Sociologie Românească

Tens of thousands of Romanian migrants work in the German construction sector. Their work is often characterized by unpaid wages, long workdays and by the withholding of sick or holiday payments. The risky and exploitative nature of the conditions under which Romanian migrants work on German construction sites is reﬂ ected in their negative evaluation of their engagements as “slave labor” by Romanian workers. Starting from such a clearly negative evaluation, the paper asks how Romanian construction workers in Germany classify their work and what role such classiﬁ cations have within the context of labor exploitation. Based on qualitative interviews with and participant observation among Romanian construction site workers in Germany and in Romania, the article reconstructs four work classiﬁ cations. Work may be interpreted as the fulﬁ llment of obligations or as necessary for economic revenue; hard work itself can be a symbolic contribution to one’s own sense of identity or it can have the meaning of being part of everyday normalcy. Each of the work classiﬁ cations oﬀ ers a diﬀ erent reason to make hard work plausible in the eyes of the workers and employers actively turn such interpretations into a mechanism of vulnerability. Without direct physical coercion, these ideas motivate workers to take on work that they themselves criticize as ‘slave labor.’ The paper concludes by arguing that the recognition of such classiﬁ cations and their social eﬀ ects are crucial for an understanding of labor exploitation.


Introduction
For many Romanian migrant workers employed in the German construction sector, work is characterized by unpaid wages, by the withholding of sick or holiday payments, and by working on unsecured sites (Birner, & Dietl, 2021; Europäischer Verein für Wanderarbeiterfragen e.V., 2022).
One of those workers is Ionel 1 , who worked on a construction site in Echsberg until a concrete slab fell on his head in 2021. His employer reacted by forcing him to change from his workwear into his everyday clothes and by pressuring him to confi rm to the doctor that it was a household incident. Only then did the employer drive the injured Ionel to a hospital 50 kilometers away, where it turned out that his injuries were so severe that he would be unable to work for several months. Subsequently, his employer sent a backdated dismissal, deregistered Ionel from health insurance and, as he was also his landlord, terminated Ionel's lease at the end of the three-month period. The employer's actions left the injured Ionel in a precarious state without sick benefi ts, without health insurance and at risk of becoming homeless after three months. As Ionel started to look for help, a union activist was willing to support him. Finally, after a lawsuit was fi led, his employer renewed Ionel's health insurance. Ionel now lives on sick pay of around 700 euros per month.
Reports from Faire Mobilität 2 and others show that Ionel's is not an isolated case and that cover-ups in cases of work accidents, back-dated dismissals, and wage theft are an integral part of the everyday lives of Romanian workers in Germany (Voivozeanu, 2019;Faire Mobilität, 2022). The risky and exploitative nature of the conditions under which Romanian migrants work on German construction sites is refl ected in their negative evaluation of their engagements as "slave labor". In view of such a clearly negative evaluation, questions immediately arise -how do Romanian construction workers in Germany classify their work and what roles do such classifi cations have within the context of labor exploitation?
Framed by social classifi cation theory, we reconstruct four classifi cation patterns Romanian migrants use for their work, according to which the negative evaluation of their own work nevertheless appears to be acceptable. Based on a multi-sited transnational ethnography amongst Romanian workers and semistructured interviews with their families and friends, this article reconstructs four work classifi cations and their motivational eff ects. In the fi rst classifi cation pattern, work appears as a binding agreement, while in the second pattern, it is interpreted as a source of income. According to the third pattern, workers may regard their work as a source of identity. In the last pattern, work is classifi ed as part of normalcy. Each classifi cation interprets work in a diff erent light and hence off ers a distinct rationale for working under conditions that receive a negative evaluation. In the German context, the social eff ect of these classifi cations is that they make working on construction sites plausible and, at the same time, increase the workers' potential vulnerability.
In demonstrating how migrant workers classify their work abroad, this paper contributes to ongoing discussions on migrant labor (Birke, 2022;Ciobanu, 2013;Sandu, 2005;Voivozeanu, 2019) and highlights classifi cations and their eff ects, which has so far been a much-overlooked dimension.
After a brief overview of the situation of Romanian workers in Germany, we introduce the classifi cation-theoretical approach. Subsequently, the article presents the qualitative methods used to collect the data. Afterwards the four classifi cation patterns are presented, each in one subchapter. The article concludes with a discussion of classifi cations at work and their social eff ects under exploitative working conditions.

