"Racism Report 2004" is available for free - Zara

Racism Report 2004 Annual Reports of various Organisations Page 37
Family J. has lived in a co-operative residential estate for some time. The couple and their three small children
are the only ones there with black skin. Complaints start coming in by the neighbours who claim the children
were too noisy “trampling around” all night. Ms. J. denies this and says her children were always in bed by 8 pm. Next
her trolley which she had always left in the stairway gave reason for complaints. Hence, Ms. J. made an effort to
always fold the trolley or to leave it in the cellar. The family tried everything to not inconvenience their neighbours.
The neighbours still weren’t happy and complained to the co-operative’s management which immediately sent a
letter to the J’s threatening to annul the tenancy agreement. The J’s came to us with this letter. We contacted the
co-operative and are informed of a petition for the exclusion of the family from the estate which had been signed by
almost all the tenants. Since the co-operative also believes that the reason behind the problem is the other tenants
not wanting to live next door to Africans we arrange to carry out an inter-cultural mediation. In the end, however,
the mediation doesn’t take place for lack of money.
Mr. R., Austrian citizen of African origin, comes to see us and tells us about his neighbour who keeps calling
him “arsehole nigger” and rings his doorbell for every trifle. In one instant his children are making too much noise,
in another he has too many guests. Since no-one else ever complains about him Mr. R. is convinced that she has a
problem with his colour of skin. She threatens to call the police and at one stage she even wants to drag him to the
station herself. We contact the property management; they are already aware of the tensions and write a letter to
the woman. Ever since it’s been quiet and the neighbour makes an effort to avoid Mr. R.
We are phoned by an outraged Austrian real estate broker who “only wants to tell us about the way things
are”. He reports that he is not allowed to broker apartments belonging to GRAWE (the insurance company Grazer
Wechselseitige) to fellow citizens of foreign origin, particularly not in Idlhofgasse. He says he felt terrible having to
tell migrants that they couldn’t have the flats. And today he “hit the roof” when he had to reject a young couple
with a new-born baby. We ask GRAWE for an explanation and are told that a quota system had been introduced and
that because of it and because of “bad experiences” only a certain number of “foreigners” was tolerated.
Ms. V. who is of Croatian origin wants to insure her new car. She knows someone working at the GRAWE
department for vehicle insurances and asks him to make her an offer. When he presents her with an insurance rate
for her car, she agrees and signs the contract. 15 minutes later he phones her back and says he’d ignored the fact
the she was a “foreigner”. A higher rate applied to foreigners and in certain categories GRAWE didn’t accept “foreign”
clients at all. Ms. V. is appalled and reports these discriminating circumstances to us. Together with Ms. V. we write
a letter of complaint to the board of directors and are still waiting for a reply.
Ms. K., an Austrian citizen of African origin, has been working as a kitchen help for over a year in the
restaurant “Goldene Drei Kugeln”. One day at work Ms. K. suddenly starts to feel ill and asks to be allowed to go
home. The chef is not happy about it but after a vomiting attack he lets her go. The next day Ms. K. sees a doctor
who diagnoses stomach flu and issues a sick-leave certificate for a week. The same day her chef calls her and tells
her to come to work or else she’d be fired. Ms. K. explains her situation. He tells her if she didn’t come back in three
days he’d have no choice but to dismiss her. On the third day Ms. K. (in spite of being ill) returns to work. She is visibly
exhausted and after two hours her fore worker sends her back home. The chef isn’t there. Ms. K. now pays heed
to the doctor’s order and stays at home for the remainder of her sick-leave. When she comes back to work her chef
is already waiting for her and wants her to sign a document. Ms. K. says to him that she didn’t understand why she
had to leave since she hadn’t done anything wrong to which the chef replies (using the impolite form): “Sign and get
out!” Without knowing the content of the document Ms. K. signs it and leaves. She turns to us. When we explain to
her that she had signed an amicable termination of her employment contract and had therefore no legal claim she
is shocked. We accompany her to the Chamber of Labour to describe these recurrent cases and to highlight the fatal
exploitation of this legal option on behalf of the employers.
A month later we are told of an absolutely identical case (see the previous case, Ms. K.) by Ms. S., Austrian
citizen of African origin, who was on sick-leave for a longer period of time because of severe uterus surgery. She was
phoned to sign an amicable termination of her employment contract because her illness was no longer tolerated.
Ignorant of her labour rights Ms. S. signs the document.
We are told that a highly pregnant Austrian of black skin had to work night-shifts in the kitchen of the
restaurant “Goldene Drei Kugeln”. Also, employees were forced to work without breaks and threatened to be fired if
they didn’t obey. We inform the labour inspectorate.
196
197
198
199
200
201
202