3.1. Characteristics of Workers Who Send Remittances
Approximately 48.9% of the survey respondents (
n = 43) indicated that they sent their income internationally, while the remainder indicated that this scenario was not applicable to them (
Table 2).
Of those who did send remittances (
n = 43), 76.7% (
n = 33) sent over CAD 500 annually, and of these individuals who sent over CAD 500, 97% (
n = 32) were immigrant, 87.9% (
n = 29) were female, and 90.9% (
n = 30) were VM (
Table 3,
Table 4 and
Table 5).
Remittances were also analyzed according to the respondent’s ancestral background, and senders were as follows: 25.6% (
n = 11) were South Asian, 25.6% (
n = 11) were Caribbean, 14.0% (
n = 6) were African, 11.6% (
n = 5) were Southeast Asian, 9.3% (
n = 4) were East Asian, 7.0% (
n = 3) were European, and so forth (
Table 6).
The results of the Mann–Whitney-U Test indicated that participants born outside of Canada (i.e., the immigrant group) sent international annual remittances more frequently compared to those participants born in Canada (U = 985,
p < 0.001) (
Figure 1). This result is important because people born outside of Canada may not always have strong ties to their transnational families. For instance, it is expected that if some individuals immigrated as children with their immediate family, and were raised in Canada, they may have less robust ties to their countries of birth. However, these findings show that most immigrant workers have strong financial ties and send remittances.
A Mann–Whitney-U test was conducted using birth/immigration status. Groups were categorized as born in Canada, born outside Canada, and allocated as the independent variables, and international remittances sent abroad were allocated as the dependent (scale) variable. The purpose was to examine the effect of birth/immigration status on funds sent to family or relatives abroad. The results indicated that participants born outside of Canada (i.e., the immigrant group) sent international remittances more frequently compared to those participants born in Canada (U = 985, p < 0.001).
To examine the effect of gender, Mann–Whitney U tests were conducted to assess the effect of immigration status and racialization separately for male participants and female participants. The analysis indicated that female participants born outside of Canada sent income internationally more frequently than those female participants born in Canada (U = 559.5,
p < 0.047) (
Figure 2). The analysis was also conducted to test the effect of race/ancestral background; however, there were no significant differences in the frequencies of international annual remittances (data not shown). This result is important because it is often thought that the senders of remittances are male. For instance, in certain cultures, males are considered the main breadwinners of their families; thus, it is anticipated that men would send remittances more frequently than women. However, these findings show that women have strong financial ties to their countries of birth.
A Mann–Whitney-U test was conducted to test the effect of sex/gender and birth/immigrant status on funds sent to family or relatives abroad. The results indicated that female participants born outside of Canada (i.e., the female immigrant group) sent international remittances more frequently compared to female participants born in Canada (U = 559.5, p < 0.047).
The interview data revealed interesting insights about the recipients of remittances, the purpose of remittances, the desire and ability to send remittances, and the moral/ethical meanings tied to the process of sending remittances.
3.2. Qualitative Findings
The analysis of the interview data resulted in five major themes that emerged as follows: common recipients of remittances; typical purpose of remittances; frequency of remittances; budget, desire, and ability to send remittances; and moral or ethical meanings connected to remittances.
3.2.1. Common Recipients of Remittances
The interview data suggest that the recipients of remittances included spouses, children, and other family or relatives, such as siblings, parents, and in-laws. These individuals are the transnational families of the participants, and many of them live in the participants’ countries of origin. Common themes about recipients were descriptions that were tied to a particular need, e.g., older adults and aging parents who require assistance with healthcare or medical costs (versus supporting siblings, young children, or others).
3.2.2. Typical Purpose of Remittances
The purpose of the remittances varied among participants, depending on for whom the remittances were intended. Common reasons why workers sent remittances to their transnational families included support for the costs of living, specific medical or healthcare expenses, education-related costs, cultural or religious festivals, income supplementation, or non-specific amounts, such as gifts. Remittances were not allocated for religious purposes, or for the support of villages, clans, etc. However, a few workers did state that remittances were sent as investments.
Consider the situation below in which a racialized ancillary healthcare worker reported that he sent substantial sums overseas to Asia each year because of his mother’s health issues and also for special occasions, such as festivals:
“Yearly, I think $13,000/$12,000 has to be sent for a festival […] and recently my mom is sick, I gave them some money. They don’t need, […] I have to do this and you know, the festival, we have a lot of relatives, my side and my wife’s side, so this is our culture, before the festival and before they eat we send everybody some money. So $15,000/$12,000 every year has to go.” (Participant 42, ancillary worker, male, VM, F/T).
