Journal of Community Positive Practices, XVI(3) 2016, 13-31
ISSN Print: 1582-8344; Electronic: 2247-6571
DISCRIMINATION FORMS IN THE
PROFESSIONAL AREA1
Gabriel STOICIU2,
Raluca POPESCU3,
Ramona CARAMALĂU4
Abstract: When a group, irrespective of the species, uses identification elements/signals between
its members and ones of differentiation against one or more individuals to adopt a certain
delimitation attitude, we deal with discriminative behaviour. Always rooted in the prejudices
widespread in the society, the nature and reasons of such behaviour depend both on the way in
which society and its institutions are structured, and on collective representations and cultural
patterns. The marginalisation or discrediting practices of the “weak” (women, elderly or disabled
individuals) or of promoting a model of citizen with a certain cultural profile, physical aspect, and
socio-professional condition involves, inherently, the existence of a part of population that is
excluded to a certain extent. This paper presents the opinions of Romanians regarding minorities
in general, and about their access to labour market, being the outcome of analysing data resulting
from a 2011 survey.
Keywords: discrimination, tolerance, inclusion policies, minorities
Relevant theoretical background for approaching the
discrimination phenomenon
Discrimination (Latin discriminatio – separation) is a concept closely related to the one
of difference. The original meaning of separation has the significance of a neutral act,
even a passive one of establishing a difference – which is closely linked to the
identification process. Territoriality is the one determining individuals to notice the
presence of a different being in their proximity and, in the identification process, to
1
2
3
4
This paper was developed in the framework of the POSDRU/97/6.3/S/54973 Project:
―Support for women discriminated on the labour market‖, financed by the European Social
Fund 6.4 ―Promoting equality of chances on the labour market{>
Scientific researcher 3rd rank with the Institute of Anthropology ―Francisc Rainer‖ Romanian
Academy. e-mail:gabriel.stoiciu@gmail.com
Lecturer with the Faculty of Sociology and Social Assistance at the University of Bucharest, and
3rd rank scientific researcher with the Institute of Quality of Life Research, Romanian Academy.
e-mail: ralucut@gmail.com
PhD in sociology, graduate of the Faculty of Sociology and Social Assistance and of an
Advanced Research Master, e-mail:ramona.caramalau@gmail.com
14 Gabriel STOICIU, Raluca POPESCU, Ramona CARAMALĂU
adopt an attitude against this being, either aggressive or non-aggressive. Hence, when a
group, irrespective of the species, uses elements/signals of identification between its
members and ones of differentiation against one or more individuals for adopting a
certain delimitation attitude, we deal with discriminatory behaviour, which does not
presuppose any moral connotation. Thus, identity represents a ―posture adopted for the
duration of an interaction, a possibility of an individual, (or of a group of individuals) to organise
relationships against one another (...) From this perspective, the individual is not perceived as
determined by his belonging because he is the one which gives a significance to the latter.‖ (Ogien,
1987, p. 135)
In the fifties, under the influence of social movements, the negative connotation is
developed with respect to the term of discrimination. The initial, neutral meaning,
synonymous with the distinction, took over a pejorative connotation. Now, it is about
differentiation actions either abusively or illegally, by separating a social group and
treating another in a disfavouring manner, one way or the other. At the same time, the
term of non-discrimination emerges, with the entire associated conceptualisation.
There are differences in the social contexts in which individuals practicing
discrimination function. In the case of Europe, we might talk about a shared common
definition of discrimination, and of its institutionalisation/regulation by laws, actions of
repression taken by authorities against discriminatory acts. However, there are outside
the democratic states, governments openly legitimising, in the name of morality,
religion, or ideology, forms that we call discrimination. Examples therefore are the laws
limiting fundamental liberties of women, or that deny the rights of indigenous people; it
is a type of discrimination depriving de facto individuals from the viewpoint of human
rights. As result, defining discrimination is related closely to the values of the societies.
Some individuals may be discriminated based on the complex of elements constituting
their identity, such as the case of an indigenous woman – she can be discriminated as
woman, but also as person belonging to the indigenous populations.
According to the sociologist Mihăilescu Ioan (1993), discrimination represents any
difference, restriction, exclusion, preference or differing treatment which disadvantages
an individual/group, as compared to others in the same situations, or the use of
unequal treatment against a person or against a group of persons in relationship with
other categorical features: racial, ethnic or religious belonging, or class attachment. The
term ―is used for describing the action of a dominant majority in relationship with a minority and
involves a prejudice caused to an individual or to a group‖. (Mihăilescu I., în Zamfir and
Vlăsceanu, 1993, p. 177).
The discrimination represents, consequently, the differentiated treatment applied to an
individual by its inclusion into a certain social group. Discrimination is an individual
action, but if the members of the same group are treated similarly, then it represents a
social model of collective behaviour (Banton, 1998). In social sciences, the term refers
to the differentiated treatment against the large majority, with negative effects on the
individual exposed to it.
