In Fiji, a staff nurse receives an average monthly income of $F312.20, compared with $US660 ($A889) in the Marshall Islands, which is the equivalent of some $F1,490 a month. The Fijian and Marshall Islands nurses’ salaries were paid fortnightly and the difference in amounts was substantial. Case study one: Salaries for Fijian migrant health workers, Ebeye Health Clinic, 2002 (from fieldwork data, July–August 2002.) Occupation at Ebeye Health Clinic Monthly net ($US) Equivalent ($F)

Note: The medical personnel from Fiji received attractive packages from the Health Administration in Ebeye.

Source: Fieldwork data, July–August 2002.

Where housing or allowances were provided, additional costs for house renovations and furniture needs and maintenance were fully met by the employer. Other costs such as domestic bills including compound upkeep, water, electricity, gas and telephone were either subsidised or fully met by the employer.

About 94 per cent of the Fijian migrants enjoyed paid annual leave ranging from two weeks to two months for teachers, with the exception of the people who worked as missionaries. On the other hand, about 87 per cent of the women stated that they were entitled to paid annual leave while 2 per cent indicated otherwise. The remaining 11 per cent were not aware whether they had this benefit. This group included the women working at a local hotel and in the mission field in the Marshalls.

For those women who enjoyed paid annual leave, leave lengths ranged from two to six weeks a year. Meanwhile, about 24 per cent of the women migrants were given maternity leave by their employers as a benefit. A further 35 per cent stated they were not awarded this benefit, while 12 per cent were not aware of this benefit. The remaining 29 per cent did not state whether this benefit was included in their contracts.

The superannuation schemes considered in this study included provident and pensions funds for the migrants. All the migrants deducted funds from their salaries for these schemes but only a few have enjoyed their benefits. The Fijian workers in Kiribati received superannuation at the end of their contracts, whereas only those migrants who had turned 55 years of age received their benefits in the Marshalls. The latter had fulfilled the conditions that dictated that migrant workers could receive their provident and/or pension refunds only upon the age of 55 and must be physically present in Majuro to receive their refund cheques.

Therefore, for the Fijian women in the Marshalls, only 41 per cent indicated the provident fund as a benefit, while 59 per cent said it was not a benefit at all. They thought the schemes were counterproductive as they had no intention of working in the Marshalls until the age of 55. Therefore, they were being denied funds they had rightfully earned and would most likely lose because the total expenses involved in returning to receive a cheque would be much higher than the refund itself. This response was another indication that this form of migration was only temporary and short-term for most of the migrants.

A mere 6 per cent of the women had enjoyed a promotion at their workplace. The subjects had received their promotion in 1999 and 2000 respectively. Further, the majority of the women did not know the prospects for promotion at their workplaces if they worked for a period of five years. It can be concluded that job promotions depended on the status of the migration (in this case, it was temporary) and the availability of local skilled labour in the host country.