In another example, a racialized manager said her husband’s relatives (i.e., in-laws) who live overseas are supported by her husband, and her parents are supported by her. She indicated that their countries of habitation lack social and health services, such as the provision of medical care. Essential services in those countries are paid privately, and out of pocket:
“My husband’s family, because he’s basically the only one that supports, sends them money, and I’m the support for my parents. I have brothers that support them but we all kind of pitch in and help to make sure that their payments are because my dad is retired. My mom never worked. He was a bank manager but back home there’s no health support, like you have to pay for going to hospital, doctor visits, medications, all of that, and standards of living there is so expensive even though it’s a tiny country”. (Participant 32, manager, female, VM, F/T)
A few participants also stated that they sent remittances as an investment paid in advance because they wanted to return to their country of origin to live there:
“I intend to go back there to live, so I want to pay forward also, ‘cause when I get there who knows what life will dish out for you”. (Participant 31, PSW, female, VM, F/T)
3.2.3. Frequency of Remittances
Another common theme was that many workers frequently and regularly sent remittances, although a few also said they did so only when requested. For the former group of workers, these findings could mean that their families relied on remittances for particular things. For example, participants 29, 31, 32, 40, and 42 reported that they sent regular money, and the support was for basic necessities such as food, shelter, and education. Participants 2, 35, and 42, however, suggested that remittances were temporary, intended as a gift, and were not regular obligations but were rather based on temporary need and cultural events or festivities. This means that transnational families experienced various levels of socioeconomic deprivation and need, which would depend on political, cultural, geographic, or other factors, such as the extent of social/welfare programs and policies of recipient countries. Recall that participant 32 indicated that she supported her transnational family in her homeland regularly to assist with out-of-pocket healthcare expenses, such as physician’s visits, medications, and hospital stays. An ancillary worker (Participant 40, ancillary worker, female, VM, P/T) also sent money to her mother and sisters overseas on a monthly (regular) basis. However, after ending a relationship and being reduced to one income, she was only able to contribute on “special occasions”. The latter meant that regular remittances were contingent upon sufficient levels of income. Another worker (Participant 2, allied health worker, female, VM, F/T) said she occasionally sent remittances to relatives overseas as gifts, but she did not consider this to be a regular obligation or a burden because all of her siblings were located outside of the country of origin, and everyone shared costs in the support provided to these overseas relatives.
Consider a further example below in which a racialized allied health worker said she sent money overseas to Asia when family members experienced an exceptional need:
“I have family back in [overseas country], but…I support them, but not on a regular basis. Yeah, not every month; but when a need arises, then I support them”. (Participant 35, allied health worker, female, VM, F/T)
3.2.4. Budgets
The data also revealed a number of common themes about budgets. For the most part, remittances significantly affected senders’ budgets, and senders admitted that they had to make certain sacrifices. This is an important finding because it is well known that care workers are underpaid, yet many exercise generosity despite the fact that they receive little in return. Consider the situation below in which a racialized manager was asked about budgets. The surprising response was the fact that remittances were one of the biggest line items. This worker indicated that both herself and her husband felt a “stretch”, financially, and that they were stressed about it:
I: “Okay. Tell me about what consumes the biggest part of your budget then?”
A: “Sending money for family back home […] We have lots of families to support plus like the immediate family members plus extended family members that we have to help. So we always have to send money and that takes up a portion plus the payment here like the bills, the mortgage, I have one now in university, as second one going in this year actually, 2017 September. Mamma mia. So we kind of felt the stretch this year or last year, 2016 and we’re kind of going to feel it more this year, so we’re a bit on the stressed side when it comes to payment, but you know, we’re thankful we’re healthy. We can manage”. (Participant 32, manager, female, VM, F/T)
In another example, a participant reported that she sent money to support both her family and also her husband’s family, in which one member experienced a health crisis and illness. She suggested that the size of the remittances were so large, that an entire salary was exhausted, meaning that it was completely dedicated for this purpose:
“I help my husband’s family in [overseas country], which we constantly supported them and sent them money and unfortunately sent them more and more because his brother became sick—cancer, last stage. So it means—it will cost us a lot of money and what I can say […] From first day I helped my mom. I need to send money to my mom, to my brother’s family, and my husband’s family. So we were supporting two families. So one salary was going out”. (Participant 29, manager, female, non-VM, F/T)
A racialized allied healthcare worker shared her experience in which there was no pre-determined budget but, rather, remittances were tailored according to need:
“It’s never like a pre-planned budget because whenever there’s a need, then we provide. So we kind of adjust and cut down on our expenses, yeah”. (Participant 35, allied health worker, female, VM, F/T)
3.2.5. Desire and Ability to Send Remittances
Another common theme was that participants often expressed emotions about sending remittances, such as individuals who had the desire to send remittances and were able to do so (versus those who wished to send money but were unable to do so). This discrepancy largely depended on the socioeconomic status (SES) of senders (i.e., job title, full-time or part-time status, which would correspond with higher or lower salaries/incomes); with higher SES groups likely having the ability to support larger expenses. Being unable to send remittances, however, could be a source of discomfort and stress for participants and contribute to feelings of helplessness.