Romanian Migrant Workers on German Construction Sites
Romanian workers in Germany have the same rights in the workplace as their German colleagues. One of the sources of their labor rights is Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), guaranteeing freedom of movement and work for all citizens of the European Union. The article further explicitly specifi es that "Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment" (TFEU, Article 45, 2). This legal requirement is shaped by the normative idea of an EU-wide concept of equal treatment. Researchers, in turn, can use this law as a benchmark against which to assess whether this standard of equity is met.
On paper, these workers have the right to the same pay as their German colleagues. In addition, large areas of the construction sector in Germany are highly regulated through general labor rights and a far-reaching collective agreement. Negotiations for a minimum wage for the construction sector failed in 2022. Since the failure the statutory minimum wage applies, which has been 12 Euros gross per hour since October 2022. Workers can expect higher payment in companies that abide by the collective bargaining agreement (Bosch, & Hüttenhof, 2022). General labor rights include 30 days of paid vacation or payment of vacation allowances, continued wage payment in case of illness, and health and pension insurance.
Despite the far-ranging rights of EU working migrants, the existing reports already paint a bleak picture of conditions in the industry. Reports list crosssectoral forms of exploitation (Daelken, 2012;Loschert et al., 2023) before and after the introduction of freedom-of-movements rights (Jobelius, 2015) and speak of wage theft, lack of health insurance, poor housing conditions, and cases of forced labor. With regard to the construction industry in particular, studies and reports highlight labor exploitation, unpaid work, unpaid overtime hours, informal work or cases of vacation theft, and a lack of occupational safety (Voivozeanu, 2019;Lackus, & Schell, 2020;Birner, & Dietl, 2021;Lübbe, 2022;Sperneac-Wolfer, 2022). No defi nite numbers exist as to how many Romanians are aff ected by labor exploitation. An expert from a counselling centre for migrant workers put the number of victims in the thousands or more.
With 3 to 5 million citizens abroad (Dopinescu, & Russo, 2018), migration is a signifi cant factor in Romanian society, and the motives and backgrounds of Romanian migrants are well researched. Economic reasons are a powerful motive to seek work abroad (Sandu, 2005), as are local migration cultures (Horvath, 2008) and transnational networks (Ciobanu, 2013) through which workers fi nd job opportunities abroad or assist each other. In the area of posted work, fi ndings indicate that "low-level wages and precarious working conditions in Romania" (Voivozeanu, 2019) play a decisive role in the workers choosing to keep working abroad, whereas in Germany the language barrier excludes them from vast areas of the labor market. Recent studies point towards a "multiple precarity" working migrants face in the German meat and construction sector (Birke, 2022;Sperneac-Wolfer, 2023;Voivozeanu, 2019). However, only little is known about how Romanian workers interpret and evaluate their work in Germany and how their classifi cation patterns aff ect their work. Studies on blue collar workers show the relevance of positive work interpretations for the self-perception of workers and their willingness to work under harsh conditions (Lamont, 2000). However, since negative classifi cations such as "slave labor" are widespread, especially in the fi eld of construction work, and employers are known as "robbers" and "thieves" (Sperneac-Wolfer, 2022), the questions regarding the classifi cations and their eff ects arise again.

Social Classifi cations
Through social classifi cations, actors interpret and evaluate their environment (Bourdieu, 1985(Bourdieu, , 1989Sutterlüty, & Neckel, 2006;Sutterlüty, 2010) and thus also their work. Such classifi cations operate by assigning a social object to a larger class of objects that share certain characteristics and valuation attributes associated with them. "Slave labor" is such an evaluative interpretation of a physically demanding task, and it interprets work in terms diff erent from its classifi cation as "drudgery" or "slog". Each such categorization has a context-specifi c semantic content that is refl ected in its use by the actors, and thus its reconstruction enables access to their interpretations. For instance, it is of interest what Romanian workers mean by categorizing what they are doing as "slave labor".
Social classifi cation systems have the status of collectively shared categorizations that are deeply woven into cultural contexts (Lévi-Strauss, 1962) and biographies of individuals (Willis, 1978). Likewise, diff erent and competing classifi cation systems may be present in any given context, resulting in classifi cation struggles over legitimate evaluations.
For actors, social classifi cations both function as an instrument of perception and infl uence their perception in equal measure. In everyday life, actors rely on certain sets of social classifi cations that enable them to evaluate and interpret themselves and their environment. These classifi cations also orient the behaviors, tactics, and strategies of actors (Sutterlüty, & Neckel, 2006;Swidler, 1986). This is why diff erent social classifi cations lead to diff erent social eff ects. It is not without consequences for work interactions with the management if supervisors are classifi ed as exploiters who do not want to do real work or if they appear as colleagues who happen to have greater responsibilities. Each of these varying interpretations result in diff erent social eff ects, in this case in diff erent feelings towards the supervisor.