The United Nations Organisation includes in discrimination ―any conduct based on the
distinction operated in relationship with certain natural and social categories and which is not related to
Discrimination forms in the professional area 15
the individual capacities and merits, or to the actual behaviour of an individual”. This type of
unequal treatment still exists in all societies, to various degrees, and the evaluation is
made in accordance with the social norms and values dominant within the society. It is
relevant that in all democratic societies, it is legally prohibited any type of
discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, race and religion yet, nevertheless, societies
do not comply entirely with the constitutional provisions. (Mihăilescu, in Zamfir and
Vlăsceanu, 1993, p.177)
At macro-social level, the discrimination phenomenon operates in relationship with two
dimensions: the economic and the legal dimension.
The economic dimension refers to resources‘ distribution, to access to various
occupations, to economic activities and welfare distribution in an equitable manner,
justly and based on transparent and broadly accepted criteria. In order to attain these
desiderates and avoid discrimination with an economic underlay, history showed that a
democratic regime is one of the desirable forms of government, because any form of
authoritarianism is associated with various forms of discrimination. Democratic regimes
create a favourable framework for the operation of some institutions and nongovernmental organizations enabled to fight with the display manners of discrimination
within society. However, on the other hand, the capitalist economic regime, the social
liberalism (Calves, 2006, p. 25-26) have generated competition on wide-scale among
individuals and some groups are disadvantaged against others as part of this
competition, because of their origin, religion, etc., and hence these groups are possible
victims of discrimination.
Discrimination varies depending on the sectors of activity on the competitive market.
In France, as Jean-François Amadieu shows “it can be more often encountered in activities
where contact to customer exists, in services and other trade activities” (Amadieu, 2006, p. 82).
Amadieu refers to the surveys achieved by the French International Labour Office for
direct services, trade, hotels and restaurants. This Office shows that in 2005 an
immigrant had four times less chances to be employed against a native candidate.
Amadieu (2006) notices improvements and initiatives for fighting against
discrimination. Thus, there are fields in which social dialogue practices were instituted
with the role of democratising the access to resources, based on the participation of the
population without symbolic power. The banks, for instance, attempt to measure the
discrimination risk, just as they manage financial risk, and the industrial sector adopted
a series of measures for diminishing the phenomenon.
From the legal perspective, discrimination aims rather the individual than the group. An
individual is discriminated when in a certain circumstance, he/she is treated differently
from the others without any substantial reason based on one or several illegitimate
criteria. The legal dimension is so important, that it can be stated that: “A difference of
treatment is discriminatory whenever it is illegal” (Mine, 2003, p. 15).
As result, it might be said that establishing discrimination presumes the existence of
two elements:
A competitive situation between candidates, based on objectivised criteria and
actual stakes;
16 Gabriel STOICIU, Raluca POPESCU, Ramona CARAMALĂU
The use of an illegitimate criterion by which the candidates are differentiated.
In order to re-establish balance between opportunities, democratic states commit to
policies against discrimination. This fight may take several ways. Firstly, the legislation
ensures protection for natural persons. On the other hand, an attempt is made to
formulate rebalancing policies, called generically ―positive discrimination‖, which aims
to balance chances between groups. By ―positive discrimination‖ we understand
measures that some states take for removing inequalities the victims of which certain
minorities are. One such measure is what is called generically „politically correctness‖.
The correct expression from the political point of view “consists in using systematically the
euphemism in order to get rid of the suspicion of pejorative connotation. The anathema is cast on some
terms assumed as promoting contempt against minorities, just as well” (Deliège, 1999, p. 98). This
reconstruction of language within the public space is achieved by adopting neutral
verbal forms, sometimes even neologisms which comply with physical and any other
differences.
However, there is also the risk of some perverse effects of these policies. “Defending
minorities might seem at first sight a display of multiculturalism, but often leads in the opposite
direction, the one of a communitarianism closed in itself and, consequently, hostile to the coexistence of
various cultures” (Touraine, 1996, p.292). Institutionalised discrimination might enter the
collective memory and creates a feeling of marginalisation and disobedience. Yet,
symbols are not enough in promoting egalitarianism.
The most debated measure for fighting against discrimination is, as already shown,
positive discrimination. Positive discrimination reverses the conventional operational
way of classic discrimination by favouring groups that are usually disadvantaged.
Indeed, the policies and right fight one another for re-establishing the balance between
social groups, precisely because disadvantaged groups do not have the same
possibilities as the others (the same cultural, social, and educational capital within the
society) and, implicitly, their chances of accessing material resources and opportunities
for social mobility are low. These groups are structurally disfavoured, even without
undertaking a certain discrimination action. However, it is not enough to eliminate legal
inequality (segregation, colonisation) in order to promote equitable treatment.
