects allowing IDP employ-ment than in Vranje, that NES has continuous informal communication with other stakeholders, and that the local self-government is working on a more active approach to the unemployment problem. Also, it seems that communication can be established horizontally here, but the initiative is mostly expected from NES or the local self-government. Both the CSW and the NGOs have participated in the projects for employment of IDPs.

3. In Kragujevac, the situation is closest to the desired form of network-ing. The Council is founded and works on regular basis, meaning that the employers are actively included in the employment story as well. The local self-government has more budgetary funds than in the other two cities, so it can autonomously allocate funds for providing support to employment (public works, encouragement of entrepre-


90

neurship, trainings for known employers). The activities of NES, local self-government and international NGOs are harmonized, the experi-ence is exchanged, and the resources are optimized (however, in this regard the collaboration between the local self-government and the local NGOs is barely existent), and all the stakeholders are included in providing support to employment of IDPs at least periodically. There is a developed practice to collaborate with training providers, especially with technical high schools.

It is important to note that the focus groups discussion members’ answers

to questions on problems concerning the support to employment of IDPs

were completely overshadowed by the economic crisis and massive layoff s

of workers in all three cities. It was very diffi cult for participants in discussions

to point out specifi c problems of IDPs. However, a common place in com-

ments of all participants were the IDP benefi ts, which frequently govern their

behavior in the labor market. Persons receiving these benefi ts are reluctant

to accept a full-time job with low income, given that they are afraid that

they would quickly lose both the job and the benefi ts. Therefore, they opt

for informal work, or for a temporary job that will allow them to go back to

receiving benefi ts. This also reduces their motivation to participate in active

employment measures. Many examinees have also pointed out an oversatu-

ration with training and prequalifi cation programs, indicating the need to

attach these programs to a known job. During the focus group discussion in

Kraljevo, the participants agreed that passivity is also a frequent trend, that

many IDPs are not active in job seeking, expecting the NES branch offi cials to

notify them personally and individually on all the news in the labor market.

This behavior is partially interpreted by the general political climate related

to the Kosovo issue, i.e. continuous waiting for a denouement of this problem

and possible return to Kosovo, or for a formal moving of the company that

used to be on Kosovo into the economic space of Serbia.

It is very important to note that the noted problems and passivity of IDPs that the

representatives of local institutions and organizations included in social support

had indicated are relevant, but they refer to their direct experiences, perceptions

and work with various subgroups in the population of IDPs. Their perceptions are

diff erent than the obtained picture of active jobseekers among IDPs.

91

(LACK OF) HARMONIZATION BETWEEN THE LABOR FORCE DEMAND IN THE LOCAL LABOR MARKETS AND THE LABOR FORCE SUPPLY OF IDPS

5.


92

93

In this study, the analysis of harmonization between the labor force supply

with the labor force demand was directed at several important aspects:

1. Objective indicators of harmonization between the needs for labor force

and characteristics of labor force supply, within the IDP population,

2. Subjective characteristics of labor force supply and demand, including

diff erent kinds of values, readiness, perception and attitudes on pre-

ferred jobs from the point of view of jobseekers, as well as notions of

high quality labor force from the point of view of employers.

3. Examination of local institutional framework and wider social networks

that have the role of intervening actors whose task is to get together

and join two actors in the labor market.

Harmonization of labor force supply and demand according to qualifi cation characteristics

Concerning the fi rst aspect of harmonization between the IDPs’ labor force sup-

ply and the employers’ need in the local labor markets, the research has shown

a whole set of important fi ndings. The three local labor markets are facing huge

problems in the given period – only in the sample companies, the number of jobs

was reduced by around 4000. This increases pressure on existing and newly cre-

ated jobs, and creates conditions in which the IDPs obviously aren’t competitive

enough, judging by the above average unemployment rates in comparison to do-

mestic local population, as well as by a high share of long-term unemployment.

However, in given circumstances, there still are companies that stand out with

their potential to employ, that show stability in business and tend to develop,

and that will hire new labor force in the period to come. One third of companies

from the sample plan to hire new workers in the nest period of time. Concern-


94

ing these planned employments, the most demanded professional profi les are

various profi les of skilled production workers, who make up for more than one

third of announced labor force demand. The table below shows that professional

profi le of IDPs active jobseekers is signifi cantly diff erent than the expressed em-

ployers’ needs concerning professional profi les in planned employment.

Table 5.1: Professional profi les of workers whose employment is planned and IDPs jobseekers

Professional profi les % in the group of planned jobs

% of IDP s jobseekers with given profi le

Experts 7.5 11.3

Technicians 6.3 18.1

White-collar workers 2.7 21.2

Skilled service providers 3.2 9.7

Qualifi ed production workers 67.8 19.1

Factory workers, machine operators, assemblers 6.3 4.1

Unskilled workers 6.3 16.5

Total 100 100

“We had ourselves a situation, we did, I can show you the

list, we employed as much as four hundred and three work-

ers, ‘cause we kept a vacancy for the positions of machinists

and welders, but when I checked them out, when I did an

analysis a couple of month ago, it turns out that only a hun-

dred is still working for us. Most workers don’t wanna work,

don’t wanna do these jobs. Some of them spent only a day

or two here, made us a bunch of expenses to cover, and we

ain’t seen any use of them. And ‘tis so everywhere, I did a

tour of all the institutions in our country and I ended up in

the Labor University in Vranje, and the director over there,

after beating ‘round the bush for a bit, he said: ‘Your eff ort’s

in vain, y’know, these days nobody wanna be a welder, they

all wanna be hairdressers and waiters.” (a large company)

(Lack of) harmonization between the labor force demand in the local labor markets and the labor force…

95

Certainly, the given comparative structures are relatively rough, and when

special narrower categories are extracted from the given categories, accord-

ing to educational profi le of IDPs and profi les needed by employers, the lack

of harmonization becomes even more pronounced.

One fi fth of employers face the problem of fi nding suitable professional pro-

fi les in the local labor markets in spite of relatively high unemployment and

substantial labor force supply. The shortage of following professional profi les

was identifi ed: engineers or certain specializations, metallurgy and machine

workers, factory machine operators, and similar. Apart from engineers who

are only a few among the IDPs, the other profi les are present among the job

seeking IDPs. If these are not always fully identical profi les, it is possible to

adapt them to employers’ needs with prequalifi cation and additional quali-

fi cations, at least when it comes to production workers.

Among the job seeking IDPs, the readiness to prequalify/additionally qualify is

rather high. However, their perceptions of demanded professional profi les or

wishes are not in line with the noted employers’ needs, and they’re especially not

in line with identifi ed professional profi les in shortage. There is a higher inclina-

tion towards the training for salesmen, personal service providers, even though

these profi les are rarely among employers’ needs, or they are not needed at all.

Table 5.2: IDPs that expressed readiness to prequalify/additionally qualify, according to professional profi les that they would prefer

Preferred qualifi cation % of those who expressed the wish

to prequalify/additionally qualify

Anything leading to employment 16.5

Business and administration expert 6.3

Business and administration technician 5.1

Healthcare technician 3.8

ICT technician 3.8

White-collar workers of various profi les 5.2

Personal services, care services 11.4

Salesmen 15.2

Protection staff 5.1


96

Construction workers 6.3

Machine workers 3.8

Printing press workers 2.5

Workers in wood processing, food production, clothes manufacture

5.1

Other 9.9

Total 100

Here, there is the question of the role of local institutions that should partici-

pate in processes of harmonizing the labor force supply with the labor force

demand, such as the educational system, employment services, and other

institutions and organizations relevant for employment support networks

for (employers’ associations, IDP associations, and others).

According to fi ndings from researches on functionality of local support net-

works, it can be concluded that for now, any systematic forms of support

that would act in this direction were not provided. Initiatives to get together

specifi c employers and IDPs for employment or training programs are mostly

sporadic project events.

Harmonization between labor force supply and demand according to subjective values and expectations

More than one quarter of displaced persons of working age are currently in

labor force supply in the labor markets in Kraljevo, Kragujevac and Vranje,

as active jobseekers. Among them, the majority are really unemployed, al-

though there are a lot of persons that regularly or occasionally work in infor-

mal working arrangements either for other employers, or as self-employed.

A large part of this population has long-term struggles with unemployment

or unstable and inappropriate employment.

Data from the research indicates that IDPs with better educational character-

istics, more stable employment before displacement or better social network-

ing have managed to fi nd employment after displacement. They are mostly

employed in the public sector, and the category of experts has a rather high


97

share among them, while they are especially numerous in the sector of public

administration, mandatory social insurance and commerce.

Two categories are dominant among the jobseekers: skilled workers on one

hand, and technicians and white-collar workers on the other. There is also a sig-

nifi cant share of unskilled labor force, but they are less numerous in comparison

to the two aforementioned categories. Research has shown that IDPs engage

in job seeking by combining proactive methods in most cases. Data indicates

that the preferred option is to work for an employer, although the readiness to

get self-employed is relatively pronounced. They expect their employment to

be fi rst of all regulated by a formal contract, as well as to provide them a regular

salary, which for most of unemployed, on average, can be lower than the average

salary, i.e. slightly higher than the minimal wage. In addition, job seeking IDPs

adequately assume, i.e. perceive what kind of qualities the employers expect

from their workers. In any case, a whole set of data presented in this study shows

that this is not a “picky” labor force, on the contrary, this is a labor force that sets

its expectations on the bottom limit of decent working conditions.

