1. LAMAS Working Group 19-21 June 2017
Agenda Item 2.5 Detailed topic on 'Labour market situation of migrants and their immediate descendants'
Eurostat

2. Background Ran in 2008 and 2014, planned again for 2021
Three AHM 2014 variables moved to LFS core, and another two variables did not work well in 2014
TF2 has reviewed the results of the module tests, and made its recommendations to LAMAS
Decision needed in this meeting on which variables to keep, their names, filters and codes, if we want to run the survey in 2021
Dear colleagues,
As you all know, the ad hoc module on migrants on the labour market ran in 2008 and in 2014.
It is scheduled to run again in 2021, under the first LFS implementing measure. That means that the final selection of variables, entry filters and answer codes must be done today.
The entire module has been tested, since parts of it had to be replaced. The results were reviewed by Task Force 2 in April. Task Force 2's recommendations have been presented to you in the paper for this agenda point.
From the exchange of views we see that there are four variables which are problematic to many of you, so those are the ones I will focus on in this presentation.
Before I do that, however, I will show you the list of variables which a large majority of you has approved. 1

3. Results of LAMAS EoV More than 2/3 of you approved :
Educational attainment level of parents 22/31
Country of highest level of education 22/31
Job satisfaction 25/31 (no SILC codes 15/31)
Feeling of being discriminated against at work 21/31
Skills in main host country language before migrating 21/31
Current skills in main host country language 23/31
Skill equivalence new main and old main job 23/31
Agreed in written procedure of LAMAS
These are the variables that a large majority of you accepted, without changes, of in the exchange of views. Since we, as always, are pressed for time, we therefore take them to be approved, in their current form.
As you see, this is the variables of [read out list] 1

4. Variables with less than 2/3 support
Main obstacle to getting a suitable job
Time required to find a paid job
Recognition of formal qualifications obtained abroad
Participation in course for main host country language
Then for the more tricky part, namely the variables with not enough support in the exchange of views to be considered as approved by you. As you see, they are:
Main obstacle to finding a suitable job (was run in 2014, but is revised in its current form; filter simplification)
Time required to find a paid job (new, on the request of DGs HOME and EMPL)
Recognition of formal qualifications obtained abroad (new, DGs)
Participation in course for main host country language (was run in 2014, but is changed from yes/no for attendance to a course; to yes/no + type of course + defined reasons for not attending) 1

5. Main obstacle to getting a suitable job
Concept / reference point for 'suitable', voting
Only education : 13
Only work experience : 2
Both: 8
Blank/Don’t know : 8
Filter, voting
First generation immigrants: 20
All employed: 1
All: 2
Codes, comments
Code overlaps (6 with 1-4)
Codes are far from exhaustive (should include discrimination, illness, disability, childcare)
We have several issues for the main obstacle variable.
The first issue is what it should mean
As you see, there is no clear consensus on what the variable should refer to in its measurement of 'suitable'. The option of 'only educational attainment level' has the most support, but I am not comfortable with making a decision based on a 40 % LAMAS support on the concept of a variable.
We therefore need to find a solution to this, that if not all, then at least most of you, can accept, preferably in the next 10 minutes.
Additionally, we have issues that we need to solve for the entry filter and for the answer options / codes
For the choice of entry filters, we have several proposals. The experience from 2014 round was that the target population was on the small side, so TF2 therefore suggested now to relax the filter (first generation immigrants, instead of first or second generation immigrants who either are not in employment or who are overqualified in their current main job).
The counter proposals from you are 1) employed, 2) keep the 2014 version, or 3) all. Keeping the 2014 filter wold however be problematic, as the overqualification variable has been deleted.
In practice the choice is therefore either all first generation immigrants, all employed, or all
As for the answer options:
The current version has six answer codes (language, education, work permit, other, no obstacle, did not look for work), which already is pushing it. There are suggestions from you for adding up to another four (discrimination, illness, disability, childcare)
We also need to look at how to solve the overlap that has been pointed out: 6) never looked for work, can be a consequence of either of 1-4 (missing language skills, missing work permit, and so on)
I open the floor for comments on this variable, with the aim of having an agreement on it in the allocated next minutes.
7 min to here, up to 10 minutes of discussion on this variable
2:30, total 5:30

6. Time required to find a paid job
Concept, comments
Measuring two things in one variable, breaking the LAMAS instructions
Filter, voting
First generation immigrants: 17
First generation immigrants who had not found a job before migrating (TF2 proposal): 8
Migrated to find a job (comments): 1
All (comments): 1
Codes, comments
Add found a job before migrating
Decrease the number of codes (but no concrete proposal for what to delete)
The most serious argument raised against time required to find a paid job is that it measures two things in one variable (length of time and reason for not finding a job).
This is of course also linked to the entry filter: if we filter out those who don’t work or never worked, the answer options could be simplified, but the cost would be a less interesting variable for analysis, and a more complicated entry filter.
As you see, we have three filter options from you, in addition to the proposal from Task Force 2. Interestingly enough, none of these ideas for entry filters solve the answer option issue.
With so many options to choose amongst, my proposal is to go back to the basics and think about which research question you want to answer with the variable, and from that select the filter and answer codes.
The floor is yours, for the goal of this variable, and then its filter and codes. As before, minutes, so keep it to the point please.
18 min to here, + 10 min discussion

7. Recognition of formal qualifications obtained abroad
Concept, comments
People who have no difficulty in finding a job do not need to apply for a recognition
Filter, voting
HATLEVEL obtained abroad : 19
ISCED 5-8 (comments): 1
HATLEVEL ≠ 0: 1
Codes, comments
Add recognition not relevant for the work
Decrease the number of codes (but no concrete proposal for what to delete)
Code 4 is confusing (one suggestion to add more text, one suggestion to delete the text in brackets)
The main objection you have raised to this variable, is that it does not cover those who did not have to apply for recognition. This should be solvable by clarifying answer option 4 (has not applied, because it was not needed) better. This should also take care of the comment that we need an answer option for recognition not relevant for the work.
If you agree to this, then the only other thing to decide on is if you want a HATLEVEL / ISCED filter on the variable. Keeping the comments from the AHM 2016 in mind, however, I know that several of you are not big fans of filtering on education.
30 min to here, + 10 minutes discussion

8. Participation in course for main host country language
Concept, comments
Should rather measure the need for courses, not the participation in it
Too complicated to distinguish between the course types
Filter, voting
PRKNLANG ≠mother tongue : 21
PRKNLANG ≠mother tongue, advanced: 1
Codes, comments
No issues
Measuring the need for language courses, as is suggested in the exchange of views, would in practice be to go back to the AHM 2014 version of this variable. However, the main user of the data set has asked that we find out how job placement training (very relevant for refugees) works out, and to do this we need the suggested revision of the variable.
For the entry filter we have a qualified majority of more than 2/3s, so I don’t see any major reason to discuss that further.
So, for you to decide now is if we use the 2014 version (yes, no not needed, no for other reasons) which worked ok, but does not fill the new need to track refugee labour market intergation, or the TF2 proposal for a revised version (yes general, yes work-specific, no not available, no not needed, no other reason)
45 min to here, + 10 minutes discussion on the variable

9. LAMAS is asked to: find an agreement for the 2021 module on :
the variables
their entry filters
and answer codes
Confirm sum-up, 5 minutes