The power of social classifi cation is well studied for many areas (Lévi-Strauss, 1962;Sutterlüty, 2010). In the context of work, studies have demonstrated that blue-collar workers classify the shop fl oor as a fi eld of recognition through good work performance (Burawoy, 1979) and shown how education forms patterns of classifying work (Willis, 1978). Furthermore, scholars pointed to work as a source from which workers derive their sense of personal responsibility, their ethos, and thus ultimately their morality (Lamont, 2000). Work itself is not only an object of classifi cations but has a far ranging symbolic-cultural dimension in societies (Hann, 2000;Gudeman, & Hann, 2015) that includes multiple cultural meanings and work-related moral economies. Classifi cations are also necessary for the performance of work, since workers constantly need to interpret their tasks and their own positions to coordinate how they go about their work (Burawoy, 1979;Dunkel, & Weihrich, 2018).
Though much is known regarding the conceptual role classifi cations have for work, little is known about how and through what classifi cations EU migrants in the construction sector perceive their work. The following section briefl y explains the methods used to obtain the data.

Data, Field Access, and Analysis
To learn how Romanian workers classify their work in Germany, the project team 3 conducts a multi-sited ethnography (Marcus, 1995) and semi-structured interviews within the methodological framework of Grounded Theory (Corbin, & Strauss, 2015).
The multi-sited transnational ethnography follows workers to the "backstages" (Scott, 1985) of the workplace, namely a large dormitory complex housing several hundred construction workers from Romania. Participant observation is also carried out at workers' negotiations with their employers, during doctor consultations or at bars and restaurants in Germany as well as in the workers' villages in Romania. Fieldwork has started in June 2021 and is still ongoing at present. The fi ndings presented in this paper are based on twenty-two months of participant observation, including a four-month research in Romania as well as on 50 interviews (26 with workers, 12 with persons from their social contexts, 12 with relevant experts).
Access was gained through shadowing of a union organizer, who regularly visited the dormitories and assisted workers in social and labor confl icts. Researchers volunteered to act as translators during medical consultations, meetings with local authorities, and also assisted the workers in handling their confl icts by writing letters on their behalf or by collecting evidence. Problem solving quickly turned to be an important part of the fi eldwork. At all times, we introduced ourselves as researchers to the workers. Quickly, our mobile phone numbers were distributed in the fi eld and workers called us. Team members were perceived in the fi eld as "people who help" and were known as scientists "writing a book on experiences of Romanian workers." In some cases, workers encouraged team members to document their situation, because "the world needs to know how we are treated here." Problem solving was helpful in establishing trust and it also made team members familiar with hurdles workers face. The Romanian family background of some team members proved to be helpful in the fi eld, and researchers were perceived to be "one of us" in terms of origin. At the same time, workers and union activists repeatedly emphasized the advantages yielded by the team members during consultations with doctors and institutions because they were able to surmount the language barrier in speaking German without an accent. Following the initial phase, team members regularly spent time with the workers after work and received invitations to feasts, celebrations and to barbecues, which one worker characterized as "so you made family here, that's good." At this point, a distant observer position has transformed into active participation, which enabled us to observe how workers evaluate their harsh work.
After ten months of fi eld work in Echsberg, one researcher followed a worker's invitation to Romania for four months. There, participant observation was carried out in a village in Suceava county, which we anonymize as Setul-Mic, for a month and a half. Shorter research stays were carried out in villages in the counties of Iaşi, Brăila, Constanța, Satu Mare and in Hunedoara, in the Jiu-Valley. Sampling followed the received invitations from workers or their families. Additional conversations occurred on rides through the country via micro-busses and trains. This broad data base allows for good comparisons.
At all sites, observations were documented in fi eld notes on smartphones or notebooks and later developed to full fi eld protocols (Emerson et al.,1995). Another research trip is scheduled for summer 2023 to target the return of workers during August and to conduct additional research. This transnational qualitative research design not only targets the experiences of Romanian construction site workers in Germany but also includes work classifi cations in their Romanian contexts. The long research duration and the number of research trips allows for testing of hypotheses.