It is important to understand that the picture of active job seeking IDPs is not

the picture of this entire population. A part of IDPs who receive IDP benefi ts on

the basis of formal employment in Kosovo institutions are guided by the logic

of survival on account of these benefi ts, without a distinct initiative to seek em-

ployment in the instable labor market, in which the diff erence in income can

be minimal even with full-time work. However, this population was categorized

as inactive in the very beginning, and given that it does not appear in the labor

market supply for now, it was not subject to a deeper analysis.

When the focus of the analysis is brought back to active jobseekers who show

a certain proactive orientation, judging by their awareness level on active

employment programs and readiness to accept various labor engagements,

it can be noted that they face at least three serious obstacles in their strivings.

One is a general poor condition of the local labor markets that experience a

decrease of available jobs. The second is inadequate qualifi cation structure of

job seeking IDP population. The third is the unfavorable social environment

in the terms of identifi ed discriminatory practices against IDPs.

First two obstacles were already explained in details several times. The third


98

obstacle, concerning the discriminatory practices against IDPs, came up in a

much more intense manner when using the qualitative research methods. The

majority of those that we have talked to about job seeking experiences as well

as experiences in their workplace (among employed) have felt unpleasantness

at least once in their working environment, regardless whether it was concern-

ing their colleagues or employers. Unpleasant experiences are more frequent

in relation to employers. The examinees have stated that they’re often off ered

a lower wage for their work and worse working conditions, or that their tasks

are not clearly defi ned. This climate does not favor the implementation of mea-

sures that should contribute to the increase of employment of IDPs.

“Swear to God, ‘tis true! I mean, like, look at me, it hap-

pened to me as well, y’know what I’m saying… I used to

have this informal job, and it really gave me that feeling

that the guy there was seeing me as some sort of a servant,

as something like… Like I dunno, as if I ain’t got no human

rights at all. He was simply taking it out on me, ‘twas im-

possible. We used to work in the South (in Kosovo) in a

company, but y’know, there’s order in companies. Every-

body knows their working hours and how things should

be done. And here ain’t nothing of that sort, he’s able to

make you… I worked all day, from sunrise till nightfall, for

ten thousands. He also made me run his private errands

for him, ‘twas private. What was I supposed to say, tell him

– I don’t wanna do that, you ain’t paying me for your pri-

vate errands. If you want me to do it you need to pay me.

Well, it ain’t how things work… He’d kick you out in the

street, your pockets empty.” (an unemployed man).

“They all say – we’ll see, we’ll see – but ‘tis always nothing

in the end. That’s all there is for us – nothing! They say

– we don’t have enough jobs for our folks from Vranje,

let alone you guys. And that’s the problem, nothing else.”

(an unemployed man)


99Role of local support services in harmonization between supply and demand

The research fi ndings indicate the conclusion that in the local environments

observed, for now, there haven’t been any systematic forms of support that

would act in direction of establishing successful connections between labor

force demand and labor force supply of IDPs. Initiatives to get together spe-

cifi c employers and IDPs for employment or training programs are mostly

sporadic project events.

Apart from a slightly better situation in Kragujevac, the individual actors in

support networks, as well as networks in their entirety, do not properly rec-

ognize IDPs as a specifi c vulnerable social group needing adequate programs

in order to improve its employability.

According to answers obtained in the research, the impression is that NES

has a better collaboration with employers in the mediation procedure, than

with the unemployed from the IDP population.

“My license plates… Well, yeah, they blare their horns at me

all the time, but this one time, a cop signaled me to stop, I

had my lights on or something, stupid… I didn’t even no-

tice I said something he didn’t like. And then, listen to this,

‘twas a cop saying this – ‘Is this how you act in Kosovo too,

scum? Go back there if you wanna act like that,’ he said. And

I was, like, off ended, and surprised, y’know, the guy’s an offi -

cer of the law… My wife was there, said I should report him.

He said, like, ‘Go back to Kosovo if you wanna act like that,

so rude,’ he said, ‘Go and do that to the Albanian police, if

you dare’, he said ‘And look at you here, all high and mighty’.

He was like – there they are, driving fancy cars, and then

parking on places for the disabled, y’know, ‘tis rude. But ‘tis

putting all people from one group in the same bag, and it

ain’t fair in my book.” (an informally employed man)


100

“Who’s gonna inform me, I’ve got three years till retire-

ment, they don’t give a damn about me! I’m registered

there for four years, and they didn’t call me even once!

Come on, like, really. And when you go there to ask

something, they tell you to **** off , they don’t give a

damn about you.” (an unemployed woman)

“I am. But they didn’t send me any information or any-

thing, I just went there to register myself. I’m not happy

with them, they’ve never off ered me a job.” (an informally

employed man)

“Our experience with the employment service ain’t bad

at all, and these folks that we employed through the ser-

vice managed to justify our trust, and they’re working

here now.” (an employer, medium company)

“I think that our collaboration with NES brought us some

quality workers. We have a good relationship with them.

We have good collaboration and communication in all

domains.” (an employer, large company)

“Our company ‘Zavarivač’ collaborates with NES since

1970, which means thirty-nine years. Lately – and I know

this ‘cause I’ve been in touch directly with people from

Belgrade and Vranje – NES accepts everybody, like, every

single person. When I say everybody, I mean everyone

that we wanted, in order to get a number of candidates

somehow. Thing is, there’re less and less candidates. And

‘tis a huge problem at the moment. There’re more and

more unemployed, and less and less candidates for jobs

of metallurgy workers.” (an employer, large company)

101

RECOMMENDATIONS

6.


102

103

Based on the presented analyses, we have identifi ed certain key areas that

require simultaneous intervention in order to improve not only the employ-

ment conditions of IDPs, but also their overall socioeconomic position and

involvement in the local community. The recommendations were defi ned

for the following key areas:

1. Improvement of employability of IDPs;

2. Encouragement of employers to provide more favorable conditions

for employment of IDPs in their domain;

3. Strengthening of functionality and effi ciency of local support

systems.

Concerning the fi rst area of action, the following measures and activities are

recommended:

It is necessary to encourage job seeking IDPs, who for some reason

are not registered in NES records, to register themselves as unem-

ployed, which would give them access to various forms of support

and inclusion in active employment programs.

It is necessary to increase the participation of IDPs in active employ-

ment programs, since the research has shown that their awareness on

these programs is high, but their involvement in them is relatively poor.

It is important to inform the young people from this population

about the preferred professional profi les and stimulate them to get

educated for occupations that are in higher demand in the labor

market, especially those occupations that are in shortage. This

would prevent intergenerational transfer of unfavorable employ-

ability, increased by the risk of poverty and social exclusion.

Special scholarships should be granted to students from this popu-

lation in order to stimulate them to choose the professional profi les

in shortage in the local labor markets.


104

In order to have a more precise insight into the labor orientation of

a part of IDP population that receive IDP benefi ts and does not take

an active role in the local labor markets, it is necessary to conduct a

serious analysis of eff ects of this measure and examine some more

adequate measures that would provide a better inclusion of this

subgroup in the sphere of labor and economic activities, and even

in the wider social community.

Concerning the recommendations targeting the labor force demand, i.e.

employers and employment practices, it would be important to do the

following:

Educate the employers on their responsibility in the local com-

munity, which means elimination of discriminatory practices in any

form, including discrimination against IDPs.

Present them the importance and the opportunities of socially

responsible business, that includes not only anti-discriminatory

practices, but also decent working conditions for employees, which

allows them to strengthen the local community itself and raise its

capacities, at the end of the day to their own benefi t – they create a

better market and higher quality labor force.

Encourage development of mostly small and new enterprises

whose founders are IDPs.

Lastly, the set of recommendations concerning improvement of local support

systems includes the following:

It is necessary to intervene more determinedly and precisely in the

fi eld where labor force demand and labor force supply meet: from

special programs adapted to specifi c groups in the IDP labor force,

designed to harmonize their potential with the needs for labor

force of particular professional profi les, to removal of discriminato-

ry practices and establishing of more direct connections between

IDPs and employers.

It is necessary to keep records on IDPs and benefi ciaries of various

support systems.

Recommendations

105

It is necessary to have updated information on the condition of

the unemployment problem among the IDPs, and distribute that

information to relevant stakeholders.

Bearing in mind the limited resources, it is necessary to focus the

support on IDPs from the most vulnerable subcategories, such as

poor households and households without employed members, or

unemployed young IDPs.

It is necessary to strengthen the IDP associations so that they could

get involved in employment initiatives.

It is necessary to work on reducing the social distance between the

IDPs and the domestic population. This is an important precondi-

tion to improve every aspect of position of IDPs in local communi-

ties, including the problems of employability and employment,

which should be brought to the same level as those of domestic

population from sample cities.

It is very important to make the local support networks more

effi cient and functional. In all three cities, there are elements to

establish such networks, but their functional establishing is set at

various levels, and that is one of the key fi elds in which the appro-

priate support would be of utmost importance.

Given that employment was already mentioned as one of the

priority goals in local action plans for improvement of position of

refugees and IDPs in all three cities, it is essential to strengthen

the implementation of these plans, and now that can be achieved

through a closer collaboration between the local self-government

representatives, the NES branch offi ce and the IDP associations in

Migration and Permanent Solution Councils. Of course, the neces-

sary fi rst step would be to have all these representatives as Council

members.

