Filipino nurses are recruited to work in the U.S.

Berg, Judith A., Daisy Rodriguez, and Carolina De Guzman. 2004. “Demographic Survey of Filipino American Nurses.” Nursing Administration Quarterly 28(3): 199-206.

The article focuses on Filipino nurses working in the United States. Hospitals in the United States recruit nurses trained in the Philippines, in order to increase the nursing workforce of the United States. The study describes Filipino-American nurses’ demographics, years of practice, educational background, work status, job satisfaction, and plans of retirement. The study found that Filipino-American nurses received their education in the Philippines, attained a Bachelor’s degree of Science in Nursing (BSN), worked full time, were satisfied with their job, and planned for retirement after 12 years, on average.

Future research should include a follow-up on the status of the Filipino-American nurses at or towards the ends of their hoped-for 12 year retirement plans. Such research could reveal the impact which the nursing jobs in America has had on the nurses and their families, in regard to the education and occupational opportunities open to the following generations of the Filipino nurses. Future research could also include the implications which the transference of nurses from the job force of the Philippines to America has for both countries, such as the shortage of nurses in the Philippines and the increased number of nurses in America, and the continual recruitment of nurses due to the retirement plans of the Filipino American nurses.

Labor Market Descrimination: American-Born Filipinos

Yamane, Linus. 2002. “Native-Born Filipina/o Americans and Labor Market Discrimination.” Feminist Economics. 8(2): 125-144.

The study discussed in this article draws on data gathered from 1990 US census to determine whether American-born Filipinos and Filipinas experience labor market discrimination. To do this, Yamane compares the incomes and positions of both Filipinas and Filipinos with non-hispanic white women and men. Yamane also attempted to examine the effects of gender discrimination in the comparisons. In addition, the study tests for any differences in the extent of discrimination experienced by Filipinos with different levels of education and in different regions of the country.

Yamane’s study did find Filipino Americans face significant levels of discrimination in the labor market. Less clear, however, is how the factors of gender and race operate and influence each other.

DATA/METHODOLOGY

The sample from the census used to examine native-born Filipinos and non-Hispanic whites was comprised of persons between 25 and 64 who worked full-time (at least 35 hrs/wk), were not self-employed, earned at least $3,000, and worked for at least half of 1989.

To estimate the degree of discrimination experienced by Filipinos, Yamane, uses the “Oxaca Decompisition” (a tool economists use to examine racial and gender discrimination). The process involves examining characteristics (age, education, experience, hours worked, weeks worked, region of residence, industry, occupation, and marital status) that are theoretically relevant to the determination of wages. Estimates are made to determine the effect each characteristic influence the wages earned. Using the outcome of various equations, Yamane could compare actual wages with the estimation of earnings if treated the same as non-Hispanic whites. Similar calculations were used to estimate discrimination in terms of job advancement and wage levels compared to education levels obtained.

FINDINGS

In separate examinations, Yamane compared Filipinas to both white men and women, but both comparisons revealed that Filipinas are disproportionately more likely employed in occupational categories like administrative support, domestic services, the hospitality services, and retail sales (cashiers). They are also underrepresented in “professional specialty occupations,” like elementary school teachers, as well as skilled labor jobs like machine operators, assemblers, and assembly inspectors. However, in comparison to white men, Filipinas were also disproportionately in occupations hospital-related services (nursing aides, orderlies, and attendants) and underrepresented in production, craft, and repair occupations.

In Yamane’s comparison of Filipino males with white males, it was revealed that Filipinos are disproportionately represented in administrative support, protective services (like security guards), technical support, hospitality services, retail, and the military. Like Filipinas, Filipinos are underrepresented in professional specialty occupations (like teachers), machine operators and in management.

In regards to wages, Yamane found no statistically significant difference between those earned by Filipinas and white women. However, compared with the earnings of white men, Filipinas were estimated to earn 20-24% less (statistically significant at the 5% level). Another finding that was statistically significant, Yamane found that Filipino men earn 1-4% less than white men in terms of annual wage and salary.