Interview participants were recruited from this fi eld, and up to this point 26 semi-structured interviews were conducted in Romanian with workers and a further 12 with friends and families in the home villages, with recordings lasting between 30 minutes and 5 hours. Workers were all male, with the youngest in their late twenties and the oldest in their late fi fties, while the average was in the range of 40 to 50. In the villages, fi ve interviewees were women and seven men. Interviews were transcribed for analysis. For background information regarding the social and legal situations of workers, 12 additional expert interviews with lawyers, activists, and the representatives of unions in Germany and Romania were carried out. Additional data was gathered in work-related online platform groups as well as through corresponding hashtags on social media.
Analysis was done according to Grounded Theory and particular attention was given to the specifi cs of interview and observational data (Corbin, & Strauss, 2015). One of the advantages of this analytical approach is its capability to include diff erent forms of data, which allowed us to cross-fade workers' interview responses, their everyday conversations, and ideas of work present in Romanian villages and online groups. In particular, the open and inductive approach of Grounded Theory enabled us to reconstruct classifi cations present in this data as well as to trace the eff ects of such classifi cations within the labor process in the German construction industry. As suggested by Corbin and Strauss, analysis started with open coding and through constant comparison codes were developed to categories (Corbin, & Strauss, 2015). Field work was conducted in parallel to analysis until analytic categories were saturated, like the four classifi cation patterns of work the empirical section of this article presents. For reasons of clarity and conciseness, this paper focuses primarily on work-related classifi cations and their eff ects for workers.

Classifi cations of Work
Romanian construction workers are constantly engaged in practices of classifying their work. Four classifi cations emerge as a collectively shared pattern and are repeatedly brought up in similar ways by several workers across varying situations.

Work as a Binding Obligation
Work is classifi ed in the fi eld as an agreement between worker and employer. Once made, the negotiated agreement or tacit understanding between worker and employer acquires a binding character that turns out to be stronger than legal regulations in the fi eld. Workers refer to such agreements as o înțelegere -an STUDII understanding, a deal, or an agreement. Such agreements establish a relationship between worker and employer in which workers are highly sympathetic towards their employer if he demands more work. With such relationships come perceived expectations that can be fulfi lled or disappointed. On the side of the workers, such relations are part of a binding obligation and characterized by their far-reaching willingness to meet expectations, even if this means additional work that exceeds the scope of the original agreement.
Ionel, the worker from the introduction, attributes his acceptance of 12 hours per day causally to this relationship and the understanding it entails. He explains: Ionel intended to have a friendly relationship with his employer, one in which he would show understanding if the latter was in the need of overtime to fi nish a contract. He fulfi lled his perceived obligations over a long period of time and stayed quiet, even though his work was so stressful that he could not even take a breath without his boss showing up and spurring him on, as he explains later in the interview. Still, he emphasizes the "professional" nature of the relationship, which he defi nes as "having respect for the work I do as well as having respect from him as an employer." It is only now, after his employer broke the agreement through the cover-up of the work accident, thereby showing his lack of respect, that Ionel analyzes this as an abuse of his own good faith and a breach of trust.
Ionel and his employer had o înțelegere, whereby one agreed to work and the other to pay for it. Some such agreements are tacit and workers know an employer's conditions, for instance if there is vacation time or continued payment of wages in case of illness, but also the amount of the hourly wage. In other cases, both parties negotiate within a very limited scope, for instance over one euro more or less per hour and seal the understanding with a handshake.
To understand the nature of such an înțelegere, it is instructive to look into an east Romanian village fi rst, the home of several migrant workers. In such villages, as several interview partners tell us, work is sometimes based on negotiated agreement between client and worker, an înțelegere. This happens in construction as well as in agriculture. Such agreements have a binding character because a word is given and, as a representative of the village explains, whoever breaks his word is poorly regarded and news will spread fast that this employer does not pay. Once a job in Germany is classifi ed as o înțelegere, workers interpret their agreement as equally binding as it would be in the Romanian context and feel obliged to follow the agreement, as a discussion amongst workers regarding vacation money demonstrates.
Employers are legally obliged to pay 14.25 per cent of the gross wage as vacation pay to the construction sector welfare fund (SOKA BAU). If workers take their vacation, employers report it to the SOKA BAU and receive the corresponding money. In return, the worker receives the money after a certain period if he does not take advantage of his vacation days. This system is designed to ensure that construction workers who change employers do not lose their vacation entitlement (Bosch, & Hüttenhoff , 2022). With 30 days of paid vacation and a small number of weekly work hours, vacation money for one year can exceed 2500 euros.