Positive discrimination was born in The United States under the name of affirmative
action based on two objectives: first to compensate for structural socio-economic
inequalities against historically inherited ethnic minorities (Afro-Americans and
Indians), but also in order to improve representativeness based on meritocracy. The
idea was exported (Europe, India, South-Africa, etc.) and diversified and thus extended
beyond the limits of ethnic minorities to all discriminated social groups (Wuhl, 2007).
Legal changes emerged in the area of social competition, intended to encourage
disadvantaged groups, thus compensating for a de facto situation.
Discrimination may be either direct or indirect. In the first case, discrimination is
obvious: it might be detected and denounced. However, as result of the evolutions in
the fight against discrimination, hidden practices emerge. These practices have as
purpose to eliminate indirectly candidates. The concept of indirect discrimination was
introduced as an effort to reach a certain balance between various population groups.
Discrimination forms in the professional area 17
The representation of the various groups in different sectors allowed detecting
apparently irreproachable practices, but which generate damages for a certain group.
Identifying direct discrimination might be done by legal analysis which may detect a
difference in treatment, or might result from statistical analysis: it is identified by effects
and not by reasons (Calves, 2004, p.46).
Indirect discrimination emerges whenever a practice, rule, criterion or an apparently
neutral condition have, in fact, a disproportionate effect against certain individuals or
categories of individuals, except for the case when this practice (rule, criterion or
condition) cannot be justified. The governments are compelled to consider the relevant
differences presented by the various groups in order to prevent indirect discrimination.
Discrimination is always rooted in the prejudices widespread within the society. The
nature and reasons for discrimination depend both on the way in which society and
institutions are structured, but also on collective representations and cultural patterns.
With respect to law enforcement, abuses are possible whenever certain groups are
regarded as ―potential delinquents‖. These individuals are more susceptible to be
arrested and jailed than any other population segments. They also might be probable
victims of abuses or bad treatment whenever they are arrested / detained. Some
authorities tolerate violence acts, motivated by prejudices. As result, there is the risk
that certain groups or individuals would not enjoy equal protection against violence
motivated by the existence of differences regarding religion, ethnicity or sexual
orientation.
Level of confidence in other people
This section presents the opinions of the Romanian population regarding minorities, in
general and about access to labour market. They are research data collected in a survey
from 2011, part of the research in the project POSDRU/97/6.3/S/54973: ―Support
for women discriminated on the labour market‖. Various minority groups are
investigated, as indicated by the first wave of the survey from 20101 and by other
surveys undertaken in Romania, as being the most strongly discriminated ones: Rroma,
people who were in prison, persons with disabilities, persons suffering from
HIV/AIDS. At the same time, there are analysed the attitudes regarding access to
labour market depending on age or gender, because most of the researches indicate a
higher discrimination level against elderly on employment and against women regarding
the access to management positions.
First of all, we have looked at the level of confidence in other people. The data analysis
indicates that less than half of the population considers that they can have confidence
in other people, in four out of the five analysed regions of Romania. The only
exception is the West region, where the share is of 56%. At the opposite pole is placed
Bucharest-Ilfov region, with the lowest level of confidence, less than one third
considering that they can trust in most people. The low level of trust is explained by the
1
See Tomescu C., Cace S. (2010). Studiu asupra fenomenului de mobbing şi a unor forme de
discriminare la locul de muncă în România‖ [Study on the phenomenon of mobbing and some
discrimination forms at workplace in Romania (Romanian language)], Expert Printing House:
Bucureşti.
18 Gabriel STOICIU, Raluca POPESCU, Ramona CARAMALĂU
increased feeling of insecurity characterising large, agglomerated cities, with weak
neighbourhood and community links like Bucharest.
Figure 1. Might one trust most of the people?
(Share of those answering “yes”)
West
55.5
North-East
43.6
South-West
38.1
South-East
47.2
BucharestIlfov
30.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
In general, there are no statistically significant differences according to sociodemographic criteria. However, in two of the regions there are differences depending
on gender: in Bucharest-Ilfov, women seem to have a significantly lower level of trust
(26.4%) against the one of men (35.8%), while in the Western regions they have
significantly higher level (59.1% against 51.1%).
Attitude against minorities
The survey intended to capture the attitude against three minority categories, identified
in the first wave of research in 2010 as being most strongly discriminated: persons with
disabilities, Rroma, and people who were in prison.
The acceptance of all three investigated groups follows, as it was expected, Bogardus‘s
social distance model: the stronger and closer the supposed relationship between
respondent and minority representative is, the more acceptance would be lower. The
minority representatives are most accepted as colleagues or neighbours than as friends
or even more, as family members. From the analysed groups, the highest level of
acceptance is enjoyed by individuals with disabilities, then the Rroma and the most
rejected are individuals who were in prison.