107

METHODOLOGY

ANEX 1

109

The research is based on a complex methodology that included special in-

struments and methods of data collection for each component.

1. First research component – the research on characteristics of labor force

supply of IDPs relied on survey and qualitative research. The survey was

implemented on a sample of 600 households in which at least one member

belonged to the category of active population (employed or unemployed).

The sample was formed in proportion to the share of IDPs in the population

of sample cities, so the sample from Kragujevac had 200 households, from

Kraljevo 300, and from Vranje 100 households. The selection of households

was carried out on the basis of IDP records of the Commissariat for Refugees

of the Republic of Serbia. Given that the sample plan implementation once

again faced the problem of high mobility of displaced population, just like

during some previous researches (Living Standard Measurement Study on

the sample of IDPs from 2007, implemented by SORS), one part of the sample

was realized using the so-called snowball method. This method compen-

sated for those households that weren’t found on the addresses registered

in the Commissariat’s lists by using new households that were designated

by the examinees included in the initial sample.

Basic data on position in the labor market, education and qualifi cations, as

well as job seeking practices, were collected for all household members or

working age (15-64 yrs), while more detailed data on the above stated as-

pects as well as on some other characteristics were collected for one house-

hold member who belonged either to the category of unemployed or to the

category of employed persons.

The qualitative research was carried out using the method of in-depth inter-

views with 12 IDPs of the following profi les:

110


1. a formally employed woman

2. an informally employed woman of any qualifi cations, regardless of

whether she works on her own or for an employer

3. a woman older than 45, unemployed but previously employed

4. a woman up till the age of 30, jobseeker who never worked before

5. a man, entrepreneur or formally self-employed

6. an informally employed man of any qualifi cations, regardless of

whether he works on his own or for an employer

7. a man older than 45, unemployed but previously employed

8. a man up till the age of 30, jobseeker who never worked before

9. an unemployed unskilled or semi-skilled worker of any gender or age

10. an unemployed skilled or highly skilled worker of any gender or age

11. an unemployed white-collar worker/technician of any gender or age

12. an unemployed expert of any gender or age

These examinees were selected according to the sample plan among exam-

inees that were already involved in the survey research.

2. The second research component – examining the characteristics of labor

force demand – was also implemented through survey and qualitative re-

search. The survey included 150 companies (50 in each city). The sample plan

fully included all large companies in each city (with more than 250 employ-

ees), and proportionally to their share in the total number of companies of

their category, medium (50-250 employees) and small (up to 50 employees)

companies were included. The planned sample, with a relatively low number

of refusals, was implemented in the following manner:

The research of characteristics of labor force demand was implemented on a

sample that included 53 companies in Kraljevo (4 large, 15 medium, 20 small

and 14 micro), 51 company in Kragujevac (8 large, 16 medium, 14 small and

13 micro), and 52 companies in Vranje (5 large, 9 medium, 16 small and 22

micro). The share of companies of diff erent sizes was defi ned by the sample

plan in line with their share in the overall number of companies in given

city, while the method of random selection was supposed to provide their

representativeness in relation to ownership and activity sector. The questions

from the questionnaire were answered by owners, directors, and human re-

sources managers.

Anex 1

111

The quality research included in each city three companies that employ IDPs

(one large, one medium and one small company).

3. The third research component was examination of local support measures

for IDPs. This component relied on qualitative research implemented using

the method of focus group discussion with diff erent relevant participants

selected in line with local specifi cities.

FGD were held in Kragujevac, Kraljevo and Vranje. The quality of discussion

was pretty limited given that the representatives of certain institutions did

not attend the meetings due to season holidays, business trips or even can-

celing in the last minute. Thus, the representatives of employers did not come

in any city, in Vranje the NES representatives did not appear, in Kraljevo the

local self-government representative was not there, and neither was the

Commissioner for Refugees, and in Kragujevac the representative of local

self-government was absent. Only the representatives of the center for so-

cial work were present in every city. Some of the missing information was

retrieved through telephone interviews, so it can be said that the data col-

lected was various enough to represent the current state of support networks

in these cities.

113

TABLES AND CHARTS ANEX 2

114


115

Table 1: Participation in social organization of IDPs from the sample

Participation in social organizations

% of members

Population of IDPs from the sample

Population of cities in Central Serbia

Membership in churches and religious organizations 14.2 4.7

Membership in sports organizations 10.8 6.8

Membership in artistic and educational organizations 4.2 3.9

Membership in trade unions 11.8 13.8

Membership in environmental organizations 1.5 2.1

Membership in professional organizations 3.6 6.5

Membership in humanitarian organizations 6.9 5.2

Membership in other NGOs/civil society organizations 4.7 3.7

Source for population of cities in Central Serbia: Social Research in Southeastern Europe, Tromsoe University, Government of the Kingdom of Norway, 2004

Table 2: Employment in companies, institutions, organizations and cooperatives: comparable data for Kraljevo, Kragujevac and Vranje, 2009

Activity branch% of employees


Agriculture, fi shing, forestry 2.9 0.9 2.3

Processing industry, mining, stone cutting 22.9 27.3 45.3

Production of electrical energy and gas, water supply 3.9 4.6 2.4

Construction 8.0 5.1 3.1

Commerce and repairs 11.6 11.9 9.5

116


Hotels and restaurants 1.1 0.9 2.1

Transport, storage and communications 13.0 5.9 5.2

Financial mediation 0.9 2.5 1.0

Real estate, renting, business activities 1.7 3.7 1.3

Public administration, mandatory social insurance 4.7 5.8 4.1

Education 11.2 11.6 9.1

Healthcare and social welfare 14.4 16.1 12.1

Communal activities, personal and social services 3.7 3.7 2.5

Total 100 100 100

Source: SORS, Employed population in the Republic of Serbia, 2009, public communication from March 31st

Table 3: Employed IDPs according to educational structure and residence

Educational degree

% in the category of active jobseekers in the past month


No school, incomplete elementary school 2.0 2.7 -

Completed elementary school 9.0 11.8 11.2

Vocational high school for blue-collar occupations (1-2 years: semi-skilled workers)

2.9 3.1 4.5

Vocational high school for blue-collar occupations (3-5 years: skilled and highly skilled workers)

19.9 23.2 19.1

Vocational high school for white-collar workers and technicians

40.4 32.5 23.6

Gymnasium 6.8 6.9 9.0

High school 7.7 9.7 14.6

University 11.4 10.0 16.9

Total 100 100 100

Anex 2

117

Table 4: Educational profi les33 of IDPs-active jobseekers in Kraljevo

Educational profi le

% within the educational degree

Vocational high schools

for blue-collar workers1-2 yrs

Vocational high schools

for blue-collar workers3-5 yrs

Vocational schools for

white-collar workers and technicians

Higher school /

Academy

University

Agriculture, food processing

- 6.5 3.4 - 6.5

Machine engineering, metallurgy

13.6 25.9 13.6 15.4 -

Electric engineering

9.1 18.7 6.1 - -

Chemistry, metals, printing crafts

- 2.9 1.4 - -

Textile, leather work

9.1 2.2 0.7 - -

Geodesy, construction

4.5 3.6 - - -

Transport 4.5 5.0 6.1 - 3.2

Commerce, hotels and restaurants, tourism

22.7 15.8 8.8 - -

Economics, law, administration

13.6 5.8 42.2 57.7 58.1

Education - - - 19.2 9.7

Social and humanistic spheres

- - - 3.8 3.2

Math and science - 4.3 - - 9.7

33 Educational profi els are given in line with NES qualifi cation (NES,

2009).33

118


Culture, art, public information

- - - - 3.2

Healthcare, pharmaceutics, social protection

4.5 1.4 11.6 3.8 -

Personal 13.6 2.9 0.7 - -

Other 4.8 5.0 5.4 0.1 6.4

Total 100 100 100 100 100

Table 5: Educational profi les of IDPs-active jobseekers in Kragujevac



Vocational high schools for blue-collar workers1-2 yrs


Vocational schools for white-collar workers and technicians

Higher school / Academy

University

Agriculture, food processing

- 1.7 1.9 - -


10.0 31.7 21.2 50.0 -

Electric engineering

10.0 25.0 5.8 - -


- 1.7 - - -

Textile, leather work

10.0 3.3 1.9 - -

Geodesy, construction

10.0 - 3.8 - -

Transport - 3.3 5.8 - -

Anex 2

119


30.0 16.7 5.8 - -


- 5.0 44.2 50.0 62.5

Education - - - - -


- - 1.9 - -

Math and science - - - - 25.0


- - - - -


10.0 1.7 7.7 - -

Personal 10.0 5.0 - - -

Other 10.0 4.9 - - 12.5

Total 100 100 100 100 100

Table 6: Educational profi les of IDPs-active jobseekers in Vranje



Vocational high schools for blue-col-lar workers1-2 yrs


Vocational schools for white-collar workers and technicians

Higher school / Academy

University

Agriculture, food processing - 4.8 - - -


- 19.0 - - -

Electro engineering - 9.4 5.9 - -


- 4.8 - - -

120


Textile, leather work 50.0 4.8 - - -

Geodesy, construction - 4.8 - - -

Transport - 4.8 11.8 - -


- 23.8 - - -


- - 58.8 25.0 33.3

Education - - - 50.0 33.3


- - - 25.0 -

Math and science - 23.8 - - -


- - - - -


- - 11.8 - -

Personal 50.0 - 5.9 - -

Other - - 5.8 - 33.4

Total 100 100 100 100 100

121

EMPLOYMENT INCENTIVE MEASURES OF THE NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT SERVICE

ANEX 3

122


123

Active employment measures of the National Employment Service targeted

at unemployed:

Program of employment of probationers (persons who are em-

ployed for the fi rst time) off ers subsidized employment for young

people with high school, higher school or university education, for

a certain period of time (6-12 months) with monthly salary from

16000 to 20000 RSD depending on qualifi cation;

Training for all jobs as program for acquiring specifi c technical and

practical skills and knowledge necessary to work and carry out

tasks related to a specifi c job.