Employers actively exploit this system. During a fi eld visit to a dormitory, a union activist was explaining to a group of eight workers that their employers had falsely fi led for vacation money from their accounts by claiming they had gone on vacation, even though they had worked throughout the time in question. They were paid with what was supposed to be their vacation money. The money, the union activist explained, could be refunded if enough workers testifi ed that no one was on vacation at the time. The following scene is an excerpt from a fi eld protocol documenting what happened right after some of the workers, like Fabiu, had already gone to work for another employer: This short scene demonstrates the binding power such informal agreements can have if workers classify work as a fi eld of agreements. Although Fabiu would be able to recover a month's wages, he declines to do so because paid vacation was never part of their understanding. This reaction is particularly striking, since Fabiu works for another employer now and could take action against his previous employer without fear of dismissal. The group's reaction is also striking: though some agree to fi ght for their money, Fabiu's reaction is acknowledged and not criticized.
In contrast to the Romanian village with its high level of social control, employers can often break an agreement, for instance by not paying wages, with impunity. If workers then react and try to recover their money, some employers react according to this work classifi cation. For instance, Gheorghe received the following message, when he, seriously ill, demanded his wages and vacation pay through a union: "How dare you? We helped you, we gave you work, and everything and now you go against us?" For the employer, the legal demand is bold and illegitimate, and he immediately takes the discussion to the level of a personal relationship by saying how much the worker owes him, reminding him of his moral debt. The employer reacted as if the worker had broken the common agreement.

STUDII
Workers who see their work as embedded in a binding agreement usually act accordingly, even if this results in disadvantages to them. This interpretation is very present in the fi eld, and employers know this and act accordingly. In the next pattern, however, this loyalty is completely absent.

Work as a Source of Income
Romanian migrant workers in Germany can also be found classifying work as a source of income. It is because of the expected revenue that workers are ready to work under conditions that they themselves consider hard. In this pattern, confl icts are centered around fi nancial issues and employers take measures to counter income-oriented mobility.
In the previously discussed confl ict over vacation money, some workers did not demand the vacation money since it had not been agreed upon. Others, who treated work primarily as a source of income, were seriously motivated to get the money from their ex-employer when they learned about the fraud. Suddenly confronted with an unexpected opportunity to recoup some of their vacation money -with sums ranging from 800 to 2,500 euros -a crowd gathered quickly and prepared their statements. While talking, one screamed "Now we'll show them" and others were thrilled at the prospect of large payouts. In this situation, a group of workers constituted itself around the shared view of work as a source of income, of which they had been defrauded.
The prospect of a higher salary than in Romania brought many workers to Germany, including to Echsberg. In this city, the standard hourly wage is 10 to 15 euros after tax, a higher rate than in other German cities, where wages may be as low as 9 or even 8 euros. With a monthly salary of 2,000 euros and more for a work week of 50 to 60 hours, the income is also signifi cantly higher than the minimum monthly gross salary of 3,000 lei in the Romanian construction sector (around 610 Euros; EFBWW, 2022) and many workers families in Romania depend on the German income. Monthly remittances ranging from 750 to 1,500 euros support the life of their relatives in Romania, the education of their children, or the construction of new houses. However, taking into account the widespread wage fraud, many workers earn much less than expected and look for better-paid employment.
This classifi cation of work entails a high degree of mobility, and relationships with employers are not as important as in the fi rst type. Some workers following this interpretation may switch to another employer within Echsberg for better pay, others will have moved to Echsberg from other cities and stay there for the same reason.
There is a theory in the fi eld about why the wages are higher in Echsberg. Sorin, some other workers, and a team member visited another dormitory three hours' drive away, in an isolated district of somewhere on the outskirts of a town and lacking public transportation. Sorin, a well-connected and talkative worker who is in his thirties, explains: "The isolation makes the workers more dependent on their employers. It's diff erent in our place. Because we are not so isolated, we easily can go to the highest paying employer, and this is why we raised the prices during the last years from then 9 euros per hour to a minimum of 12 euros now. If someone in Echsberg were to off er 10 euro or so today, people would immediately leave." This mobility is apparent in Fabiu, who left his former employer for a wage higher by 1.50 euros and came back when he was off ered a euro more. In Sorin's view, the salary in Echsberg is higher because the infrastructure makes it relatively easy for workers to move to better-paid employment.
Finally, on a transnational scale, workers came to Echsberg for the prospect of higher incomes, even though working conditions in other countries like Spain, France, or Italy might have been easier. Cosmin, a worker in his late forties, left a much more relaxed job in the Italian construction sector for a higher hourly wage in Echsberg. He accepted the hard work because he urgently needed money to pay for his daughter's university education. Involuntary time off work is accordingly a problem. When Cosmin had to stay at home for weeks due to an illness and was receiving only around 1,000 Euro monthly in sick pay, he complains to one of the researchers: "I did not come to Germany for nothing or for holidays, but to make money." His answer expresses the importance of the income for him, and it testifi es to his goal of using his time in such a way as to maximize his fi nancial gain.