Individuals with physical disability are accepted widely by their colleagues (86% -94%)
and neighbours (86%-95%), to the largest extent as friends (80% - 90%), and to a lesser
extent as members of the family (49% - 66%). The highest acceptance of individuals
Discrimination forms in the professional area 19
with physical disability is found in Bucharest-Ilfov region, followed closely by the West
region and the least acceptance in the North-East region.
Figure 2. Acceptance of persons with disabilities
92.0
92.5
88.1
West
65.6
88.7
89.6
84.1
South-West
51.0
92.1
92.7
86.8
South-Est
colleagues
neighbours
60.0
85.8
86.0
80.2
North Est
friend
48.8
94.0
94.9
89.5
Bucharest
Ilfov
family
member
52.7
0
20
40
60
80
100
Note: The share of answers ―total agree and ―agree‖ with the statements ―Would you agree to a
person with a physical disability as colleague/neighbour/friend/marry you or another
member of the family?‖
The acceptance of Rroma takes the same pattern: the highest level agrees to have them
as colleagues (68%-82%), then neighbours (63%-79%), friends (58%-70%) and to the
least extent as family members (39%-51%).
The highest tolerance towards Rroma is encountered in the South-Eastern region (the
only region where over half of the respondents states that they would accept that
he/she or a family member would marry a person of Rroma ethnicity) and in the
South-West one, probably because of a higher share of the Rroma population in the
region. The more frequent are the contacts with Rroma, the more direct experience
increases tolerance against them. The lowest levels of acceptance for Rroma are in the
North-Eastern region (less than 40% would agree to marriage and only approximately
two-thirds would accept them as colleagues).
20 Gabriel STOICIU, Raluca POPESCU, Ramona CARAMALĂU
Figure 3. Acceptance of Rroma
68.8
66.8
62.6
West
47.3
83.7
78.8
South-West
68.3
colleague
40.4
neighbour
82.0
79.4
South-Est
70.2
friend
50.8
67.6
62.8
58.0
North Est
39.0
marriage
70.4
66.6
66.1
Bucharest Ilfov
47.5
0
20
40
60
80
100
Note: The share of answers ―total agree‖ and ―agree‖ with the statements ―Would you agree to a
Rroma person as colleague/neighbour/friend/marry you or another member of the
family?‖
The acceptance of individuals who exited prison is the lowest from the analysed
minority groups: the lowest level is registered in the case of marriage (29%-35%) and
the highest in the case of colleagues (57%-71%).
The South-Eastern region is the most tolerant, registering the highest values for all four
indicators, and the region Bucharest-Ilfov is the most intolerant.
Figure 4. Acceptance of individuals who were in prison
West
54.6
39.6
SouthWest
61.0
59.9
54.9
69.2
66.9
colleague
25.0
South-Est
56.0
34.6
North Est
49.4
29.2
Buchares
t Ilfov
49.5
29.1
0
20
40
71.0
70.6
neighbour
60.5
58.1
friend
57.0
52.7
60
marriage
80
100
Note: The share of answers ―total agree‖ and ―agree‖ with the statements ―Would you agree to a
person who was in prison as colleague/neighbour/friend/marry you or another member
of the family?‖
Discrimination forms in the professional area 21
The analysis regarding the acceptance of minorities, at regional comparative level,
indicates a model where the regions with a high development level, such as BucharestIlfov and West are tolerant towards individuals with disabilities, the Southern regions
towards Rroma and persons who were in prison, while the North-Eastern region shows
a lower acceptance of all analysed groups.
The main conclusions show that:
The South-East and South-West regions are the most tolerant against Rroma and
individuals released from prison.
The region Bucharest-Ilfov is the most tolerant against individuals with disabilities
and the least tolerant against individuals exiting prison.
The Western region has an intermediary position, with high tolerance against
individuals with disabilities and the somewhat lower regarding Rroma or
individuals who were in prison.
The North-East region is the most intolerant, with the lowest levels of acceptance
regarding Rroma and individuals with disabilities, and low levels of acceptance for
individuals who were in prison.
In most of the surveys, a relationship between the high economic and social
development level and the more open, tolerant attitudes was discovered. The
differences identified between the regions have several explanatory factors:
The different economic welfare level: Bucharest-Ilfov registers highest incomes per
household, followed by the region West, with high discrepancies to the South-East
and South-West, while the North-East region is the poorest one.
The different level of education: if in Bucharest-Ilfov the share of those with
higher education is of 36%, or in West of 22%, for the other three regions, the
share is of 16%-17%.
The share of the rural area (with more conservative, traditional attitudes, but also
with lower development level): if in Bucharest-Ilfov region or the West region only
9%, respectively 34% from the population reside in the rural area, in the NorthEast region, the most intolerant one, the share of the rural is the highest – 53%.
