Only 16 percent of Efling members of foreign origin live in their own homes, while 74 percent live in rental housing. The situation is the exact opposite for native Icelanders, of whom 73 percent live in their own homes. For this reason, the financial crisis of migrant Efling members is more precarious than that of comparison groups; they live to a significant degree with housing insecurity and in housing that does not adequately meet their needs. The only rental option that suits Efling members reasonably well is non-profit housing associations, and therefore, a great deal would be gained by expanding them further.
This is among the findings of a new study conducted this summer by the Housing and Construction Authority (HMS) among members of Efling, VR, and Eining-Iðja. Approximately 70 percent of the study participants were Efling members, and the results therefore provide a clear picture of the situation of Efling members of foreign origin in the housing market.
At the mercy of landlords and rental companies
Migrant Efling members consider themselves to have few rights in the rental market, live there in insecurity, and feel entirely at the mercy of landlords and rental companies, according to their open responses in the survey. A total of 55 percent of migrant Efling members rent from private individuals, 9 percent rent from for-profit rental companies, and 3 percent from non-profit housing associations. The greatest satisfaction among migrant Efling members in the rental market is found among those who rent from non-profit housing associations, and the least among those who rent from market-driven rental companies.
In addition, members report the lowest levels of housing security due to high rents, an unstable rental market, and temporary lease contracts.
A social housing system is the foundation of a welfare society
The results of the study, which Efling has also analysed separately on its own, were presented and discussed at an HMS meeting yesterday. There, Sólveig Anna Jónsdóttir, chair of Efling, delivered the keynote address and discussed the results of the study in the context of the experience of migrant Efling members.
In her speech, Sólveig Anna reflected on the deadly and terrible fire at Bræðraborgarstígur in the summer of 2020, in which three young people, migrants to Iceland, lost their lives. She mentioned the lack of response from the Icelandic ruling class to the fire, the absence of sympathy and solidarity.
“I came to realise that the appalling housing conditions which migrant people in the capital area had to accept were due to the indifference of the ruling class to their living conditions, an indifference that was in fact all-encompassing; not only economic indifference, but a deep social indifference which meant that the possibilities of taking action to solve the problem were severely limited. I saw that the Icelandic ruling class was, for the most part, incapable of listening and understanding, since more or less all of its members had abandoned one of the most important basic values of a true welfare society: a strong and effective social housing system – the bedrock, the foundation upon which everything else rests. Relief from constant financial anxiety, the possibility of genuine rest, facilities for children to pursue their education; the clearest sign that a society truly cares for the welfare of working people and their children is that they are guaranteed good, affordable, and secure housing,” said Sólveig Anna.
The indifference described by Sólveig Anna was perhaps most clearly reflected in the fact that only one elected representative attended the meeting – Ragnar Þór Ingólfsson, MP for the People’s Party.
Sólveig Anna’s speech at the meeting
I remember clearly when I fully realised how deep the problem is that we face in housing issues for the working class, especially our migrant members. It was June 25, 2020. On that day, a tragedy occurred here in Reykjavík. The building at Bræðraborgarstígur 1 burned down completely. Three young people – a 24-year-old woman, a 26-year-old woman, and a 21-year-old man – lost their lives in the fire. Two died from smoke inhalation, while the other woman died after jumping out of a window to escape the flames. Others were injured in ways that they will never fully recover from. Smoke covered the city centre so that windows had to be closed in the Parliament building. The fire was one of the deadliest in the history of the capital.
That day, I was on my way out of town with colleagues and Efling members to visit the union’s new holiday home. But I cancelled the trip when the first news of the horror arrived, because I immediately knew that there was an overwhelming likelihood that the victims were Efling members. Poorly maintained housing, used as a source of profit for unscrupulous individuals – who else but members of the working class would have to live in such a building?
