RESPECTO A LA EVALUACIÓN DEL ESTADO DE SALUD DE LA POBLACIÓN MIGRANTE

Politically the most difficult and feared impact of privatization is employee layoffs. The fear is justified because many public enterprises are greatly overstaffed, as they are often used as instruments of job creation (Anonymous n.d).

Prizzia (2005) asserted that commonly accepted trade-offs that occur throughout the privatization process typically create an imbalance of accrued benefits to various segments of the workforce and members of the community in general. There is concern that privatization negatively impacts the most vulnerable segments of the workforce. Prizzia illustrated that the privatization of a water system in Bolivia and an energy system in Thailand increased unemployment and decreased consumer welfare in both countries. Therefore Earle (2006) asserted that the greatest opposition to privatizing a firm usually comesfrom thefirm’sown employees,who arefearfulofwage cutsand job losses.

According to Aghaei, et al. (2010) on privatization employees, feel job insecurity and have fear losing their jobs. Fear can pass to other employees and trigger a chain reaction that ultimately leads to the widespread fear in employees, of losing their jobs which causes increased job stress. Nancy and Nellis (2003) are of the view that at the heart of popular criticism is a perception that privatization is fundamentally unfair in both concept and implementation: it is seen as harming the poor, the disenfranchised, the workers, and even the middle class; throwing people out of good jobs and into poor ones or unemployment. It is clear that public enterprises were overstaffed, often severely so; that in preparing for privatization, public enterprise employment numbers declined, sometimes greatly, and that these declines generally continued post-privatization. Overall, the evidence indicates that more people have lost jobs than gained them through privatization.

3.4.2 Effect of Privatization on Employment

According to Nalingigwa (n.d.) the fear of job losses is the stumbling block to privatization.

issue in the privatization deal. Despite the concern about possible job losses, studies undertaken by World Bank showed that“African governmenthavedonevery littleto track theeffectsofprivatization on employment.”Notonly that privatization is causing unemployment in Tanzania, most of workers lost their jobs before Privatization started, because more than 70 enterprises were closed and workers lost their jobs. The reduction of human labour force is necessitated by the fact that new and modern technologies are efficient and mechanized. Also the employment has been increased outside the enterprises for example all cement industries, and this has made to rapid increase of construction works and production of bricks business also has given the employment to owners of transport vehicles and of sugar industries have increased employment of cutting sugar canes and out growers. Nalingigwa concluded that despite all these successes the government goal to employment rate has not been met since most of workers lost their job at aftermath of privatization. The very fact that privatization has made it possible fora low incomeand low saving’scountrieslike Tanzaniato avoid institutionalfailureinherent in a public sector company has to be highly appreciated.

In the light of evidences Pamacheche and Koma (2007) suggested that privatization is in the interest of employees, although there are a few exceptions to this. Such benefits take three forms: (a) employment levels tended to increase after privatization; (b) remuneration packages tended to improve after privatization, and; (c) many employees bought shares at discounted prices in the privatized firms and these benefited when share prices eventually rose. In cases where employees lost their jobs as a result of privatization, such employees tended to receive generous severance packages. Severance and retirement incentives buy labour support and allow privatization and its benefits to happen and, where unemployment insurance systems are not in place, mitigate the social impact of layoffs. In some cases, the reduction in the level of employment took place prior to privatization and as such, could be attributed to the need for greater efficiency, and not just privatization. In cases where shut down enterprises were re-opened by private investors, employees benefited directly.

3.4.3 Effect on Wages

In a research about Tanzania Nalingigwa (n.d) reported that salaries and other incentives for workers have been increased and improved, for example before privatization the lowest salary plus other incentives at Tanga Cement Company was 120 USD per month, now after privatization the salary is more than 360 USD. Tanzania Breweries Limited for lowest salary was 72 USD per month before privatization and after raised to 96 USD per month.

Earle (2006) is of the view that the implications of privatization for wages are also ambiguous.