Regarding the entire sample (including all analysed regions) the acceptance of minorities
depends on1:
Area of residence (higher in the urban area);
Education (higher in the case of those with higher level of education);
Gender (higher for men);
Age (higher in the case of younger generations)
1
All other variables held under control at a significance level of p= 0.01
22 Gabriel STOICIU, Raluca POPESCU, Ramona CARAMALĂU
Acceptance of minorities at the workplace
To see the attitudes of individuals related to the acceptance of various minorities on the
labour market, several groups were identified based on the survey from 20101, as well as
based on other surveys, as the most rejected: Rroma, persons released from prison,
persons infected with HIV/AIDS.
Even though, as seen above, there is a wide acceptance of Rroma and even of former
detainees as colleagues (varying depending on region from 60% to 80%), faced with
deciding and the responsibility of the option, their acceptance turns out lower. Almost
half of the respondents from each region would refuse to recruit Rroma or persons
recently released from jail, in a position of employer. About the same share of the
respondents consider that minorities have too many rights in Romania.
Table 1. Attitudes on employment regarding Rroma and people who were in prison
(on regions - %, partial and total agreement)
BUC.ILFOV
NORTHEAST
SOUTHEAST
SOUTHWEST
WEST
If I were employer, I wouldn‘t
hire Rroma because most of
them are lazy and steal
44
59
43
43
51
Minorities have too many rights
in Romania
52
61
42
56
48
Rroma don‘t need schooling
because they don‘t make any
use of it
18
41
17
24
39
If I were employer I wouldn‘t
hire a person just out from
prison
44
55
47
49
55
As the case with accepting minorities shown above, the region with the most
discriminating attitudes against employment is North-East with 55% who would not
hire former detainees, 59% who would not hire Rroma and 61% who consider that
minorities have too many rights in Romania.
At the opposite pole is Bucharest-Ilfov and the South-East, both regions recording also
the smallest percentages of Rroma discrimination regarding the right to education –
only 17-18% of the respondents from this region considering that Rroma don‘t need
schooling, against the other regions where the share reaches even 39-41% (West,
1
See Tomescu C., Cace S. (2010) Studiu asupra fenomenului de mobbing şi a unor forme de discriminare la
locul de muncă în România, [Study on the phenomenon of mobbing and of other discrimination
forms on the workplace in Romania, (in Romanian)] Expert Printing House, Bucharest
Discrimination forms in the professional area 23
respectively North-East). On areas of residence, the rural discriminates more than the
urban in this respect, in four out of the five analysed regions, the percentage of
respondents against education for Rroma reaching a maximum of 51% in the NorthEastern rural, a region that also in this instance confirms the highest level of
intolerance.
At the same time, the various age groups have different perspectives about the
employment of individuals released from prison in all five regions, with a trend of the
extreme age groups to show higher intolerance: individuals aged 55-64 in BucharestIlfov (52%), South-East (52%) and West (69%), respectively very young age groups, 18
to 24 years of age in the North-East (63%) and South-East (52%).
The acceptance in communities of infected with HIV/AIDS individuals registers lower
shares, however with some difference between the analysed regions. Thus, if for
discrimination at the workplace, a relatively low percentage is recorded in BucharestIlfov (19%), the Western area is more intolerant and the respondents agree with the
isolation of the affected individuals by a share of 54%.
In four out of the five regions, high shares are recorded (between 44 and 51%)
regarding the agreement for isolating those with HIV/AIDS. Bucharest-Ilfov shows
again a less discriminating attitude, with an agreement of 35%. It should be noticed that
regarding the discrimination of this group of individuals, Bucharest-Ilfov registers a
homogenous attitude on all demographic sub-categories. For the other four regions, the
rural area proves often more intolerant that the urban area, with a maximum of 59% in
the rural South-West regarding education, respectively 61% in the rural West regarding
the acceptance at the workplace.
Figure 5. Attitude towards HIV/AIDS infected individuals
(share of those who answered “yes”)
24 Gabriel STOICIU, Raluca POPESCU, Ramona CARAMALĂU
By analysing age-groups, individuals from the two age-group extremes of the interval
(youths with ages between 18-24 years, respectively elderly from 55 to 64 years) have
the most discriminatory tendencies. Thus, youths from the West region record a
maximum agreement share of 65% regarding the isolation of HIV/AIDS infected
individuals from the community and in the South-West, both young and elderly
mentioned above agree to educate these individuals in separate classrooms, by a share
of 58%, thus registering another maximum on these statement, as compared with the
other age groups.
With respect to the gender of the respondents, men prove less tolerant only in the
South-West region (46% regarding job, respectively 55% regarding education), while in
the other regions no significant differences were recorded.