ICT trainings, with the aim to learn computer skills;

Foreign language courses;

Programs of prequalifi cation and additional qualifi cation realized

with the assistance of specialized centers and employers and allow-

ing the unemployed to acquire knowledge and skills preferred in

the labor market;

Elementary education of adults is a program allowing acquirement

of elementary education with an abridged curriculum leading to

enablement to work;

Program of material support to young talents – persons who went

to postgraduate studies;

Virtual enterprise is a program that targets the unemployed who

have fi nished vocational high school of economic or administrative

orientation, allowing them to acquire skills that the employers want

in relation to administrative jobs. Through a simulation of business

processes in a company, the person gains knowledge in marketing,

business communication, fi nances and other;

Training in active job seeking is a program off ering skills to better

fi nd information, apply for vacancies, and present themselves on

job interview;

124


Self-employment training provides skills and knowledge necessary

for entrepreneurship, and it is the condition to get the self-employ-

ment subsidy;

Self-employment subsidy is a program off ering a monetary subsidy

of 130 000 RSD to initiate an independent business, based on

evaluation of the business plan and with the condition that they

have passed the self-employment training;

Self-employment subsidy “Severance to Job” available to unem-

ployed who had been laid off as redundant workers and who can

receive additional subsidies if they invest their severance into an

independent business;

Active job seeking clubs is a program in which the participants get

together with employment counselors and employers, referring them

how to seek employment in a more active and effi cient manner;

Job fairs, organized in order to establish more direct connections

between the employers and the unemployed.

Employment incentive measures of the National Employment Service tar-

geted at employers represented in this survey are the following:

Subsidy for creation of up to 50 new jobs in form of short-term

monetary assistance per each created job under condition that the

company has positive business results and that it did not decrease

the number of employees.

“Severance to Job – Financial Support to Employers” is a program

allowing employers who hire at least 50 persons that were previ-

ously laid off due to bankruptcy and that are socially vulnerable to

get 100 000 RSD per each such employee.

Mentoring programs of specialist training off er the employers free

mentoring in business development and specialist training.

Releasing the employers from paying contributions according to

Article 45 of the Law on Mandatory Social Insurance off ers is pos-

sible if the employers hire persons older than 45, young probation-

ers and unemployed disabled persons.

Anex 3

125

“Public Works Implementation” is a program allowing the employ-

ers to apply to NES to participate in public works funded from the

national budget on the basis of a public call for proposals.

“Probationers and Volunteers” is a program of subsidized employ-

ment of young people getting employed for the fi rst time.

“Training of Unemployed Persons for a Known Employer” is a pro-

gram that provides the employers with free trainings for the unem-

ployed according to the needs and demands of the employers.

“Selection and Classifi cation” is a program that off ers the employers

a selection of adequate profi les according to their needs.

Job fairs are programs that consist of meetings between jobseekers

and employers.

127

QUESTIONNAIRE ON POSITION OF IDPS IN THE LABOR MARKET

ANEX 4

128


129


Questionnaire for IDPs of working age (15-64)

UNDP Serbia and SeConS – Group for Development Initiative are exploring

the employability of IDPs. By random selection, your household was selected

for this survey alongside with other several hundred households, and for the

success of this project it is very important that you accept to participate in

the survey. All data that you say to our examiner will remain fully anonymous

and will be used solely for the purposes of analysis.

Elimination question:

Do you have household members between 15 and 64 years of age?

No � Thank them and end the survey

Yes � Ask for permission to pursue the survey

Name and last name of head of household: .................................................................................................

Household address: ..........................................................................................................................................

Contact phone number: ..................................................................................................................................

Name of examiner: ...........................................................................................................................................

Date of survey: ..................................................................................................................................................

Starting time: ....................................................................................................................................................

130


ID. Household number (not to be fi lled in by examiner!!!) ........................................... (_________)a. Was the in-depth interview with the household member carried out?Ne .............................................................................................................................................................................. 0Yes .............................................................................................................................................................................. 1

b. Code connecting examined household with in-depth interview ........... (_________________)

1. Municipality/city: Kraljevo .................................................................................................................................................................... 1Kragujevac ............................................................................................................................................................... 2Vranje ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3

2. What year did they move from Kosovo?.................................................................... (_________)

3. In which type of accommodation do they live?their own apartment/house ................................................................................................................................. 1rented apartment/house ....................................................................................................................................... 2apartment/house given to them by relatives/friends to use ........................................................................... 3with relatives/friends ............................................................................................................................................. 4in apartment given to them by municipality, company, state ........................................................................ 5in collective accommodation ................................................................................................................................ 6other, what? ............................................................................................................................... .... (________)

4. Do the household members lack one or more of the following personal documents?

IDP identifi cation card yes no

identifi cation card yes no

birth certifi cate yes no

marriage certifi cate yes no

citizenship certifi cate yes no

driver license yes no

health card yes no

employment booklet yes no

diploma yes no

property documents yes no

Anex 4

131

5. Demographic data on household

5.1. No Name/ nickname

5.2. Relation to the head of household

5.3. Year of birth

5.4. Gender

5.5. Ethnicity

5.6. Activity

5.7. Is the person between 15 and 64 (if not – cross the rows for this member in all tables)

1 Main

examinee

(______)

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Code for relation to the head of household: 2. partner (both in and out of wedlock) 3. children of head/partner 4. parents of head/partner 5. grandparents of head/partner 6. grandchildren of head/partner 7. siblings of head/partner 8. in-laws of head/partner 9. other relatives of of head/partner10. non-family household members

Gender codes:1. male2. female

Ethnicity codes 1. Serbs2. Montenegrins 3. Roma4. Goranians5. Albanians

6. Ashkali and Egyptians 7. Bosnians 8. Others

Is the person be-tween 15 and 64:1. YES2. NO (stop fi lling in the questionnaire for these persons)

Activity codes: 1. employed (in working relations) 2. works outside of working relations 3. employer (co/owner of company, shop) 4. individual farmer 5. seld-employed (registered) 6. helping householf member 7. unemployed-jobseeker

8. retired 9. has property income (rent, etc.) =10. has other personal income (alimony, etc.)11. housewife12. pupils/students13. unable to work14. persons living and working abroad 15. others who do not have a vocation

132


6. Cultural capital of household members

No Name/ nick

6.1. Currently going to school (formally)

6.2. Highest ed. degree obtained(formally)

6.3. Educ. profi le(formal)(list A)

6.4. Additional education (completed or ongoing)

6.5. Reason for not attending additional education

6.6. Additional skills (mark everything that the examinees say)

1 Main ex. 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

2 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

3 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

5 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

6 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

7 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

8 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

10 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Currently going:0. does not go1. elementary school2. vocational high school 1-2 yrs, semi-skilled workers 3. vocational high school 3-5 yrs, skilled and highly skilled workers 4. vocational high scool, tehcnician, white-collar worker5. gymnasium 6. higher school / academy 7. university8. postgraduate studies

Codes for highest educational degree obtained:1. no school 2. incomplete elementary school 3. completed elementaty school 4. 1-2 yrs of vocational high school for blue-collar workers (semi-skilled) 5. 3-5 yrs of vocational high school for blue-collar workers (skilled, highly skilled) 6. voc. high school for white-collar workers and technicians 7. gymnasium8. higher school9. university10. postgraduate studies

Codes for reasons for not attending additional education 1. already completed the prefered course, training seminar

2. not interested 3. no money, conditions 4. too old, too sick 5. cannot fi nd the contents s/he swould prefer 6. other

Codes for additional education:0. nothing1. continuous: courses, trainings, with certifi cate (languages, computers, driving, crafts…) 2. continuous: courses, trainings, without certifi cate (languages, computers, driving, crafts…) 3. occasional: short seminars, conferences, workshops with certifi cate 4. occasional: short seminars, conferences, workshops without certifi cate

Codes for additional skills:0. nothing1. foreign languages2. computers3. driver license4. technical skills, craftmanship

5. musical and artistic skills6. physical labor7. agriculture8. able to produce hand-made goods

Anex 4

133

7. H

ouse

hold

mem

bers

’ mai

n jo

b

NoNa

me/

nick

nam

e7.

1.

Durin

g th

e la

st w

eek,

di

d yo

u ca

rry

our a

ny

kind

of j

ob fo

r at l

east

1

hour

that

you

wer

e (w

ill b

e) p

aid

for i

n m

oney

or i

n ki

nd?

3

8.1

7.2.

Wha

t’s

your

stat

us

on th

at jo

b?