Such an interpretation of work in particular entails a willingness to work more hours and to work harder, as Sorin's example shows. He also left the Italian construction industry years ago for German construction sites. Until a herniated disc caused by extensive work forced him to take time off , he was ready to work overtime and under harsh conditions to earn more money. He explains how someone can make an income in Germany: "If you want more money, you have to pull harder." Central in this answer is the idea of performance-based wages which increase with the severity of work. In Echsberg, there are multiple possibilities to 'pull harder', from going without vacation to informal work on Sundays.
To collect their vacation money and to earn extra income, some workers do not take their Christmas holidays. For a similar reason, some workers look for extra work on Sundays. In both cases, the prospect of more income serves as a rationale for extra work. However, more widespread is the acceptance of paid overtime.
This interpretation also refers to the work itself. "To make money" is often heard in response to the question of why someone chose to work on construction sites in Germany rather than in agriculture or other areas. Here, hard work is associated with a higher income while physically less demanding work entails a lower income. As a result of his herniated disc, Sorin has been thinking about fi nding a job as a driver. He explains: "You know, bit by bit, the little raindrops accumulate, and I can have a decent life with less money." This statement shows the association of work with income -and of hard work with more income -as well as the reverse. In such an interpretation, hard work seems a plausible option to those looking to maximize their earnings.
By promising a high income but paying it only in part or not at all, employers exploit this interpretation of work and turn it into a mechanism that leaves workers vulnerable. Employers sometimes do not pay the full wage for several months but promise a worker that he will receive it on consensual termination of the contract. Wage fraud or the withholding of wage is so common that the term "good employer" refers simply to an employer who regularly and fully pays the agreed wages. Conversely, one meaning of the term 'slave labor' is unpaid work. "We are slaves because they do not pay us" a worker comments who was not paid at all for two months. If a confl ict over wages arises, and if there is evidence such as testimonies from colleagues or pictures from the construction site, workers can hope for an informal understanding or a settlement in court -usually, however, resulting in a much smaller sum than expected. Employers have also developed strategies to counter income-oriented mobility. In Echsberg, as in other towns, an informal compensation system has been established, whereby a pay rise of 0.40 to 1.00 euros per hour is promised to workers after half a year or a year. Employers also raise the price for changing workplaces by, for example, providing housing to the workers, who therefore face immediate homelessness if they leave their employer.
The classifi cation of work as income puts the focus on the expected wage and goes hand in hand with the assumption that the harder the work, the greater the revenue. One of the social eff ects of this classifi cation is that it makes hard work acceptable and plausible for workers. Another eff ect is the high degree of incomeoriented mobility with consequences in Echsberg and on larger scales. Employers take measures to counter the high mobility of workers by raising wages through time or by raising the price of a new job. However, work is not only the fi eld of relationships and income but is also a source of identity, as the next chapter shows.

Work as Identity
Where workers classify their work as a source of identity, the harshness of work in the German construction sector in itself is the reason why workers are willing to take it on. The symbolic gains from hard manual work are of central importance. Such an understanding of work is accompanied by a specifi c set of confl icts. Workers who classify their work as a source of pride rarely complain about the wage as long as it is in keeping with the local average. However, they do often complain about poor treatment, not least in the form of inappropriate housing.
In working societies, work is an essential part of identities. As Michèle Lamont (2000) demonstrates, blue-collar workers fi nd in their hard work a source of identity, pride, and morality, despite the low wages compared to white-collar workers. However, not much attention has been given to the symbolic gains migrant workers in particular may derive from their work abroad. This section demonstrates that if work is a source of identity, then a change towards a physically less stressful work -whether in another industry or elsewhere in the construction sector -might threaten an identity built on enduring hard work day in and day out.
A good example for this classifi cation is Cătălin, who was interviewed before and after his retirement at the age of 56. Around a year before his retirement, he says bluntly: "I am not afraid of work. I worked for years in the mines of the Jiu Valley in Romania. Every time I went into the mountain, I was ready to fi ght the mountain. The same here, in construction." He does not complain about hard work, neither in construction nor in the mines, but confronts it with physical readiness and pleasure. More importantly, he sees his work as a continuation of his time as a miner, formerly "socialist heroes" (Kideckel, 2004) and mythical fi gures who were rewarded not only with good payment but also with respect and pride for their highly dangerous occupation until the collapse of socialism in Romania. German construction sites off er a comparably risky environment and, like the mines, are sites of male sociability with a high sense of camaraderie. Against this background, when Cătălin speaks of 'slave labor,' he mainly criticizes poor housing conditions: "We live in a jungle, like slaves we live here. Did you see the toilets and the kitchens? That's how we are treated here!" With two showers and three toilets for 30 people, such housing conditions must appear as a grievous contrast to the symbolic status gained through work.