Attitude against elderly on the labour market
Discrimination against elderly regarding access to labour market is shown in a
significant proportion. Even though the majority agrees that if you are good in what
you are professionally doing, then you will find a job irrespective of age, whenever put
in the situation to chose, because there are only few jobs, over half of the respondents
consider that youths should have priority against elderly on hiring in all five surveyed
regions.
Table 2. Attitudes regarding access to labour market on age criteria
BUCH.ILFOV
Whenever there are few jobs,
on hiring, youths should be
given preference against elderly.
If you‘re very good at what
you‘re doing, you will always
find a job, irrespective of what
age you have.
NORTH- SOUTH- SOUTHEAST
EAST
WEST
WEST
56
73
68
79
61
60
75
77
82
75
The South-West region is the most discriminating regarding access to market based on
age criteria (79%, against the opposite pole represented by Bucharest by 56%). All
respondents from South-West are the most confident about own capacities to the
detriment of discrimination based on age. The smallest percentage is registered in
Bucharest, with only 60% of the individuals agreeing with this statement.
Following the discrimination theory in view of supporting their group, youths aged
between 18 and 24 years have a stronger bias than other age groups regarding jobs for
the youths to the detriment of elderly, when the hypothesis is the one of a limited
number of jobs. This attitude is recorded in four out of the five regions, with a
maximum of 90% approving this idea in the South-West region, while in West region
no significant differences are recorded between the interviewed age groups.
Discrimination forms in the professional area 25
Discrimination on employment
Moreover, elderly discrimination on labour market results also from the statements of
the participants to the survey, when asked if they know personally cases of individuals
who were not hired based on other reasons than the professional ones. In four out of
the five regions, not getting hired on age criteria was the most often mentioned one,
save for the West region, where Rroma not getting hired is somewhat wider spread.
Figure 6. In your case, or of an individual you personally know,
it happened that she/he did not get a job because of...
After the elderly, the most frequently discriminated on hiring are Rroma and people
who were in prison. Discrimination based on the physical aspect seems also to be more
frequently encountered. Pregnant women are seldom discriminated (perhaps also
because the situation in which they are hired while already pregnant is less frequent),
and religious reasons as criteria in not obtaining a job are the most seldom encountered
instances (the very high percentage of the Orthodox majority provides one explanation
for the infrequency of the situation).
In Bucharest, there were mentioned the most instances of discrimination according to
the majority of the investigated reasons (only religion and the former detainee did not
record the highest values). To the contrary, in South-West and West the lowest values
for all reasons are recorded.
Discriminations were more often mentioned in the urban area, save for the region
Bucharest-Ilfov (the latter a more urban region of the county Ilfov bearing more the
characteristics of a suburb) and South-West. The more frequent mentioning of
26 Gabriel STOICIU, Raluca POPESCU, Ramona CARAMALĂU
discrimination in the urban area should not surprise, because work experience,
exposure to diverse situations and social contacts is higher in this area. The outcomes
agree with the first wave of the survey from 2010, when such discriminations based on
age where more frequently called upon, and the region Bucharest-Ilfov1 seems to
indicate a higher level of discrimination overall.
Attitudes regarding work acknowledgement and promotion on the job
With respect to the ways of acknowledging work and obtaining promotions the
outlined attitudinal profile is a contradictory one: albeit, as seen, the majority believe
that if you are good at what you are doing, you will always find a job at the same time
they believe that also a high level of competences matters much less against personal
preferences of the superior, or against ―backdoor influence‖.
A percentage of 82% respondents from the South-East and from the South-West
consider that you must be liked by the superior in order to be appreciated, against the
other regions where percentages under 79% are recorded; also, in Bucharest and West
smaller percentages are registered regarding the system‘s functioning based on ―backdoor
influence‖, by 79%, respectively by 82% as compared with the other regions, where over
86% from the respondents acknowledge the existence of these practices.
The differences regarding the other socio-demographic criteria are, by and large,
insignificant with respect to these aspects. The rural area admits to a higher share the
need for these discriminatory practices for promotion, as compared with the urban area
in the South-West (85% against 79% regarding the preferences of the superior – 90%
against 85% regarding the need for backdoor influence), North-East (82% against 76%,
respectively 89% against 84%) and Bucharest-Ilfov (93% against 76%, respectively 90%
against 78%) regions.
Figure 7. Attitudes about acknowledgement of work and promotion
1
See Tomescu C., Cace S. (2010) Studiu asupra fenomenului de mobbing şi a unor forme de discriminare la
locul de muncă în România, [Study on the phenomenon of mobbing and of other discrimination
forms at workplace in Romania, (in Romanian)] Expert Printing House, Bucharest.
Discrimination forms in the professional area 27
The Bucharest-Ilfov region is the only one recording significant differences about age,
the youths with ages between 18 and 24 years standing out as the ones with the lowest
percentage of agreeing with the requirement of ―backdoor influence‖ for access to an
important position by 72%, while at the opposite pole is the category of elderly, with
ages between 55 and 64 years, by 86%.