On the evening of June 25, I was informed that the then Prime Minister of Iceland had posted an update on Twitter. But the post was not a statement of sympathy for those suffering in the hospital with severe injuries from the fire, nor a thank you to the firefighters who had fought the blaze and saved lives at the risk of their own. Nor did it address the families of the young people who died under the most horrific circumstances imaginable. No, the post was a celebratory announcement because the football team Liverpool had won a match. A woman of Polish origin commented on the Prime Minister’s post: “You should be ashamed to write this after this terrible death in the fire.” I agreed with her, and I was deeply shocked. I thought to myself whether one of the most powerful people in Iceland would have written a similar post if the young people who died had been middle-class Icelanders. And I knew the answer was no, of course not.
I faced the reality that the appalling housing conditions that migrant people in the capital area had to accept were caused by the ruling class’s indifference to their living conditions, an indifference that was all-encompassing; not just economic indifference, but deep social indifference, which meant that the possibilities of taking action to solve the problem were severely limited. I saw that the Icelandic ruling class was mostly incapable of listening and understanding, because more or less all its members had set aside one of the most important core values of a real welfare society: a good and strong social housing system, the foundation upon which everything else rests. Relief from constant financial anxiety, the possibility of genuine rest, facilities for children to pursue their studies – the clearest sign that a society truly cares for the welfare of working people and their children is that they are guaranteed good, affordable, and secure housing.
Continuing relevance
The question we faced on the day of the tragedy in the summer of 2020 is the same question we face today: Is the Icelandic ruling class capable of showing real interest in the welfare of migrant workers, an interest that is expressed through real action, or will it allow the shameful situation to continue to deteriorate, with appalling social consequences?
I will briefly go over the main results of the survey regarding Efling members. Efling members made up 70 percent of participants in the survey, which means the results should give a fairly clear picture of the situation of Efling members of foreign origin in the housing market.
The survey results further confirm what other data have shown: migrant Efling members are largely on the rental market, their financial situation is worse than comparison groups, they experience significant housing insecurity, and their satisfaction with the housing they live in is not sufficient.
- Only 16% of migrant Efling members live in their own homes.
- 55% rent from private individuals.
- 9% rent from for-profit housing companies.
- 3% rent from non-profit housing associations.
Satisfaction with housing is highest among those living in their own homes (84% satisfied), followed by those renting from non-profit housing associations (74% satisfied). Satisfaction is lowest among those renting from market-driven housing companies (56% satisfied, 32% dissatisfied).
77% of migrant Efling members renting from non-profit housing associations consider themselves to have housing security – significantly higher than other rental options. No housing option is worse for housing security than for-profit housing companies: only 46% of renters in for-profit housing consider themselves secure, while 34% do not.
Reasons given for lack of housing security:
- 72% cite high rent
- 43% cite an unstable rental market
- 28% cite temporary leases
Open responses show that migrant Efling members feel they have few rights as tenants, live in insecure rental conditions, and are entirely dependent on the whims of landlords and rental companies. The conclusion is that the only rental option that works well for Efling members is non-profit housing, and further development of these would be highly beneficial.
Children need stable housing
We who are gathered here know that high-quality, reliable, and affordable housing, run on social principles, is one of the best ways for any society to ensure that its workforce has good living conditions. Even those who pretend not to understand this, and act as if the inhumane market laws they have made into a sort of religion are the truth of life, know deep down that this is simply an economic and social fact. This may explain their opposition to projects like Bjarg; they cannot face the fact that they are wrong. Good housing run on social principles is the simplest and most sensible investment in building a strong society based on the values of a welfare society, where the physical and mental health of the working class is a key factor in all national economic calculations, assuming we want those calculations to reflect a healthy society.
The Bjarg housing association, founded by ASÍ and BSRB, is exactly such an initiative. It is well run by staff who are highly committed to the project. Maintenance is carefully managed, and tenants who encounter temporary difficulties in paying rent are supported. Those who move in are satisfied and want to stay. They can finally see that they can use some of their earned income for themselves and their children. They no longer have to put themselves so far down the list of priorities, knowing that a time will never come when their basic needs are secondary to others’ profit motives.
