The characteristics of migrants are summarized in Table 4. The mean age of migrants was 31.1 years, half (49.9 percent) were never married; 58.5 percent came from Luzon, and most (46.1 percent) had a college education. Many (86 percent) had had some work experience in the Philippines. However, the majority (62.1 percent) had worked for four years or less. The FGDs and the in-depth interviews corroborated the lack of job security and the low wages experienced by respondents, which compelled them to find jobs abroad.

The largest percentages of respondents were applying to work as domestic workers (47.2 percent) and caregivers/caretakers (20.9 percent) abroad. Factory workers, technicians, teachers, and restaurant/hotel workers also comprised a smaller but sizable percentage of the survey respondents. The “other occupations” category encompasses a wide range of jobs Filipino migrants work in. The major destinations where migrants expected to work were Hong Kong (21.1 percent), Taiwan (15.2 percent), Saudi Arabia (7.9 percent), Canada (6.9 percent), and Kuwait (5.7 percent). Altogether, these five countries accounted as the destination of about half of departing migrant workers. The other destinations were each mentioned by less than five percent of respondents. The data on intended countries of destination highlight the variety and the extensive distribution of Filipino workers in different parts of the world.

About seven out of 10 respondents were agency hires while three out of 10 were direct hires (i.e., they did not find jobs through the agencies; direct hires include those who found jobs through POEA). More than half of the respondents (58.6 percent) had worked abroad before, a pattern that conforms with the high rate of re-migration observed for Filipino migrants. Less than half (41.4 percent) were leaving to work abroad for the first time. Nine out of 10 had attempted to apply for overseas employment before, and only one of out 10 had filed an application for the first time. In other words, majority of respondents’ previous attempts were not successful in the sense that they were unable to actually leave for abroad.

Migrants who attend PDOS are supposed to be at the point of deployment – i.e., an employer has been identified, they had gone through a medical examination, and the PDOS is usually scheduled at around the time that they are waiting for their visa. However, based on Table 4, some 45 percent of respondents were still waiting for word as to when they would actually leave. On the other hand, there were also PDOS participants who were scheduled to leave immediately. Several of those who participated in the FGDs and in-depth interviews, shared that they were leaving very soon, some were leaving as early as the day after the PDOS. As observed in earlier assessments of the PDOS (Scalabrini Migration Center, 1992; 1997), the workers’ frame of mind at the time of the PDOS is already set on their imminent departure. As such, inputs from PDOS at this point compete with other last-minute concerns that preoccupy workers. Thus, the orientation provided by PDOS may fall on deaf ears as migrants are concerned with other matters. Also, they may have been victimized early on in the application process and PDOS as an intervention comes late in the process. During some FGD sessions, for example, discussions about potential problems seemed to introduce some second thoughts to some participants. However, these doubts were eventually overtaken by bahala na (letting go of fears and trusting that things will be fine) because they have already invested a lot and have reached this far to back out. back to top...

The Decision to Migrate

This study has confirmed that migrants are the ones who decide to migrate. The FGDs, in particular, highlighted that migrants, including women migrants, would even defy their spouses’ or parents’ wishes because they were convinced that working abroad was the only way to improve their family’s situation. As shown below (Table 5), economic reasons were the typical reasons why respondents sought overseas employment.

Migrants who met with family opposition to their migration plans argued against their family members’ point that it was all right to be poor as long as the family were together. As expressed by many participants in the FGDs, they had to leave because it was not enough just to be able to eat three times a day. Many migrants did not have a permanent job that would provide a regular income. Qualitative data from the in-depth FGDs and interviews indicated that prior to migration, the jobs that most people had were contractual or not permanent. The second issue is the low wages that simply fell short of meeting their family’s needs.

Economic motivations were also part of the reasons why other professionals (non-nurses) and nurses decided to find work abroad. Nurses and other medical professionals were well-aware of the huge salary differentials between their earnings in the Philippines and what they could earn abroad. The nurse applicants in the FGD all mentioned that “dollars” (“basically, the money,” they said) attracted them to work abroad. According to them, the thought that they will work abroad someday helped them cope with their small salary in the Philippines. At the back of their minds, they were banking on their work experience that will help them land a nursing job abroad. Other professionals with very good salaries were motivated by things other than income. These are reflected in the following comments:

The issue of low wages in the local employment market has been a push factor of migration since the 1970s. The study explored the level of monthly salary that would encourage Filipinos to stay. The survey data uncovered a broad range of income levels, ranging from a low of P1,000 (one respondent) to P278,630 a month (one respondent). The three largest modal values are: P10,000 (n=110 respondents); P15,000 (n=100 respondents); and P20,000 (n=85 respondents). Table 6 presents another way of looking at this data. It is interesting to note that the largest proportion (43.2 percent) would consider staying home if they could earn between P10,000 and P19,999 monthly. Those who wished to earn P30,000 and more comprised a minority, 13 percent. Note that as of 2002, the poverty threshold in the Philippines was at P11,906 (www.nscb.gov.ph/poverty/2002/2002povTreshold.asp, accessed 10 November 2004). The monthly salary sought by most migrants, thus, hews closely to the needed by a family to meet its basic needs. Further analysis of the survey data indicated that many respondents cited a monthly figure that is lower than what they earned abroad (or what they would expect to earn overseas), indicating preparedness in downscaling their salaries, in order to be with their families. As expressed by many participants in the FGDs, they would rather not be away from their families if they could have a reliable and decent salary in the Philippines. back to top...

The Importance of Personal Networks

The survey revealed that 66 percent of respondents had relatives and friends present in the countries where they intended to go. Relatives and friends abroad mean social capital – i.e., they are a very important and accessible source of information, funds, and assistance when migrants arrive in the destination. Meanwhile, the improved economic situation of migrants’ families in the Philippines demonstrates what can be achieved by working abroad, thereby convincing non-migrants to follow the same path.

Migrants’ personal and social networks are indeed an important source of migration information. Nearly eight out of 10 respondents consulted their relatives abroad and in the Philippines about their migration plans (Table 7). Note that other entities – recruitment agencies, POEA, NGOs and others – play a very minor role as a source of migration information.

The survey revealed that relatives based abroad and in the Philippines (67.8 percent, of which 47.5 percent were relatives based abroad) were the major source of information on how migrants selected the recruitment agency; only about a quarter (23.6 percent) relied on their own efforts (e.g., identifying recruitment agencies through newspaper ads) and other means (8.7 percent).

In the FGD with domestic workers from Mindanao, the role of recruiters or agents operating in the communities came out. This did not surface in the FGDs with another group of domestic workers from Luzon and Visayas (or in the FGDs with other non-professional migrants). Several participants from Mindanao said that they were referred to an agency in Manila by a recruiter in their community who was also known to them. In some cases, the recruiter provides other support, such as going with them to Davao to apply for a passport, or to accompany them to Manila, or to arrange for someone in Manila to take care of the migrants during the application process. In one case, a recruiter arranged for the migrant-applicant to stay in the placement agency in return for cleaning and janitorial work. As will be discussed in a later section, the recruiter gets a share of the salary deductions charged against the migrant.

In the FGDs, relatives were the most common source of funds or loans in financing the migration project. A few mentioned pawning property, selling jewelry or land, “5/6” (loans which charge 20 percent interest), or financing (arranged by the recruitment agency).

Both the survey and qualitative data point to the importance of personal networks in the pre-migration stage, mostly as a source of information (particularly referrals to recruitment agencies) and financial resources. Other than the most basic information (i.e., identifying recruitment agencies), it appears that migrants do not actively seek further information about migration-related issues.

The role of the government and NGOs as a source of migration information is very minimal in the pre-migration stage. The only exception is the POEA. While 84.3 percent of migrants did approach the POEA, it was mostly to verify whether they were dealing with a licensed agency. Other than this, migrants hardly sought out government agencies or NGOs to know other details about the application process. The FGDs and in-depth interviews confirmed this limited information search. back to top...

The Application Process

The steps and the requirements (other than fees, which will be taken up separately) in the application process are straightforward and are generally known to respondents. For the agency hires, the usual steps and requirements involve the following:

For agency hires, an interview with the prospective employers (or principals) may be part of the preliminary screening procedures. For the direct hires, the steps and the documents required are similar, except that applicants do not go through the recruitment agencies; instead, they deal directly with the POEA. In some instances, applicants who found jobs through their contacts abroad may go through an agency for the processing of their documents.

In the steps mentioned above, applicants will have to deal with several government agencies, notably, the NSO, PRC and DFA. FGD participants (particularly, the nurses group) mentioned having to go to Malacañang for authentication of some documents, as a step before the DFA will review and authenticate these documents. They wondered why they had to go to Manila City Hall for authentication of their employment certificate – which did not make sense to them because their work experience was elsewhere. Although most applicants did not experience problems with these government agencies, several mentioned incidents of extortion and paying excessive fees, which a few experienced themselves or which happened to people known to them. Encounters with or stories about fixers in the DFA and Manila City Hall were mentioned in the FGDs.