Attitudes towards gender regarding management positions
Regarding access to management positions depending on gender, positive attitudes are
balanced in relationship to the negative ones in all five regions. The West region and
Bucharest-Ilfov record the smallest percentages in agreement with the better
appreciation of men in management positions (44%), while in the South-West region
this aspect is supported by 62% of the respondents.
Figure 8. Men are more suitable as managers than women
Buc/Ilfov women
25
Buc/Ilfov men
27
north east women
27
north east men
17
south east women
41
17
south west women
14
30
10
35
33
19
20%
total disagree
16
40
35
24
0%
10
32
31
west men
24
28
16
16
40
40
18
west women
19
29
24
south west men
24
38
16
9
33
26
south east men
25
24
36
40%
disagree
60%
agree
10
21
80%
100%
total agree
The situation shows differences on the two genders, the differences between the
opinions of men and women in this respect being significant in all five regions. It
should be noted, however, that women in the South-West (the region with the highest
discrimination) register a considerable percentage (48%) in agreeing with the priority of
men, thus reinforcing the disadvantageous perceptions about gender roles.
The opinions in this respect are polarised also depending on the area of residence in
North-East, South-East and South-West, those siding with men residing in the rural
area 64%, against 42% in North-East, 63% against 40% in the South-East, respectively
66% against 58% in the South-West. The same regions register significant differences
also on age groups, youths and elderly being again the two categories with the highest
28 Gabriel STOICIU, Raluca POPESCU, Ramona CARAMALĂU
percentages regarding discrimination (by maximum 63% for those aged between 18 and
24 years of age in North-East, and 59%, respectively 70% for those with ages between
55 and 64 years of age in the South-East and in South-West).
When asked about the general situations, the majority believe that men are more
appropriate to lead, while when asked specific questions on types of institutions, the
respondents consider to their majority that it does not matter, that women and men are
equally able to lead/manage. The most discriminatory attitudes are encountered in the
case of town-halls and more egalitarian ones about schools.
Figure 9. Who do you think is suitable to lead a school? (percentages for each region)
West
12
South-West
10
South-East
15
9
13
North-East
81
10
9
Buc-Ilfov
77
17
24
0
73
75
5
20
70
40
woman
60
men
80
100
both equally
In the case of schools, the highest share is recorded for those considering that women
are more appropriate to lead/manage, reaching to about a quarter of the respondents in
the region Bucharest-Ilfov. The least egalitarian attitude is encountered in the NorthEast region.
The education system is one of the fields where the weight of employed women in
managing positions is high. Hence, school is an egalitarian institution not only at
objective level, but also at the subjective one, as it proves the attitudes identified during
this survey. However, at the same time, this egalitarian attitude might hide the
reproduction of the gender roles with the image of the woman as suitable to
environments where they deal with the education of children and, implicitly, with the
same pressure to assume more regarding their education.
To the contrary, the political system is the field in which the participation of women is
low and where conservative attitudes predominate. As result, even if the share of those
answering that gender does not matter is high, there is a significant share – about 30% who consider that men have the adequate competences. The most discriminatory
attitude is encountered in Bucharest and lest discriminatory in the West region.
Discrimination forms in the professional area 29
Figure 10. Who do you think is suitable to manage the town-hall/local council? (% for each region)
West
8
26
67
South-West
4
South-East
5
29
67
North-East
4
29
67
Buc-Ilfov
4
32
64
35
0
20
62
40
woman
60
men
80
100
both equally
Also in the case of companies, the weight of those considering that men should lead is
higher, and the weight of those considering women more adequate to lead is lower for
all analysed situations. The most conservative attitude is found in the South-East
region, and the most egalitarian ones in the West and North-West regions.
Figure 11. Who do you think is suitable to lead a company? (% for each region)
West
South-West 2
South-East
3
North-East
3
Buc-Ilfov
4
0
75
18
7
75
23
72
25
79
18
74
23
20
40
woman
60
men
80
100
both equally
Interesting is the case of the region Bucharest-Ilfov, where the highest share of those
supporting women for managing/leading schools is encountered, along with the one of
those supporting men for managing/leading town-halls, at the same time with a high
share (at just small difference against the South-East and the South-West regions) of
30 Gabriel STOICIU, Raluca POPESCU, Ramona CARAMALĂU
those supporting men in managing/leading companies, as well. The profile taking shape
in this region is a conservative one. The fact that women are supported for
managing/leading schools is in this context an indicator of the same attitude – supported
for managing positions, but in the only feminised system from the three analysed ones.
