The obstacles facing immigrants still mounting*

Helsinki (13.12.2009 – Linus Atarah) Daniel Ademba (not his real name), is a deeply frustrated man. He crushes his cigarette stump with disproportionate force, while blurting out in anger: “This is precisely the course I had wanted and I was pretty sure to get in but once again I have been turned down with no convincing explanation”.

The source of his anger and frustration is not difficult to find. As a long-term unemployed academic, Ademba finds it equally difficult getting a job as getting a retraining for one. His troubles began when Espoo työvoimatoimisto advertised a course in project management last year. The course provider was Net Effect, which provides training services for työ-ja elinkeinotoimisto.

Ademba jumped at the idea because he has always wanted to work with a consultancy firm but lacked the work experience. The six-month training course had promising job opportunities because, as part of the course it included placements in firms during the period.

Ademba quickly applied for it and was called for interview. In the first batch of people to be interviewed he was the only one immigrant among a group of six native Finnish people. The interview format was more of a group discussion than a formal interview. The applicants provided just brief information about themselves and their motivations for choosing that course. Nothing about professional competence and work experience, etc.  The interview was conducted entirely in Finnish

After a week Ademba received a one-sentence letter from the organisers informing him that he couldn’t get admission into the course because there were too many applicants.

“Shocked and disappointed, I immediately grabbed the phone and called Net Effect”, he said. “At least there must have been some criteria used to determine who were selected since it wasn’t a competitive interview and all had an equal chance to be selected. Or did they throw a coin? I wanted to know why”, he said.

Ademba never found out the criteria used but an official from Net Effect informed him that since the language of instruction in the course was entirely in Finnish, they felt he might not derive much from the course and end up being frustrated. Ademba was outraged. How could they assume something on his part without even asking him? He didn’t sit lip-tight at the interview; rather he was active throughout using Finnish. The course providers did not ask him for a Finnish language certificate, which he has, and did not ask whether he felt capable of going through the course. Ademba reads and speaks Finnish fluently and even translates Finnish text to English as part of his livelihood.

But the course organisers assumed that he couldn’t cope with the course and decided to drop him using language as a pretext. Espoo työvoimatoimisto claimed they couldn’t influence the decision and went along with it. He was also told that there were 64 applicants for 18 places, nevertheless, would it be too much to ask for, if out of 18 course participants, at least one-third was made of immigrants given their weak position in the labour market? There is no affirmative action law in Finland and immigrants are not even advocating such a law either. However, the issue is whether officials are obstructed in some way from using their discretion when a situation clearly offers an opportunity to assist an immigrant climb the ladder?

This question becomes more pertinent when Ademba, undeterred by the experience with Net Effect and Espoo työvoimatoimisto, still tried to acquire training but this time in Logistiika/huolinta-alan koulutus early this year. It was organised by Malmi työvoimatoimisto and the course provider was Markkinointi instituutti. The interview procedure was the same as the previous one – more of a group discussion and orientation than an interview, all in Finnish. Yet again, he received the same one-sentence rejection letter, the main reason being that there were too many applicants.  

“Using too many applicants as a pretext doesn’t sound convincing. It sounds like ‘because there were too many applicants we couldn’t make a choice’”, said Ademba. His conclusion is that at all times, immigrants in Finland are the weakest link in the chain and so whenever a decision involves a hard choice they are usually the first to be dropped.

*This is the original version of the story. The edited version has been published in Monitori 3-2009

© Linus Atarah

ETUSIVULLE