After being dismissed from a construction job at the age of 56, Cătălin decided to return to his small Moldavian village not far from the Ukrainian border, where a member of the team visited him. On a tour through the region, he presents, in a melancholic tone but with great pride, the rusty remains of a steel mill as a monument to the Romanian workers, which he says had been betrayed by politicians since the 1990s. Although retired, he continues to work. On his property, he explains: "I feel good. Now I can build this house here for my family. My kids pay for it, and I built it. My next-door neighbor is also building himself a new house, so we can build them together." Also, after his retirement, the hard, collective work continues, but under much better conditions -including respect from his family and better housing conditions. Like Cătălin, other workers also fi nd identity in their work in Germany. Cornel is one of them, he worked on construction sites all over Europe where he mostly laid rebar, one of the harshest tasks. Thick layers of callus cover the hands of this worker in his forties. Asked what good work means to him, he replies: "Since I was a child, I have only known hard work, I have never experienced good work." Yet during the interview he also criticized the use of rebar mats in Germany, where they are used as part of a rationalized workfl ow. Instead, he favors a hands-on approach to laying rebar of the kind he experienced in Greece, which he claims results in a higher quality of the work as well as developing the workers' skills.
Here, the self-image of a qualifi ed worker goes hand in hand with a focus on the quality of work.
The connection between a worker's identity and quality can also be observed in Mircea, a member of a larger crane operator network who also is in his late forties. When our conversation turned to wages and housing, he answers: "I've seen it all, the well-paid jobs as well as the badly paid jobs. I've slept in places like here, with three or more to a room and cockroaches in the kitchen, as well as in four-star hotels." However, other factors matter at work: "Good training of crane operators, respect, and recognition for the hard work in the crane. And fi nally, a passion, because without passion you cannot do this job." The standard by which he evaluates work is neither housing nor payment; instead, his focus is on the training and therefore on the quality of work. In this view, a worker's identity is derived from an inward connection with his work and a passion for it. 4 This interpretation is observable in their dormitories, where some workers evaluate each other according to it. There is a small Kiosk near the compound, to which many men head directly after their shift to enjoy a beer and a cigarette with their colleagues. With shirts white from the concrete dust and hands calloused from laying rebar, they tell each other about their daily output. Habitual drinkers are met with disdain, as do the younger, less experienced workers of whom it is rumored: "They're only here to make a quick buck. They spend all day looking at their smartphones instead of working." Other, less physically demanding occupations are held in similar contempt. Once two Romanian cleaners came for a visit, and when they were saying goodbye with the words "We have to be at work tomorrow at 8:00 a.m." a worker replies: "That's bogus, that's not real work. At 8:00, I've already been working for two hours." In this culturally embedded classifi cation of work, hard work is evaluated as part of one's own identity as a skillful, strong, diligent, and steady worker who is passionate about his work. Occasionally, the hard worker is portrayed with attributes of the bravado. This results in the valuing of hard manual work instead over supposedly easier ways of earning money as well as in the evaluation of workers according to this image. Older workers in particular connect this picture with an idealized image of Romania's communist period.

Work as Normalcy
In the fi nal pattern, work is classifi ed by workers as part of their normalcy. In this interpretation of work, what is central is not a relationship, income, or identity, but rather the idea of work as an integral and indispensable part of life. While work is seen as a source of health, anyone who could work but doesn't is held in low regard by society. In this interpretation of work, it seems more plausible for workers to fi nd a new position after being dismissed instead of drawing sickness or unemployment benefi ts.
This pattern is observable when workers lose their job, as happens often in Echsberg, where it has been known for workers to be unlawfully dismissed by phone. When a member of his team helped Cosmin, who had broken his midfoot, to fi ll out a sickness benefi ts calculation form, his employer called. He told the worker that he need not bother turning up for work again. When the call ended, Cosmin unsuccessfully tried to reach a colleague who is also a well-known intermediary. When no one answered, he asked the team member what he should do, because he had to fi nd new work. Despite his broken foot and although sickness benefi ts can be paid for up to 78 weeks -a fact of which Cosmin, who had had many accidents, was aware -his fi rst reaction was to search for a new job.