Further details about the experiences of different types of migrant workers in complying with the various requirements are described in Boxes 1-6. Although the requirements are similar and process are similar, those who were direct hires (see professionals and male non-professionals) encountered fewer problems. They were not only unburdened by the placement fees, but they also had a shorter waiting period compared with the other categories. back to top...

The Great Unknown: Fees

The issue of fees proved to be a very unwieldy aspect of the pre-migration stage. Migrants reported much variation in the fees they paid for placement, medical examination, documentation, and training. In part, this variation is understandable given the variety of occupational categories and destinations of Filipino migrants. Table 8 presents the range of placement fees that respondents reportedly paid their recruitment agencies (taking into account possible errors in reporting). However, when these two variables are controlled for, some differences remain, and this is where the role of recruitment agencies and the lack of information on the part of migrants come in as intervening factors.

Placement Fees

The standard placement fee for agency hires is the equivalent of one month’s salary. Direct hires or POEA hires do not have a placement fee.

In general terms, migrants did not know much about the standard placement fees for the job and destination they were applying for. More than a third of respondents in the survey – 37.3 percent – claimed that they did not know the standard placement fee for their intended job. Those who provided an answer mentioned amounts ranging from none to P260,000. This wide range reflects the range of occupational categories and destinations and the fact that some were direct hires and others were agency hires.

Migrants’ lack of knowledge, lack of interest or lack of choice about the standard or legal placement fees predisposes them to abuse by recruitment agencies. According to some participants in the FGDs and in-depth interviews, the standard fees are for POEA’s eyes and ears only. They claimed that agencies prompted them on the “correct” answers in case they were asked by POEA.

Nineteen of the 46 direct hires (41.3 percent) in the survey said that they did not pay any placement fees. Of those who reported paying placement fees (n=27 respondents), the amount ranged from P5,500 to P172,750: 18 respondents paid less than P30,000, while nine paid over P30,000 to a high of P172,750.

Of the 270 agency hires who provided information on placement fees, nine claimed that they did not have to pay anything. The majority who did, however, paid between P4,500 and P260,000. The modal amount (n=27 respondents) was P75,000. Altogether, 41.1 percent paid less than P30,000; another 38.1 percent paid between more than P30,000 to P80,000; and a sizable 20.7 percent paid between more than P80,000 and P260,000.

OPAs normally do not pay a placement fee upfront, but they have salary deductions once they are abroad (see also Box 2). Some recruitment agencies which deploy other workers have also resorted to this practice. According to the survey data, 28 percent of respondents had this arrangement with their agencies; another 20 percent had an arrangement with some payments prior to departure and the rest will be paid out in installments. The qualitative data suggest that those who initially claimed that they had no placement fees turned out to have salary deductions arrangements with their recruitment agencies. Several FGD participants did not provide (or did not have) much details about the number of months and the amount to be paid. For example, in the domestic workers group, one participant related that she expected to receive US$200 per month, but she was not sure how much will be deducted. She said, “It depends on what we will agree on … perhaps half, perhaps the full amount.” Another participant shared that she will have salary deductions for four months – three months will go to the placement agency, and one month to her recruiter. The other participants reported salary deductions between two months and four months.

The idea of salary deduction is appealing to prospective migrant workers as it “helps” lessen the burden of meeting the placement fee. However, as described above, the nebulous terms of the scheme puts migrants at a disadvantage. Tied as they are to a debt, they are forced to work even under unfavorable circumstances; in this sense, the salary deductions put migrants in a situation akin to debt bondage. Recruitment agencies, both licensed and unlicensed ones also engage in other schemes that trap prospective migrants in a disadvantaged position (see Box 7). While there are errant and unscrupulous recruitment agencies, there are also some which have instituted good practices (see Box 8).

Highly skilled migrants who go through recruitment agencies also have to wrestle with placement fees. One way of coping with agency fees is to scout for placement agencies that would charge less, which may imply a change in the destination countries. In the nurses’ FGD, for example, participants noted that while the UK offers a high salary, the placement fee can be as steep as L1,000 (according to them, there are also some agencies which do not charge anything). One participant who was having difficulty in raising the placement fee for the UK was considering to return to Kuwait, where is no placement fee. She added that while the salary in Kuwait is lower (US$1,300-1,500), it is tax-free.