7.3.

W

hat k

ind

of

cont

ract

is y

our

basis

for t

hat

job?

7.4.

W

hat i

s the

ow

ners

hip

form

in w

hich

yo

u ca

rry

out

that

job?

7.5.

Wha

t’s y

our

occu

patio

n on

th

at jo

b?(w

rite

in a

s pr

ecise

occ

upa-

tion

desc

riptio

n as

pos

sible

)

7.6.

W

hat’s

’ the

ec

onom

y br

anch

in

whi

ch y

ou

carr

y ou

t yo

ur jo

b?

(list

B)

7.7.

W

here

do

you

mos

tly

carr

y ou

t th

at jo

b?

7.8.

W

hat i

s you

r tim

efra

me

for

that

job?

1M

ain

ex.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 “Did

you

car

ry o

ut a

ny k

ind

of jo

b”

1. Ye

s2.

No,

but

ther

e is

a st

eady

empl

oym

ent t

hat y

ou w

ere

abse

nt fr

om la

st w

eek

3. N

o, y

ou d

id n

ot ca

rry

out

a

job

and

you

do n

ot h

ave

a

stea

dy e

mpl

oym

ent t

hat y

ou

w

ere

abse

nt fr

om la

st w

eek

Code

s fo

r job

sta

tus:

1.

(Co)

owne

r of a

com

pany

em

ploy

ing

othe

rs

2. (C

o)ow

ner o

f a sh

op o

r

a m

edic

al cl

inic

em

ploy

ing

ot

hers

3.

Inde

pend

ent w

ithou

t

empl

oyee

s4.

Em

ploy

ed w

orke

r5.

Hel

ping

mem

ber i

n

a fa

mily

bus

ines

s

Cont

ract

type

:1.

Writ

ten

cont

ract

,

empl

oym

enta

ct,

li

cenc

e 2.

Ora

l agr

eem

ent

w

ith th

e

empl

oyer

3. N

o co

ntra

ct

Ow

ners

hip

sect

or:

1. P

rivat

e re

gist

ered

2. P

rivat

e un

regi

ster

ed

3. S

tate

4. S

ocia

l5.

Mix

ed6.

Col

lect

ive

7. O

ther

Whe

re d

o th

ey w

ork:

1. A

com

pany

, an

in

titut

ion

2. Fa

rmho

ld3.

Thei

r ow

n ho

me

4. S

omeo

ne’s

hom

e5.

In th

e st

reet

, in

the

gr

een

mar

ket

6. In

a v

ehic

le

7. O

ther

Tim

efra

me

– fo

r ho

w lo

ng y

ou’re

ca

rryi

ng o

utth

at jo

b:1.

inde

term

inat

e

perio

d of

tim

e 2.

det

erm

inat

e

per

iod

of ti

me

3. se

ason

ally

4. o

ccas

inal

ly

134


8. H

ouse

hold

mem

bers

’ add

ition

al jo

b(s)

NoNa

me/

nick

nam

e8.

1. In

add

ition

to th

e m

ain

job,

do

you

carr

y ou

t som

e ot

her j

ob, a

nd if

you

hav

en’t

wor

ked

durin

g th

e la

st

wee

k, d

o yo

u ca

rry

out a

ny

job

at a

ll? 0

7 �9.

1

8.2.

W

hat’s

you

r st

atus

on

this

othe

r job

?

8.3.

W

hat k

ind

of

cont

ract

is y

our

basis

for t

his

job?

8.4.

W

hat i

s the

ow

ners

hip

form

in

whi

ch y

ou ca

rry

out t

his j

ob?

8.5.

W

hat’s

you

r occ

upat

ion

on

this

job?

(writ

e in

as p

reci

se

occu

patio

n de

scrip

tion

as

poss

ible

)

8.6.

W

hat’s

’ the

act

ivity

br

anch

in w

hich

you

ca

rry

out y

our j

ob?

(list

B)

1M

ain

ex.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Do

you

carr

y ou

t an

addi

tion

al jo

b:0.

no

1. y

es, r

egul

arly

(at l

east

onc

e a

m

onth

) 2.

yes

, sea

sona

lly

3.ye

s, oc

casio

nally

(5-6

tim

es a

yea

r)

4. y

es, r

arel

y (1

-2 ti

mes

a y

ear)

5. y

es, b

ut it

was

pur

e ha

zard

Stat

us o

n ot

her j

ob:

1. In

depe

nden

t with

em

ploy

ees

2. In

depe

nden

t with

out e

mpl

oyee

s 3.

Em

ploy

ed w

orke

r 4.

Hel

ping

mem

ber i

n

a fa

mily

bus

ines

s

Cont

ract

type

:1.

Writ

ten

cont

ract

, sol

utio

n, li

cens

e 2.

Ora

l agr

eem

ent w

ith th

e em

ploy

er3.

No

cont

ract

Ow

ners

hip

sect

or:

1. P

rivat

e re

gist

ered

2. P

rivat

e un

regi

ster

ed3.

Sta

te4.

Soc

ial

5. M

ixed

6. C

olle

ctiv

e7.

Oth

er

Anex 4

135

9. Jo

b se

ekin

g am

ong

hous

ehol

d m

embe

rs (m

ain

job,

seco

nd jo

b, a

dditi

onal

job)

NoNa

me/

nick

nam

e9.

1.

Did

you

seek

em

ploy

men

t in

the

past

4 w

eeks

(or

unde

rtak

e st

eps t

o es

tabl

ish y

our o

wn

busin

ess)

? No �

9.6

9.2.

Ho

w d

id y

ou se

ek e

mpl

oy-

men

t or t

ry to

est

ablis

h yo

ur

own

busin

ess?

(Rea

d ev

ery

optio

n an

d m

ark

all t

hat t

he e

xam

inee

ha

d ap

plie

d)

9.3.

Fo

r how

man

y m

onth

s you

’ve

been

seek

ing

empl

oym

ent?

(w

rite

in

the

num

ber)

9.4.

W

hat k

ind

of

a jo

b yo

u’re

lo

okin

g fo

r?

9.5.

W

hat w

as

your

situ

atio

n be

fore

job

seek

ing?

9.6.

W

hy

aren

’t yo

u lo

okin

g fo

r a jo

b?

9.7.

If

you

wer

e off

ere

d a

job,

co

uld

you

star

t w

orki

ng w

ithin

tw

o w

eeks

un

cond

ition

ally

?

1M

ain

ex.

1.ye

s 2.n

o1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 1

1 12

13

21.

yes 2

.no

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10

11

12 1

3

31.

yes 2

.no

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10

11

12 1

3

41.

yes 2

.no

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10

11

12 1

3

51.

yes 2

.no

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10

11

12 1

3

61.

yes 2

.no

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10

11

12 1

3

71.

yes 2

.no

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10

11

12 1

3

81.

yes 2

.no

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10

11

12 1

3

91.

yes 2

.no

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10

11

12 1

3

101.

yes 2

.no

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10

11

12 1

3

Wha

t kin

d of

job

they

’re lo

okin

g fo

r:1.

inde

pend

ent

2. fu

ll-tim

e em

ploy

ed

3. p

art-

time

empl

oyed

4.

wor

king

hou

rs d

o

not m

atte

r

Situ

atio

n be

fore

job

seek

ing:

1. u

sed

to w

ork

or st

ill w

orks

2

wen

t to

scho

ol, t

rain

ing

3. h

ad p

erso

nal o

r fam

ily

ob

ligat

ions

4.

wer

e un

empl

oyed

5. o

ther

Reas

ons

for n

ot lo

okin

g fo

r em

ploy

men

t:1.

Alre

ady

wor

ks3.

Pla

ns to

est

ablis

h

his/

her o

wn

busin

ess

2. E

xpec

ts to

go

back

to

p

revi

ous j

ob

3. S

ick,

inca

pabl

e to

wor

k4.

Fam

ily is

sues

5. S

choo

ling,

trai

ning

6.

Ret

irem

ent

7. L

ost h

ope

8. O

ther

Coul

d th

ey s

tart

wor

king

wit

hin

2 w

eeks

:1.

Yes

2. N

o, th

ey st

ill a

tten

d sc

hool

/tra

inin

g 3.

No,

they

cann

ot le

ave

curr

ent j

ob w

ithin

two

wee

ks

4. Fa

mily

reas

ons

5.