We who are gathered here also know that children who grow up in stable housing are more likely to thrive and perform better in school. At the so-called Prosperity Forum held in Iceland two years ago, results from the Icelandic Youth Study were presented. It showed that up to a third of young people of foreign origin feel they do not belong at their schools. Clearly, insecure housing plays a major role here; frequent moves between school districts make it difficult to establish roots and a sense of belonging. And what consequences does that have for these children and young people, and their place in our society?
The fact is that children who grow up in a safe environment are more likely to experience good health and generally lead better lives as adults. As things stand now, a systematic creation of intergenerational problems and class-based inequality is taking place: on one hand, children of property-less people struggling with high rent, and on the other, children in their own homes who experience security and know they will inherit assets from their parents.
A true welfare society does not allow children’s welfare to be placed below the profit interests of the property-owning class. A real welfare society puts children’s circumstances first, not out of sentimentality, but because it is the best way to ensure the stability of our social structure.
The key question
One of the biggest questions of our time is this: Do we want migrant workers to have real opportunities to enjoy life with their children after long workdays – or do we find it acceptable for them to toil just to deliver a large portion of their income to third parties? Do we want people trapped in a cycle of living from one month to the next – without room to grow and flourish on their own terms? It is meaningless to talk about integration into society when the situation is like this; one cannot demand that migrant workers learn Icelandic if the ruling class cannot even take responsibility for a housing market that is not dominated by the inhumane laws of profit mania.
The consequences of the Icelandic ruling class’s negligence for migrant workers and their children are visible everywhere in our society. They are visible when we look at opportunities for learning Icelandic. They are visible when we examine efforts to integrate people into our society.
The circumstances are such that children of low-income, unskilled, foreign-born parents are the worst-off group in our society. Will we face this reality, or do we really not care – do we just want people to take care of children, elderly relatives, clean around us, and prepare our food, enjoying a great life for ourselves at the expense of others?
Personal examples
One of my good friends in Efling, a wonderful man, dignified and intelligent, who participates in our social activities, events like Food and Culture, and union negotiating committees, is a single father. He is an immigrant, has been here for about five years, and intends to stay. He comes from a country he cannot live in due to the political situation there. To provide for his 12-year-old daughter, he works three jobs. He works at two nursing homes and also as a courier. He is an indispensable part of our economy and trapped in the profit-driven rental market. That is why he works three jobs.
Another of my good and wonderful friends is a migrant woman raising two children on her own. She is one of the “good” immigrants, speaks fluent Icelandic, and has worked at a city kindergarten for years. She is on the waiting list for Bjarg, but it will be at least two years before she can get a place. Meanwhile, she pays 70% of her family’s disposable income in rent. She still considers herself lucky, because the apartment she rents is in good condition, and the landlord could have raised the rent more, in line with the huge demand for rental housing from the economic and political upper class in the capital area.
I ask: Do we want to work with Efling men and women to build the Bjarg housing association quickly and securely, and in doing so, demonstrate to the working class that they are valued, that we understand and recognize that they are indispensable to society’s wealth creation, and that their living conditions are a key factor in how our society develops in our small country?
Are we going to just complain about the situation on one hand and shame those who want to improve the situation for immigrants in Iceland as a powerful vote-catching opportunity for rhetoric, or will we face the material reality people are living in – a reality that creates serious problems for our society, a reality that tells us we are failing a large group of children in the capital area?
Call to action
I want to ask those here who belong to the political ruling class to raise their hand.
(It turns out that Ragnar Þór Ingólfsson, Member of Parliament for the People’s Party, was the only MP present and the only elected representative at the meeting. This indifference to the situation of migrant people, evident from the absence of elected representatives, has created the conditions we face.)
The responsibility is yours. On behalf of migrant Efling members who, through their work, generate economic growth and maintain the care systems of our society, who pay taxes and fees, and who contribute to paying your salaries, I urge you to do everything in your power to remove the shame of the current housing conditions for migrant people, and to prove that you are capable of governing society in a way that reflects the values we all claim to uphold – the values of a Nordic welfare society.