Brands, Factories Ditched Türkiye Workers After Quake; Less Than 25% Got Full Wages on Leave; 12% Received Severance Pay

Direct impact on workers: The report looks at the direct impact of the earthquake on workers from three angles: housing and basic needs; financial difficulties; and, psychological challenges. Excerpts:

• 52.31% workers said their houses were damaged by the quake.
• In the beginning, workers who couldn’t stay in their damaged homes tried to set up tents. Obtaining tents and food was their priority. The help they expected did not come during this period.
• Workers who couldn’t stay in their homes also faced the challenge of needing to arrange accommodation in such a way that allowed them to return to work when called back after the earthquake.
• After the earthquake, the financial situation of workers who lost their homes in the disaster was compounded by increases in rent and the cost of living, making it extremely difficult for many workers to make ends meet.
• Only one worker was identified who received housing support from the workplace.
• The financial difficulties ranged widely, from transportation expenses for workers coming from villages, to diaper expenses for workers with babies.
• These financial difficulties meant that workers, who were rapidly called back to work after the earthquake, had to go back to work before addressing their housing and psychological needs, because they risked the possibility of losing their jobs and had no other resources to rely on.
• More than 50% of workers took two or four weeks of leave. Only a quarter of workers could take leave for more than two months.
• The wages they received during these leave periods explain a significant part of their financial difficulties. Only 24.6 % of workers stated that they received their full wages while on leave. The majority (34.62%) did not receive any wages at all. Some received half of their usual wages.
• The grief of the losses, along with anger, created a real fear for workers’ surviving family members, their children, and for themselves after the earthquake.
• 37 out of 130 workers couldn’t even leave the factory where they worked during aftershocks. These workers, who didn’t even have the opportunity to grieve and recover from their fears from the first earthquake, acquired new fears with the aftershocks.

The attitude of employers: The attitude of employers were seen from three perspectives: workplace and challenges; recruitment and termination; and, not getting help from the workplace. Excerpts:

• Many workers had to change cities, go to villages, and stay in tents and container cities far away from their workplace. However, there has been no flexibility in the textile and garment sector to accommodate this. The length of most workers’ leave periods after the earthquake was surprisingly short.
• While most damaged workplaces have not been inspected or their damages have been downplayed, going to work creates a new security gap after the earthquake. However, aid to workers who did not receive their full salary while on leave was also conditional upon their return to work.
• Only 12% of workers confidently state that workers who were fired received severance pay.
• Dismissals took place after the lifting of the ban on layoffs, and during this period, workers who could not go to work received state support of 133 TL per day for three months.
• While there were fewer workers who received wages during leave in Adıyaman and Malatya, the majority workers in Gaziantep received full wages. In Kahramanmaraş, the majority did not receive any wages.