Sic

k, in

capa

ble

to w

ork

6. O

ther

Code

s fo

r job

see

king

met

hod:

1. d

oes n

ot se

ek e

mpl

oym

ent

2. v

ia N

atio

nal E

mpl

oym

ent S

ervi

ce

3. v

ia p

rivat

e em

ploy

men

t age

ncie

s 4

. by

addr

essin

g th

e em

ploy

er d

irect

ly

5. v

ia fr

iend

s and

rela

tives

6

. by

publ

ishin

g ad

s in

new

spap

ers a

nd o

n in

tern

et a

n

d by

repl

ying

to a

ds

9. w

as lo

okin

g fo

r lan

d, p

rem

ises,

wor

king

equ

ipm

ent

10. w

as as

king

for p

erm

it an

d lic

ense

, look

ing

for fi

nan

cial a

sset

s for

wor

k 11

. was

wai

ting

for r

esul

ts o

f an

earli

er se

nt a

pplic

atio

n 12

. was

wai

ting

for a

call

of th

e Na

tiona

l Em

ploy

men

t Ser

vice

13

. was

wai

ting

for r

esul

ts o

f com

petit

ion

for v

acan

cy in

a p

ublic

nst

itutio

n

136


QUESTIONS FOR MAIN EXAMINEE

Changes of the main status

10.1. In your opinion, what is your present main status?(one answer only)

10.2. What was your status one year ago?(one answer only)

10.3. What was your status one year after displacement?(one answer only)

10.4. What was your status before displacement?(one answer only)

Status codes

1. (Co)owner of a registered company employing other workers2. Registered self-employed 3. Unregistered self-employed4. Formally employed worker 5. Informally employed worker 6. Unpaid helping member in family business

7. Individual farmer 8. Unemployed 9. Pupil, student10. Retired11. Housewife, man staying at home12. Kept person

(Co)owner of a registered company employing other workers

Registered self-employed

11. What year did you establish your company/register your business? ..... (___________)

12. How many persons does your company employ on the basis of contract for undeter-mined and determined period of time? ........................................................................ (_________)

13. What was your status before you registered your present job?I had another company whose (co)owner I was ....................................................................................1Unregistered self-employed ..................................................................................................................2Formally employed ...............................................................................................................................3Informally employed .............................................................................................................................4Unemployed .........................................................................................................................................5Pupil, student ........................................................................................................................................6Housewife, man staying at home ..........................................................................................................7Retired ..................................................................................................................................................8Kept person ...........................................................................................................................................9Other ...................................................................................................................................................10

Anex 4

137

14. What was the most important reason to establish your own company? Good business idea ...............................................................................................................................1Being unable to solve the problem of unemployment in any other way ...............................................2Something else? ......................................................................................................... (_________)

15. Did anyone help you to start your own business?No ........................................................................................................................................................0Yes, the National Employment Service ..................................................................................................1Yes, the IDP associations .......................................................................................................................2Yes, the Agency for Development of Small and Medium Enterprises .....................................................3Yes, friends and relatives .......................................................................................................................4Yes, someone else? ...................................................................................................... (_________)

16. How would you evaluate the business success of your company?We do business with losses ..................................................................................................................1We barely survive, but we have positive results ....................................................................................2We do good business ............................................................................................................................3We do excellent business ......................................................................................................................4

17. What would you list as the three most important problems that your company is facing in doing business? 17.1 ...................................................................................................................................... (______)17 2. ..................................................................................................................................... (______)17.3. ..................................................................................................................................... (______)

18. What was your last net income? .................................................................... .................... RSD

19. When did you receive your last income? ........................ (______) month (_______) year

Unregistered self-employed

20. What was your status before you started independently doing your business? I had another company whose (co)owner I was ....................................................................................1Unregistered self-employed ..................................................................................................................2Formally employed ..............................................................................................................................3Informally employed .............................................................................................................................4Unemployed .........................................................................................................................................5Pupil, student ........................................................................................................................................6Housewife, man staying at home ..........................................................................................................7Kept person ...........................................................................................................................................8Other .....................................................................................................................................................9

138


21. Please list 3 kinds of jobs that you usually do:21.1. ..................................................................................................................................... (______)21.2. ..................................................................................................................................... (______)21 3. ..................................................................................................................................... (______)

22. What was your most important reason for doing your business independently? Good business idea ...............................................................................................................................1Being unable to solve the problem of unemployment in any other way ...............................................2Something else? .......................................................................................................... (_________)

23. What was the most important reason for not registering your independent business? (multiple answers possible)23.1. It is an unsteady and unsure business ............................................................................ 1.yes 2.no23.2. Because I don’t know how to register it ............................................................. ............1.yes 2.no23.3. Because I don’t have enough money .................................................................. ............1.yes 2.no 23.4. Because I’m afraid I won’t be able to meet my obligations (legal, fi nancial, fi scal) .........1.yes 2.no23.5. Some other reason? ............................................................................................ (_________)

24. How would you evaluate your business?I barely survive .....................................................................................................................................1I do good business ................................................................................................................................2I do excellent business ..........................................................................................................................3

25. What would you list as the three most important problems that you face in your business? 25.1. ..................................................................................................................................... (______)25.2. ..................................................................................................................................... (______)25.3. ..................................................................................................................................... (______)

26. What was your last net income?................................................... (______________) RSD

27. 1-2. When did you receive your last income? ............. (______) month (_______) year

Formally and informally employed worker

28. For how long have you been employed on your current job? 28.1. Year............................................................................................................ (_____________)28.2. Months ................................................................................................... (______________)

Anex 4

139

29. What was your status before your current job? Ihad another company whose (co)owner I was .....................................................................................1Unregistered self-employed ..................................................................................................................2Formally employed ..............................................................................................................................3Informally employed .............................................................................................................................4Unemployed .........................................................................................................................................5Pupil, student ........................................................................................................................................6Housewife, man staying at home ..........................................................................................................7Kept person ...........................................................................................................................................8Other .....................................................................................................................................................9

30. How did you fi nd out about this job?Via National Employment Service .........................................................................................................1 Via private employment agency ...........................................................................................................2Via friends and relatives ........................................................................................................................3By addressing the employer directly ....................................................................................................4Via ads in the newspaper and on Internet ............................................................................................5Some other way? ........................................................................................................ (_________)

31. What rights do you enjoy on your current job?31.1. Salary, income ..........................................................................................................1.yes 2. no 31.2. Pension insurance ....................................................................................................1 yes 2. no31.3. Health insurance .....................................................................................................1.yes 2. no

32. Did you have any additional trainings on your current job?No ........................................................................................................................................................0Yes, in relation to: ....................................................................................................... (_________)

33. What was your last net income?...................................................... (_____________) RSD

34. 1-2. When did you receive your last income? ................. (______) month (_______) year

Unemployed

35. Did you ever work before?No .........................................................................................................................................................0Yes ........................................................................................................................................................1

140


36. For how many years have you worked? ........................................................(__________)

37. 1-2. Year and month when you stopped working ...... (______) month (________) year

38. Main reason for you to stop working?Layoff (including company bankruptcy) ...............................................................................................1The job was temporary or seasonal .......................................................................................................2Due to family issues ..............................................................................................................................3Due to illness, being unable to work .....................................................................................................4Due to school, training ..........................................................................................................................5Other reasons .......................................................................................................................................6

39. Occupation on your last job (write down as precise answer as possible) .................................................................................................................................... (_________)

40. Economy branch of your last job (list B) .................................................................................................................................... (_________)

Unemployed, informally employed, unregistered self-employed, helping household members

41. Are you registered in the records of the National Employment Service?No and never was .................................................................................................................................1No, but used to be ................................................................................................................................2Yes ........................................................................................................................................................3

42. Do you receive unemployment benefi ts?Yes ........................................................................................................................................................1No ........................................................................................................................................................2

43. What is the minimal wage that you would accept to work for?.... (____________) RSD

QUESTIONS FOR ALL

44. Do you receive IDP benefi ts? Yes ........................................................................................................................................................1No ........................................................................................................................................................2

45. Did you refuse any job off er in the past two years?No .........................................................................................................................................................0Yes, because the job did not meet my qualifi cations .............................................................................1Yes, because the salary was inappropriate ............................................................................................2

Anex 4

141

Yes, because the job was at a distant location .......................................................................................3Yes, due to illness/inability to work at the time when the job was off ered ............................................4Yes, because the job was inappropriate ................................................................................................5Yes, because the working hours were inappropriate .............................................................................6Yes, because I estimated that the job was not sustainable ....................................................................7Yes, for some other reason? ........................................................................................ (_________)

46. What is most important for you when you decide to accept a job? (give three answers)46.1. That it is a formal job with regularly paid contributions ..................................... ............1.yes 2.no46.2. That it provides a regular salary ......................................................................... ............1.yes 2.no46.3. That it provides a salary higher than the minimal wage ..................................... ............1.yes 2.no46.4. That I work full-time .......................................................................................... ............1.yes 2.no46.5. That I work part-time ........................................................................................ ............1.yes 2.no46.6. That I have the right on vacation, sick leave ....................................................... ............1.yes 2.no46.7. That I can advance in my career ......................................................................... ............1.yes 2.no46.8. That I can improve my working skills .................................................................. ............1.yes 2.no46.9. That it meets my qualifi cations........................................................................... ............1.yes 2.no46.10. That there are good interpersonal relationships (no discrimination, harassment) ........1.yes 2.no46.11. That the physical conditions are good .............................................................. ............1.yes 2.no46.12. That it is a long-term job ................................................................................. ............1.yes 2.no46.13. Something else? .............................................................................................. (_________)

47. In order to provide for yourself and your family, you are willing to (read every option!!!):

yes no

47.1. change your place of residence if that would get you a job or a higher salary 1 2

47.2. do any kind of paid work 1 2

47.3. work longer than the normal working hours 1 2

47.4. do several jobs at the same time, in several companies 1 2

47.5. do a job below your qualifi cations, but for a signifi cantly higher salary 1 2

47.6. switch from permanent employment to temporary, contract-based work which is substantially better paid

1 2

47.7. do additional contract-based jobs, alongside with the main job 1 2

47.8. work informally, do jobs in “grey economy“ 1 2

47.9. get new knowledge, skills, qualifi cations 1 2

47.10. start an independent business (get self-employed) 1 2

47.11. unite with others to form a cooperative 1 2

47.12. establish your own company or company with other co-owners 1 2

142


Active employment measures

NES employment programs

Did you hear about this employment program?