Consider the example below, where a racialized ancillary worker indicated that he had a sister in financial need overseas, but he was unable to help her:
“My sister in the [overseas country] […] sometimes she is calling me and she needs the money, and I cannot afford to give—send her money […] Even a penny, I cannot send […] It’s very tough. It’s very hard”. (Participant 12, ancillary worker, male, VM, F/T)
3.2.6. Moral and Ethical Meanings Connected to Remittances
Interview data also revealed a common theme about the moral obligations of sending remittances to help the less fortunate, and for poverty alleviation. This is an important finding because care work and care workers, the former of which is known to be gendered and poorly remunerated, are at odds. Care workers are poorly remunerated when they exchange their labor power for wages, yet they exercise generosity, despite receiving little in return. Why do care workers (and racialized/immigrant women and men) do this? The data suggest that, for some care workers, remittances had moral and ethical meanings that were tied to belief systems. For example, some participants mentioned belief systems that motivated them to send remittances, despite the fact that they experienced difficulties in assisting their families. However, they did so anyway because they felt it was rewarding and it was their moral responsibility. Consider the racialized female personal support worker (PSW) below, who described remittances as a moral obligation to help others who are less fortunate, and also mentions her belief that she will be blessed for this endeavor:
“I send money home to my family. […] because of economic hardship, I used to support my grandmother […]. After my grandma pass on, I still continue to help them [the rest of the family] because they need the help […]. So maybe my cousins’ children might remember I used to help them because I pay for them to go to school, I help them with food, I help them with housing wherever I can. […]But I - we grew up always helping each other, so it’s like an obligation that you have to help the other ones that are not fortunate. You’re fortunate to come out, so you share what you have. We always believe that you get blessed even more by sharing the little that you have”. (Participant 31, PSW, female, VM, F/T)
Moral arguments about sending remittances raise an interesting and important point, given the gendered and racialized nature of care work. Previous studies emphasizing feminist perspectives suggest that care work is underpaid and undervalued because it is considered to be women’s work, and that good women care for their families and others, either uncompensated or poorly paid, and in doing so, they attain feminine moral worth [
55]. Women’s work in the home or in the labor market is morally and ethically elevated in this regard, but it can be detrimental to women’s material conditions because it is often invisible [
56] or undervalued [
29]. Data from this study suggest that remittances are no exception, and that women who carry out care work are expected not only to care for and share with their immediate family, but also geographically distant relatives and the transnational family that is afar. It is also important to mention that there may also be some aspects of reverse causality. For example, (im)migrant and racialized workers leave their home country for a variety of reasons, and there are a number of push-and-pull factors to consider, including higher remuneration, better working conditions, a better quality of life, and so forth. It is plausible that assisting transnational families is also a push factor, and being near their transnational families could make the situation worse than the current one in which there is assistance provided to the transnational family.
Another important point is that previous research shows that the senders of remittances are often male and are the most significant contributors [
25]; however, the data from this study show that some of the most important contributions to households in the form of remittances and financial support to families for costs related to shelter, education, and health care, targeting places outside of Canada, originated from both female and male immigrant/racialized labor in the care work sector. The employment of female workers was historically considered to be supplemental income under a traditional male-breadwinner model that considered male workers to be the main income earners. However, this notion that women’s work is supplemental and, therefore, negligible is challenged by the findings from this study, which show significant levels of support and financial assistance to the transnational family that originate from female immigrant and racialized workers. These findings, nevertheless, warrant further investigation, given that this sector of employment is potentially populated by female minorities, which may be driven by this context.