The destination can be an important determinant of the cost of the placement fee because of the salaries associated with it. The higher the expected salary, the higher the placement fee. In the survey, those who were going to the US paid a six-digit placement fee. For example, the 21 respondents in the survey who were recruited as teachers paid between P111,452 and P306,493. One respondent who will be working in the IT sector paid a placement fee of P139, 315. In the FGD with the professionals group, a physical therapist shared that she paid US$2,900 to a placement agency in the US; in addition, she will have a salary deduction of US$200/month (the number of months was not specified).

As in the study on irregular migration (Battistella and Asis, 2003), the respondents did not complain as such about the placement fees, although they did acknowledge that it was not easy to raise the amount. They believe that they will recover their expenses. In the case of nurses and medical personnel, since they had a fairly good idea about their wages, it was easy for them to map out when they would recoup all their expenses.

Medical Exam Fees

The survey also uncovered a very wide range in the medical fees reported by migrants, from P150 to P35,000. The modal category is P3,000.

Again, the destination makes a difference: in the UK and the US, the medical exam is said to cost P5,000 because of additional tests; for the other destinations and skills, the costs generally run between P2,500 to P2,800. There were also those who answered that they did not pay at all since their agencies assumed the costs of the medical exam.

During the FGDs, migrants got to find out about the different fees for the same test or procedure during the sharing of information. For example, women migrants were surprised to know that they paid different amounts for the pregnancy test and stool examination that they had to retake prior to departure. Some said they only paid P150 for these procedures, while the others paid P600.

In addition to the basic pre-employment medical exam, the examining doctor may require migrant workers to undergo other procedures or treatments. For example, in the course of the dental exam, the dentist would require tooth extraction or filling; or a doctor may prescribe glasses; or treatment for newly discovered illnesses. It is possible that some of these are truly necessary. Migrants, however, suspected that these additional requirements were money-generating schemes. Moreover, they were coercive as migrants had no choice but to comply, otherwise, the clinics will not issue the certification indicating their fitness for employment.

OWWA Membership

Most respondents were unable to provide the correct information about the OWWA membership fee of US$25. This fee is supposed to be paid by the employer or recruitment agency. Some 62 percent of respondents did not provide any information on this item. Those who did, cited figures ranging from P100 to P7,676; the modal category was P900. It is possible that migrants confused the OWWA membership fee with other fees, hence they gave different figures. Some 15 percent said they did not pay for OWWA membership, possibly because their employer or placement agency did.

Total Costs

Very few migrants spelled out the details of the expenses they incurred in applying for a job abroad. In the survey, few respondents provided information on the various items. The in-depth interviews were conducted to probe further into the financial issues behind the migration project.

When total costs are considered, the expenses can pile up. Even for direct hires, they may be free of placement fees, but there are other incidentals. For example, in the professional group, putting the documents together, communications costs, transportation costs and so forth could also be substantial. Two participants in this group estimated that they must have spent P30,000 for mailing, communication, reproduction costs and the like.

The highest estimated costs recorded by the study were those reported by two applicants who were leaving for the US. One of them, an occupational therapist, said that he spent close to P500,000 for his application. Another applicant, a physical therapist, claimed that she had spent about a little less than half a million. Both explained that the US requires many exams and subjects applicants’ credentials to a lengthy assessment process. The processing and evaluation of their application took two to two-and-a-half years. Both were confident that they would be able to recover their expenses in 2-3 months’ time. back to top...

Problems Encountered in the Pre-Migration Stage

Asked to assess their encounters and dealings with placement agencies, medical clinics, training centers, government agencies, and NGOs, respondents generally said that they were “happy” to “very happy” with their encounters with the different offices. There were references to some irregularities committed by some personnel in the DFA in the application for passports and authentication, or in the airport where migrants who had not taken PDOS were allowed to leave after paying a fine of P2,500.

The most commonly cited problem was raising the money for the placement fees and other expenses. Interestingly, despite this, migrants did not complain about the practices of recruitment agencies. Instead, migrants focused their attention on how they could raise the placement fee. For example, when FGD participants were asked about how they were preparing for their departure, most identified the need to raise the amount needed to cover the rest of the placement fee.

The time between the filing of application and the actual departure could be as short as a month or it can span an extended period of time. The delay could be frustrating to migrants as it means more expenses and more foregone earnings. Although they tended to joke about it, migrants frequently referred to the accumulating interest with every delay that they experience. Nurses and medical personnel applying to the US were burdened by the many evaluations and tests that they had to undergo. The loss of some documents could lengthen the waiting time. For other types of workers, the delay was shorter. back to top...