Did you participate in it?

48.1-2 probationers (program of employment of unemployed persons getting employed for the fi rst time)

1.yes 2.no 1.yes 2.no

49.1-2 training for workplace jobs (program of adoption of specifi c technical and practical knowledge necessary to carry out tasks related to a concrete job in a concrete workplace)


50.1-2 ICT training 1.yes 2.no 1.yes 2.no

51.1-2 foreign language courses 1.yes 2.no 1.yes 2.no

52.1-2 prequalifi cation and additional qualifi cation (program of acquiring a new educational profi le)


53.1-2 elementary education of adults 1.yes 2.no 1.yes 2.no

54.1-2 talents (material support to persons who went to postgraduate studies)


55.1-2 virtual enterprise 1.yes 2.no 1.yes 2.no

56.1-2 active job seeking training (CV writing, preparation for job interview with employer, writing of motivational letter, independent job seeking…)


57.1-2 self-employment training (condition for the next program) 1.yes 2.no 1.yes 2.no

58.1-2 self-employment subsidy (130 000 for one’s own business) 1.yes 2.no 1.yes 2.no

59.1-2 “severance to job” self-employment subsidy (if they invest their severance, they can get additional subsidy)


60.1-2 active job seeking clubs 1.yes 2.no 1.yes 2.no

61.1-2 job fairs 1.yes 2.no 1.yes 2.no

62. How did you usually hear about the active employment measures of the National Employment Service? (one answer!!!)Iwas formally notifi ed by a NES counselor/offi cial ................................................................................1 asked questions in NES on my own.......................................................................................................2Iheard it on TV, radio, Internet, I read in the papers ..............................................................................3My parents/friends/relatives told me ...................................................................................................4Some other way? ........................................................................................................ (_________)

Anex 4

143

For those who participated in any of these programs

63. How much did the NES help you learn …

Very much

Pretty much

Neither much not little

Pretty little

They did not help at all

63.1. How to get a job? 1 2 3 4 5

63.2. What kind of job you should do? 1 2 3 4 5

63.3. How to make your knowledge and skills adequate to your occupation?

1 2 3 4 5

63.4. How to get in touch with the employer?

1 2 3 4 5

63.5. How to talk to the employer? 1 2 3 4 5

64. Were you involved in any other program of training or support to employment orga-nized by some other institution, domestic or international? Yes ........................................................................................................................................................1No ........................................................................................................................................................2

65. If YES, what kind of support program was it? ............................................... (_________)

66. In your opinion, what kind of support would help you the most to more successfully fi nd a job or change your current one? Training and fi nancial assistance for self-employment .........................................................................1Subsidized work for an employer .........................................................................................................2Prequalifi cation ....................................................................................................................................3Training for more effi cient job seeking and applying for vacancies .......................................................4Something else? ......................................................................................................... (_________)

67. Are you interested to participate in prequalifi cation programs?very interested .....................................................................................................................................1moderately interested ..........................................................................................................................2not interested .......................................................................................................................................3

68. For which occupation would you be interested to prequalify? (write in) .................................................................................................................................... (_________)

69. In your opinion, what qualities of workers the employers appreciate the most?69.1. ..................................................................................................................................... (______)69.2. ..................................................................................................................................... (______)69.3. ..................................................................................................................................... (______)

144


70. Are you member of any of the following organizations?

Active member

Inactive member

Not member

70.1. Church or religious organizations 1 2 3

70.2. Sports or recreational organizations 1 2 3

70.3. Artistic organizations (visual arts, music), educational institutions and similar

1 2 3

70.4. Laborers’ trade unions 1 2 3

70.5. Environmental organizations 1 2 3

70.6. Professional organizations 1 2 3

70.7. Humanitarian organizations 1 2 3

70.8. Any civil society organizations/NGOs 1 2 3

71. Please rank to what extent the local population is bothered by the following relations with IDPs: (1 – isn’t bothered at all, 5 – bothered a great deal)

71.1. Living in the same country 1 2 3 4 5

71.2. Living in the same neighborhood 1 2 3 4 5

71.3. Working together 1 2 3 4 5

71.4. Having an IDP boss 1 2 3 4 5

71.5. Having their children make friends with IDP children

1 2 3 4 5

71.6. Having their children and close relatives marry IDPs

1 2 3 4 5

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COLLABORATION☺☺☺

145

QUESTIONNAIRE ON LABOR FORCE DEMAND ANEX 5

146


147


Questionnaire for the employers

UNDP Serbia and SeConS – Group for Development Initiative are exploring

the employability of IDPs. By random selection, your company was selected

for this survey alongside with other several dozen companies, and for the

success of this project it is very important that you accept to participate in

the survey. All data that you say to our examiner will remain fully anonymous

and will be used solely for the purposes of analysis.

Company name: ...................................................................................................................................................Address of headquarters: ...................................................................................................................................Contact phone number: ......................................................................................................................................Name of examinee: .............................................................................................................................................Position of examinee: ..........................................................................................................................................

Name of examiner: ..............................................................................................................................................Date of survey: ......................................................................................................................................................Starting time: .......................................................................................................................................................

148


ID. Number of company (not to be fi lled in by examiners!!!) ................................... (_________)

1. Municipality/town:

Kraljevo ................................................................................................................................................1Kragujevac ...........................................................................................................................................2Vranje ...................................................................................................................................................3

2. What year was your company established? ..................................................... (_________)

3. What is your company’s type according to ownership status:Public ................................................................................................................................................... 1Private ..................................................................................................................................................2Mixed, mostly public ............................................................................................................................3Mixed, mostly private ...........................................................................................................................4Mixed, fi fty-fi fty ...................................................................................................................................5

4. For which economy branch your company is registered? (write in code from list B): (_____)

5. What is the total number of employees in your company at the moment? (_________)

6. How many IDPs are there? .................................................................................. (_________)

7. Structure of employees according to qualifi cation Absolute number %

7.1. Experts and managers

7.2. Technicians and administrative staff

7.3. Skilled and highly skilled workers

7.4. Unskilled and semi-skilled workers

8. What is the structure of your employees according to gender? Try to show it as percentage:8.1. men ..................................................................................................................... (________) %8.2. women ................................................................................................................ (________) %

9. How would you evaluate the business success of your company? We do business with losses ..................................................................................................................1We barely survive, but we have positive results ....................................................................................2We do good business ............................................................................................................................3We do excellent business ......................................................................................................................4

Anex 5

149

10. What would you list as the three most important problems that your company is facing in doing business?10.1. ..................................................................................................................................... (______)10.2. ..................................................................................................................................... (______)10.3. ..................................................................................................................................... (______)

11. Did the real turnover of your company increase in the past year? Yes, a lot ...............................................................................................................................................1Yes, slightly ...........................................................................................................................................2No ........................................................................................................................................................3

12. Did you have substantial investments in new technologies in the past year?Yes, a lot ...............................................................................................................................................1Yes, slightly ..........................................................................................................................................2No ........................................................................................................................................................3

13. In the past year, did you introduce changes in organization of work in your company, in order to increase productivity and effi ciency? Yes ........................................................................................................................................................1No .........................................................................................................................................................2

14. Did you hire new workers in the past two years? Yes ........................................................................................................................................................1No .........................................................................................................................................................2

15. If you did, please state what was the most important reason for it (one answer only!!!):Business expansion ..............................................................................................................................1Change of economy domain, production lines .....................................................................................2Loss of workers .....................................................................................................................................3Company restructuring .........................................................................................................................4Something else? .........................................................................................................(__________)

16. How many new workers did you hire in the past two years? .................... (__________)

17. How many IDPs are there among the newly employed? .......................... (__________)

150


18. What are the educational profi les (occupations) of newly employed?

Profi le Number of newly employed Number of employed for an indefi nite period of time

18.1.

19. Did you lay off workers in the past two years? Yes ........................................................................................................................................................1No .........................................................................................................................................................2

20. If you did, how many employees did you lay off in the past two years?. ..... (________)

21. How many of them are IDPs? ............................................................................... (________)

22. What was the most important reason for laying off workers? (one answer only!!!)Reduction of business scope .................................................................................................................1They were redundant ...........................................................................................................................2Violation of working discipline .............................................................................................................3Incompetent job performance ..............................................................................................................4Some other reason? ........................................................................................................ (________)

23. What were the educational profi les (occupations) of laid off workers?

Profi le Number of laid off workers Number of laid off workers employed for an indefi nite period of time

23.1.

Anex 5

151

24. Do you have redundant workers in your company? Yes ........................................................................................................................................................1No .........................................................................................................................................................2

25. If yes, do you intent to lay them off , or to prequalify them for other jobs?We will lay them off with severance .....................................................................................................1We will prequalify them .......................................................................................................................2Something else? ............................................................................................................. (________)

26. In the next year, will the number of workers in your company increase, decrease or stay the same? Increase ................................................................................................................................................1Decrease ...............................................................................................................................................2Stay the same .......................................................................................................................................3 don’t know ..........................................................................................................................................4

27. If you plan to hire new workers, what will be their occupations?

Occupations whose employment is planned Number of workers of given occupation whose employment is planned

27.1.