In comparison of regions, the calculations indicate that Filipino men and women generally do better in the West (with the exception of California and Hawaii) and they fair worst in the South and Northeast. However, in comparing by gender, Yamane did not find a strong relationship between the level of discrimination faced by Filipino men and Filipinas in the same regions.

Although there seemed to be some expectation that Filipino regional population size would impact the outcome, the varying results for Hawaii, California, the West, and South (some of the regions where the population is most significant) indicated to Yamane that there is not a clear relationship between discrimination and population size.

As far as access to advancement is concerned, Yamane’s evidence suggested that Filipino Americans are less likely than non-Hispanic whites to be promoted to a supervisor or manager level position. Yamane does point out, however, that the source for the study – census data – does not distinguish between varying levels of status that could accompany the title of “manager” and it does not indicate whether higher positions were offered, but rejected or simply denied.

Overrepresentation of Immigrant Workers in San Francisco Hotel Industry

Wells, Mariam J. 2000. “Unionization and Immigrant Incorporation in San Francisco.” Social Problems. 47:241-265.

This study explores the changing demographics of San Francisco hotel workers from 1970-1990. The author's focus is on the impact an increase of immigrant workers has on the ability to unionize. She does so using the success of the hotel workers union, H.E.R.E (now called U.N.I.T.E H.E.R.E), as a case study. Occupations such as cooks, dishwashers, bussers, and room cleaners are more than ¾ immigrant - the largest groups being Chinese, Filipino, Central American, and Mexican. Positions such as receptionist are predominantly white and held by citizens. “Front of the house” positions are generally paid more than “back of the house” positions. White men hold the most privileged positions, while women of color hold the least. In the hotel industry in San Francisco From 1970-1990, minority, immigrant, and non-citizen population has risen, while non-Hispanic, white and citizen population has plunged. White and Black groups are underrepresented while minority groups are over represented in the San Francisco hotel industry. For example, Filipino’s comprise 5.4% of the city’s population, but make up 13.7% of the industry population. The article includes a chart comparing the city population and industry population of all ethnic groups. Historically, hotel workers have predominantly been less white & comprised of more minorities compared to the rest of the population, but this change has increased. Wells concludes that the workers are clustered in such a way because of 3 factors: employer recruitment practices, immigrant reliance on social networks to find jobs, and native workers preference for non-menial positions.

The article demonstrates a growing trend of a predominantly immigrant low wage workforce in San Francisco’s service sector. It would be interesting to see how the trend continues from 1990-2000.

---
1970 – San Francisco’s population 5% foreign born
1990 – 34% foreign born

• Majority of increase is Asian-Pacific Islanders (56% of foreign born residents) and Hispanic (21% of foreign born residents)
• Asian Pacific Islander group: 2/3 are Chinese and 1/5 is Filipino
• Hispanic group: 38% are Central American, 40% are Mexican
  

Occupations (1970)

• Managers: 93.8 White, 6.3% Black, 0% API, 0% Hispanic, 0% Other
• Receptionists: 100% White
• Room Cleaners: 20.6% White, 47.1% Black, 11.8% API, 20.6% Hispanic, 0% Other

Occupations (1990)

• Managers: 67.4% White, 0.8% Black, 16.8% API, 10.7% Hispanic, 4.3% Other
• Receptionists: 76.5% White, 0% Black, 0 API, 23.5% Hispanic, 0% Other
• Room Cleaners: 5.8% White, 8.3% Black, 51.8% API, 33.6% Hispanic, .06% Other

Room cleaners make up about 27% of all hotel workers and contribute the largest share of immigrant workers, meaning that the largest body of San Francisco immigrants in the hotel industry are Asian Pacific Islander and Hispanic women that clean rooms. Immigrants are 77% of the cooks, 80% of food preparers, and 85% of room cleaners