Information about the Contract, Working and Living Conditions

Almost all reported that they had been informed of their responsibilities (97 percent) and rights (96 percent). The survey was unable to probe further details on the extent of their knowledge of their rights and corresponding responsibilities.

According to FGD participants, the contract signed in the Philippines does not provide assurance that the conditions will be honored. The real test, according to them, are the actual conditions of the worker when he or she is already in the destination. Professionals, such as nurses, are not spared of contract violations. For example, a nurse, V, related that she was hired as an operating room nurse for a hospital in Jeddah. However, when she got there, she was redeployed to Najaran and was assigned to the operating room of the dental department. She said, “I cried because I did not want to work in a dental clinic, but I could not do anything because I was already there.” Initially, she was told that she had no placement fee, but after attending the PDOS, she was made to sign a promissory note for salary deductions.

When actual conditions turn out to be unfavorable, one option is to terminate the contract – but with migrants shouldering the costs. An example is the experience of L, a former domestic worker to Hong Kong. She did not have major problems with her employer. She decided to terminate her contract after four months because she was given instant noodles everyday for lunch, which she feared would be bad for her health. The noodles were also not sufficient for the strenuous work that she was doing. Another former migrant to Hong Kong, A, experienced harassment from her male employer. She left after six months – at the time of the study, she was waiting for her deployment to Malaysia. Like L, she was hoping that she would be able to offset the losses she incurred when she worked in Hong Kong.

The study also probed into migrants’ assessment of PDOS. Eighty-four percent of the respondents considered the information provided by PDOS as “useful” to “very useful.” Although some participants said that they initially had reservations about it, they found out that the seminar does provide useful information about working abroad. They recognized that PDOS would be particularly useful for first-timers. Among others, it was suggested that more country-specific information should be presented and to allow for more discussions organized into smaller groups.

On the part of the providers, while they recognize the importance of country-specific information, they admitted that this was difficult to implement due to lack of resources. NGO providers tend to think that industry providers go about PDOS haphazardly. For example, the conduct of two PDOS sessions a day is suspect. Given the many topics that must be covered, a half-day session suggests a lot of skipping or surface treatment of the topics. As observed by one informant, industry providers do not cover contracts in their discussions as this would be prejudicial to their interests (Interview1, 26 May 2004). Another informant shared that the PDOS is one of the interventions that is focused on the welfare of the workers (Interview2, 26 May 2004). PDOS providers also acknowledged that the fee (typically P100) is supposed to be paid by the agency (as part of the processing fees paid by applicants). According to informants, the receipt is issued to the agency, although it is actually the worker who pays (Interview1, 26 May 2004; Interview2, 26 May 2004).

Other Information

Majority of migrants were aware of the problems migrants encounter in the Philippines (8 out of 10) and abroad (9 out of 10). More than half – 55.3 percent – said they were not affected by these news or reports; 48 percent claimed that they were affected by these reports. However, despite some reservations, for most migrant workers, there was no turning back. In the FGDs, they expressed that they had already spent a lot; for some, the interest on their loans was already ticking and they had no choice but to persevere. For most migrants, their major preparation is prayer and strengthening their resolve. Thus, when migrants leave, they literally leave on a wing and a prayer. back to top...

Access to Support Abroad

As mentioned earlier, most migrant workers (66 percent) had a relative or friend in the country where they will work. Eighty-four percent said they knew of someone or an organization/agency who could help them should they encounter problems.

If government agencies had a negligible role in the pre-migration stage, they are the primary source of assistance identified by migrants in case they meet problems in the destination country. Family networks came next as a potential source of assistance (Table 9). The Church and NGOs also figured more in the migration stage than in the pre-migration stage. In general, migrants tended to mention Philippine institutions as a source of assistance than the institutions of the country of destination. back to top...

Return to the Philippines/Other Plans

Majority of respondents in the survey – 60.7 percent – did not know how long they would work abroad. For those who had some timeframe (39.3 percent), about half (52.4 percent) planned on working abroad for one contract and to return to the country in two years; 26 percent said they intended to return in 3-4 years; 13.2 percent, in 5-6 years; and 8.6 percent in 7 years or more.

The dream of the great majority – 88.4 percent – was to set up a business upon their return; only 4.8 percent planned on local employment; and the rest had in mind to retire and to engage in other activities. Migrants’ plans upon their return to the Philippines have to be taken into account in the drafting of reintegration programs and in the consideration of migrants’ contributions to development processes. back to top...