28. If you plan to lay off workers, what will be their occupations?

Occupations whose layoff is planned Number of workers of given occupation whose layoff is planned

28.1.

152


29. Would you hire new workers if you’re given some of the following forms of assistance?

29.1. If you were given credit yes no

29.2. If you were given equipment yes no

29.3. If you were given funds for that job yes no

29.4. If you were given donations for business expansion yes no

30. To you currently have the need for some occupations that are in shortage in the labor market? Yes ........................................................................................................................................................1No .........................................................................................................................................................2

31. If yes, what are these occupations (write down all occupations listed by the examinee)? .................................................................................................................................... (_________)

32. How often do you employ workers through temporary arrangements? (seasonal, contract-based work, through students’ cooperatives etc.)?We always have temporary workers .....................................................................................................1We have temporary workers sometimes (3-4 times per year) ..............................................................2We rarely hire temporary employees (once are year or less) .................................................................3

33. When you do have such workers, what is their share in the total number of employees?Up to10% ............................................................................................................................................. 111-30% ................................................................................................................................................ 231-50% ................................................................................................................................................ 3More than 50% ................................................................................................................................... 4

34. Please rate the expertise and knowledge of your workers on the scale from 1 to 10:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

35. Please rate the responsibility and commitment of your workers on the scale from 1 to 10:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Anex 5

153

36. Do you organize internal training for your employees?Yes ........................................................................................................................................................1No .........................................................................................................................................................2

37. (If yes) How often?Once, when they join the company ......................................................................................................1Occasionally, less than once a year .......................................................................................................2Often, every year ..................................................................................................................................3Regularly, every month or week ...........................................................................................................4

38. (If not) Do you think that you need such training?Yes ........................................................................................................................................................1No .........................................................................................................................................................2

39. When you seek new employees, do you do it through some of the following channels?

39.1. Via National Employment Service yes no

39.2. Via ads in the media yes no

39.3. Via formal and informal contacts with other em-ployers

yes no

39.4. By notifying your employees on vacancies yes no

39.5. Some other channel?

40. Which of these channels do you usually use? ................................................ (_________)(write in the number of selected option from the previous table)

41. Which of these channels gives you the best candidates? ........................... (_________)(write in the number of selected option from the previous table)

154


National Employment Service support programs for employers

NES support programs Did you hear about this program?

Did you use it?

42.1-2 Subsidies for creation of 50 new jobs (short-term fi nancial assistance per each new job, under condition that employer has positive business results and that s/he did not reduce the number of workers)


43.1-2 Severance to job – fi nancial support to employers (employer hiring at least 50 persons who were previously laid off for bankruptcy and who are socially vulnerable can get 100 000 RSD per each such employee)


44.1-2 Mentoring program and specialist trainings (employers can get free mentoring in business development and a specialist training)


45.1-2 Tax relief from paying contributions in line with Article 45 of Law on Contributions to Mandatory Social Insurance (if the employer hires unemployed persons older than 45, young probationers and disabled persons)


46.1-2 Implementation of public works (applied for within NES, while the works are funded from the national budget on the basis of a public call for proposals)


47.1-2 Probationers and volunteers (NES pays the young who work for an employer for the fi rst time)


48.1-2 Training of an unemployed person for a known employer (free trainings for employees in line with the employer’s requests)


49.1-2 Selection and classifi cation 1.yes 2.no 1.yes 2.no

50.1-2 Job fairs 1.yes 2.no 1.yes 2.no

51. Please rate your collaboration with the local NES branch offi ce on scale from 1 to 10?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Anex 5

155

52. Please list the three most important problems in collaboration with the local NES branch offi ce 52.1. ..................................................................................................................................... (______)52.2. ..................................................................................................................................... (______)52.3. ..................................................................................................................................... (______)

53. What methods do you use to select the best candidate for a job? (multiple answers possible)53.1. CV ...................................................................................................................... ............1.yes 2.no53.2. Interview ........................................................................................................... ............1.yes 2.no53.3. Written recommendation from previous employer or educational institution ... ............1.yes 2.no53.4. Oral recommendation from a trusted person ..................................................... ............1.yes 2.no53.5. Skills and knowledge tests ................................................................................ ............1.yes 2.no53.6. Probation work ................................................................................................... ............1.yes 2.no53.7. Something else? ................................................................................................. (_________)

54. When you hire new employees, which criteria are most important for you (rank the three most important ones):54.1. Qualifi cation and expertise ................................................................................. (_________)54.2. Age ...................................................................................................................... (_________)54.3. Working experience ............................................................................................. (_________)54.4. Gender ................................................................................................................ (_________)54.5. Good recommendations ...................................................................................... (_________)54.6. Marriage status ................................................................................................... (_________)54.7. Social vulnerability .............................................................................................. (_________)54.8. Something else? ................................................................................................. (_________)

55. What qualities do you appreciate the most among your employees? List 3: 55.1. ..................................................................................................................................... (______)55.2. ..................................................................................................................................... (______)55.3. ..................................................................................................................................... (______)

156


56. If two candidates with same motivation and qualifi cations were to apply for one vacancy, to whom would you give advantage?

56.1. 1 Person younger than 45 2 Person older than 45 3 Doesn’t matter

56.2. 1 Man 2 Woman 3 Doesn’t matter

56.3. 1 Person without working experience

2Person with working experience

3 Doesn’t matter

56.4. 1 IDP 2 Local 3 Doesn’t matter

56.5. 1 Roma 2 Non-Roma 3 Doesn’t matter

57. Does your company undertake certain activities that could be defi ned as socially responsible business?(activity contributing to environmental protection, inclusion of vulnerable population categories, and in-crease of social solidarity) Yes ........................................................................................................................................................1No .........................................................................................................................................................2

58. If yes, which are these activities (list up to 3 most important ones)? 58.1. ..................................................................................................................................... (______)58.2. ..................................................................................................................................... (______)58.3. ..................................................................................................................................... (______)

59. Would your company be willing to fi nance scholarships for students from IDP families? Yes ........................................................................................................................................................1No .........................................................................................................................................................2

If they have IDPs among their employees

60. Please rate the expertise and knowledge of IDP workers in your company on the scale from 1 to 10:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

61. Please rate the responsibility and commitment of IDP workers in your company on the scale from 1 to 10: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COLLABORATION ☺☺☺

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

IDPs Internally Displaced Persons

NES National Employment Service

CSW Center for Social Welfare

NGOs Non-governmental organizations

SORS Statistical Offi ce of the Republic of Serbia

LFS Labor Force Survey

ISCO International Standard Classifi cation of Occupations

ISIC International Standard Industrial Classifi cation

FGD Focus group discussion

REFERENCES

Babović, M, Cvejić, S, Rakić, D. (2007) Position of refugees in the labor market and experiences with active employment measures, Group 484, UNDP, Belgrade

Center for Institutional Development – CIR-a: (2009). Report from the Regional Workshop with Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) Associations from Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo UNDP

Cvejić, S, Babović, M. (2009) Profi ling IDPs in Vranje, Belgrade: DRC.

Cvejić, S, Babović, M. (2008a) LSMS IDPs report, UNHCR Cvejić, S, Babović, M. (2008b) IDPs In Serbia And Kosovo – Vulnerability And Need For Assistance, Belgrade: DRC

Group 484 (2009) Report from round tables dedicated to the problem of employment of IDPs from the territory of Kosovo and Metohija, UNDP, Belgrade

Statistical Offi ce of the Republic of Serbia (2009) Monthly statistical bulletin, May 2009, Belgrade.

Statistical Offi ce of the Republic of Serbia (2009a) Labor Force Survey – report for 2008, Belgrade

Statistical Offi ce of the Republic of Serbia (2009b) Municipalities in Serbia 2008, Belgrade.

Statistical Offi ce of the Republic of Serbia (2009c) Employed population in the Republic of Serbia, 2009, Communication, Belgrade

Statistical Offi ce of the Republic of Serbia (2008) Living Standard Measurement Survey 2002-2007, Belgrade

Statistical Offi ce of the Republic of Serbia (2006) Municipalities in Serbia 2005, Belgrade

UNHCR, Praxis (2007) Analysis of the position of IDPs from Kosovo – Law and Practice, Belgrade.

Copyright © 2010By the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in Serbia,Internacionalnih brigada 69, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia

Authors: SeConS

Translation into English: Isidora Vlasak

Cover and design: Olivera Batajic

Print: Standard 2, Beograd

300 copies

ISBN: 978-86-7728-119-9

CIP – Каталогизација у публикацијиНародне библиотеке Србије, Београд

331.5-054.73

MAPPING of employment opportunities ofInternally Displaced Persons : analysis ofsituation in Kragujevac, Kraljevo and Vranje/ [[prepared by] SeConS ; translation IsidoraVlasak]. – Beograd : United NationsDevelopment Programme UNDP, 2010 (Beograd :Standard 2). – 154 str. : graf. prikazi,tabele ; 24 cm

Prevod dela: Mapiranje mogućnosti zazapošljavanje interno raseljenih lica. –Tiraž 300. – Napomene i bibliografske reference uz tekst. –Bibliografija: str. [157].

ISBN 978-86-7728-119-91. SeConS (Beograd)а) Расељена лица – ЗапошљавањеCOBISS.SR–ID 174585868

mapping of employment opportunities for internally ... and reports... · vranje. a smaller...

Documents