New owners may reduce wages as part of a general cost-cutting policy, but if the firm expands, it may have to offer higher wages to attract new workers. New private owners may also be more likely to adopt skill-biased technologies, resulting in a compositional shift toward higher-paid workers. Depending on

Institute, in collaboration with partners from Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh and the Central European University Labor Project in Budapest, has recently undertaken an empirical analysis of the effects of privatization on the wage bill, employment, and wage rates of firms in Hungary, Romania, Russia, and Ukraine—countries where thousands of businesses were privatized in a relatively short period of time during the 1990s. These four countries had varied success with privatization reforms. Hungary was considered one of the most successful, Russia and Ukraine were less successful, and Romania was somewhere in the middle. The new research in this project, however, finds no evidence of large systematic negative consequences of privatization for employment and wages.

Accordimg to Pamacheche and Koma (2007) privatization is in the interest of employees and after privatization; remuneration packages tended to improve.

3.4.4 Effectson Employees’Health and Performance

McCarthy et al expressed results of their study that majority of respondents reported deterioration in conditions of employment and operational participation since privatization.

Aghaei, et al. (2010) concluded that trust is a cornerstone of cooperative relationship among people. Once an organization begins changing, its employees may face threats to their jobs, roles, positions,and resources.Thesethreatscan lowertheemployees’trustin theirorganization asawhole which can be negatively reflected in employees’attitudestoward theirwork.Aghaei,etalfound that stress is a general and global phenomenon encompassing man’spsychological,physical,familial,and social dimensions. Researchers have made great efforts studying the effects of this stress on mental and physical health of employees to better understand its nature. When individuals contemplate the stress of organizational change, their perceptions, choice of reactions, and working attitudes all strongly influence whether the change will be successful and if the newly reconstituted organization will function efficiently or not. Aghaei et al concluded that after privatization, the job stress of employees increased significantly.

This increase was associated with a decrease in mental health. They illustrated a recent study conducted in Thailand, which concluded that the organizational change has a significant association with more psychological stress, which in turn, resulted in poor job performance. In Canada after privatization employees of a large healthcare provider surviving from downsizing had a higher degree of delay and also a higher degree of stress due to less control exercised over their jobs. Consequently, they enjoyed less job satisfaction and living standards and worse general health. In this respect, International Labor Or-ganization (2002) discussing safety and job health, reported that privatization, orOr-ganizational restructuring and increasing the number of small business units increase unemployment, stress, alcoholism, job insecurity and prolongation of work hours, all of which lead to psychic trauma at work and private life.

Moreover, it has been shown that stress and its related diseases lead to an increase in the incidence rate of indigestion, heart disease and mental disorders.

3.5.1 Effects on Capital Investments

Many researchers pointed out that privatization causes increase in investment. Nalingigwa (n.d.) expressed that in privatization the conversion of government monopolies into market-driven activities tends to attract foreign investments capital, bringing additional know how and financing to enterprises.

According to Pamacheche and Koma (2007) privatization indirectly signals the level of a government’scommitmentto freermarketsandas such, encourages greater green-field investment and other forms of investment not directly related to privatization. Therefore through privatization, many countries have been able to attract significant amounts of foreign investment. This is the case in many Latin American countries. In some African countries, however, privatization accounts for a minimal share of foreign investment due to restrictions placed on such investments. For depicting the quantitative impact of privatization on investment Pamacheche and Koma referred a World Bank study by Frank Sader (1993) who suggests that privatization has a huge impact on investment decisions and further states that an extra 38 cents in new investments is generated for every dollar of privatization revenue. It further documents that financial and infrastructure privatizations have the greatest impact on foreign direct investment. The findings of the study by Adam Smith Institute support privatization efforts and emphasize the need to pursue privatization more rigorously in the years ahead.

3.5.2 Effects on Industrial Relations

McCarthy et al (n.d) asserted that privatization could be expected to create significant changes in the industrial relations environment of enterprises that move from public to private ownership. Employees believe that privatization has resulted in a substantial strengthening of the bargaining position of management despite employees’ substantial shareholdings within the firm. Furthermore, increased collaboration between unions and management is associated with advantages to management rather than unions.

According to Nalingigwa (n.d.) thegovernment‘spowerbaseisin urban centres,where trade unions make employment the number one issue in the privatization deal. They impose collective bargaining and set the levels of end of service benefits and severance pay.

Hebdon (2006) who studied labor effects of privatization of public services in New York State found that local government privatization have some harmful effects on workers. Few local employers had adjustment policies to protect affected employees and disproportionate negative impacts were found on women and minorities. Privatization was also found to have significant de-unionizing effects.