The outcomes agree with the survey of 2010, when the other 4 regions of the country
were analysed along with the Bucharest-Ilfov region. Men were stronger supported in
that survey as well for managing/leading town-halls (30-35%), then for managing
companies (17-20%), and the shares are, as it can be seen, comparable. Women were
supported, as well, to a higher extent for managing/leading schools, with comparable
shares (9-13%), except for the Bucharest-Ilfov region where a considerable lower
percentage was registered (15% then, in opposition to 25% currently). The differences
can be related also to the sample, but also to the fluctuations in the attitudes of the
subjects in the year since then.
Conclusions
The attitudes of the Romanians regarding the employment and workplace are somewhat
conservative. The acceptance of minorities is at an average level, even low, and nonhomogenous. The more developed regions (status according to education, income, the
share of rural area) such as Bucharest-Ilfov, accept individuals with disabilities but to a
lesser extent Rroma individuals and, especially, the persons who were in prison. The
poorly developed regions, such as South-East and South-West show higher tolerance
towards them, as compared to the developed ones. The poorest region of development,
North-East, shows the lowest acceptance degree regarding all groups.
Regarding access to the labour market, it is remarkable the discriminatory attitude against
elderly: the respondents consider that youths should enjoy priority on hiring. The attitudes
from the micro-social level are found also in the institutional practices: most cases of
discrimination on hiring known by the respondents involve also elderly. Thus, the
discrimination of elderly takes double meaning: both subjective (based on the attitudes
identified at the level of the respondents), but also objectively (the subjects know about
most cases of discrimination also related to age inside their circle of acquaintances).
After the elderly, the most frequently discriminated on hiring are Rroma and people in
jail. Discrimination based on physical appearance seems also to be frequently
encountered. Pregnant women are not as often discriminated, and the religious reasons
as criterion for not getting hired is rather an exception.
The Romanians have a lower level of discrimination based on gender. An important
weight of the population believes that men are more apt to manage/lead, but faced with
concrete situations, on types of institutions, the respondents consider that women and
men are equally suitable to manage/lead. The most discriminatory attitudes are
encountered in the case of town-halls and the most egalitarian ones in the case of schools.
The region with the most discriminatory attitudes against labour market and minorities,
in general, are encountered in the North-East region, while the regions with the most
open attitudes are Bucharest-Ilfov and the West region. The level of economic and
Discrimination forms in the professional area 31
social development is also, in this instance, the most important factor in explaining the
attitudinal differences between regions.
Marginalisation or discrediting practices of the ―weak‖ (women, elderly or individuals
with disabilities), or practices of promoting a citizen model with a certain cultural
profile, physical appearance and socio-professional condition involves inherently the
existence of part of the population which becomes excluded to a certain extent.
The grounds for discrimination can be diverse: religion, ethnicity, gender, disability or
age. Discrimination is favoured by situations such as: insufficient knowledge about that
group, generalising own experiences of life (one unpleasant experience of one member
or of few members of the group to which they belong), ethnocentrism, the existence of
stereotypes which coincide with various beliefs, previously formed opinions, and
promoting prejudices about individuals with whom they enter competition.
References
Amadieu, J-F. (2006). Les clefs du destin, Editura Odile Jacob : Paris
Banton M. (1998). Discriminarea, Editura DU Style: Bucureşti.
Calvès, G. (2008) La discrimination positive, PUF : Paris
Calvès, G (2006). Discriminationîn Mesure S.&Savidan P., Dictionnaire des sciences
humaines, PUF : Paris
Deliège, R. (1999). Spre un nou tribalism ? De la relativism la politica corectă în Ferreol
G. (ed.) Cetăţenie şi integrare socială, Editura INI :Bucureşti
Giraud, M. (1999) Etnicitatea ca necessitate şi ca obstacol în Ferreol G. (ed.) Cetăţenie şi
integrare socială, Editura INI: Bucureşti
Mihăilescu I. (1993). Discriminarea‖ în Zamfir C. și Vlăsceanu L., Dicționar de sociologie,
EdituraBabel: București
Miné, M. (2003). Les concepts de discrimination directe et indirecte în ERA-Forum,
Vol. 4(3), 30-44, Springer
Ogien, A. (1987). Les usages de l‘identitéînVers des sociétés pluriculturelles, ORSTOM: Paris
Tomescu C., Cace S. (2010). Studiu asupra fenomenului de mobbing şi a unor forme de
discriminare la locul de muncă în România, Editura Expert: Bucureşti
Touraine, A. (1996). Faux et vrais problèmesînWiewiorkaM., Une société fragmenté. Le
multiculturalisme en débat, La Découverte: Paris
Weil, Patrick (2008). Liberté, égalité, discriminations, Grasset &Fasquelle: Paris
Wuhl, Simon (2007). Discrimination positive et justice sociale, PUF: Paris
*** Ghid privind integrarea egalităţii de șanse în politicile întreprinderilor,
http://www.carierepentrufemei.ro/