The same classifi cation can be observed some weeks later, when Cosmin was hospitalized because of complications. When he discussed the idea of leaving to spend Christmas with his family, which he hadn't seen for around 10 months, a team member translated the doctors' questions "What is your plan after Christmas?" to him and received as an answer: "If I get better, I'll come back to Germany for work, isn't that normal?" The answer underlines the importance of work in his life as part of everyday normalcy. The fi rst segment stresses that as soon as he is healthy again, he will return to the work environment that caused his injury. In the second segment, his answer shows the question itself does not make much sense to him, because it is "normal" to go to work whenever you are able to. What is striking is also what is not explicitly mentioned here: neither does he say he wants to enjoy more time with his family when he has recovered, nor does he cite reasons like income or identity for wanting to go back to work, since work itself is the reason why someone should work.
The interpretation of work as an unquestioned element of everyday normalcy echoes in the justifi cation workers give when asked why they have signed a contract with a specifi c company known for exploitation: "What should I do? You have to work." This pattern can also be found among those who cannot work due to illness.
After years of heavy work, Dumitru suff ers from extreme back pain due to multiple herniated discs and currently receives sick benefi ts. In the interview, the fi fty-year-old worker explains that when he worked, he was not in need of a gym or sports, because what he did all day was exercise enough. He thus stresses the health eff ects of work as well as implying that, if someone works, no further recreational fi tness is necessary to stay healthy. By the same token, if regular sport is necessary for a healthy life, then work is viewed as an acceptable substitute. The essential importance work has for him emerges once again at the end of the interview, when he regrets his inability to work with tears in his eyes. His only wish is to work again one day, no matter what the salary is or his position on the construction site. Like Dumitru, Lucian, a worker in his forties, wants to work again one day. He invests a considerable part of his welfare payments in consulting doctors, hoping that one of them will be able to treat his condition. He is upset that workers make fun of him by saying he is on holiday in Germany. He angrily replies: "This is my work now; my work is to fi nd a treatment so that I can work again." His main goal is to restore his health so that he can work again, and to be healthy is associated with the ability to work.
However, this idea of work relates to an idea of a working society. Another worker, Adrian, who is currently sick, describes what would happen if the police encountered him on the street on weekdays: "Papers for inspection! How do you support yourself?" and if the worker cannot produce suffi cient documents, the policemen are doubly suspicious: "So you steal, huh?" Being without a job raises suspicions of deviance and makes it seem legitimate that police should check passers-by for no apparent reason. This is only understandable against the backdrop of an imagined society in which work is the norm, is equated with normalcy. For this worker, such a society was once a given: "Even the blind worked under Ceausescu. They had work, now they don't even have a pension." In rural Romania, which is where many of the workers migrating to Germany come from, work is also considered an essential part of normalcy. The small village of Setul-Mic is home to three workers currently working in Echsberg. The village has a rich history of work. Several industrial sites guaranteed work for all inhabitants until many were made redundant after the revolution, causing many to seek work abroad. Remus, a local villager in his forties who never went abroad, talks about his 16-hour workdays and highlights that "If you do not work, your mind goes up to the mountain and you go crazy." Like in Echsberg, long working days are not considered cause for complaint, but rather seen as necessary for good mental health. A typical workday of Dana, a worker's wife of 49 years, also lasts for 16 hours, including eight hours in a small store, after which she assists in wedding venues and gardens. She clearly distinguishes between work as a normalcy and work for other reasons, as fi eld notes on a conversation reveal: "Me: 'I saw at City Hall that if someone gets welfare, their names are public'. She: 'Yes, there are two or three here who get it. But actually, everybody works here. And after work, then it depends on what you want. I have a colleague at work, after work she puts her feet up and drinks. She doesn't want to work, but she doesn't get anything then either'." For Dana, there are three classes of people: First there are those who are without work and receive social security benefi ts, with their names published as if they were deviants. Second, there is her colleague who works regular hours in the shop but relaxes afterwards, and third, there are people like her who work extra hours above the norm to earn additional income.
In this pattern, work is classifi ed as normalcy, as an indispensable part of everyday life, while being without work is seen as unhealthy or as deviant. This interpretation of work comes with social eff ects. In the German context, it results in workers looking for a new job immediately after being fi red, regardless of whether they are sick or entitled to unemployment benefi ts. Since the priority is to have work instead of a well-paid or prestigious position, this heightens the acceptance of poorly paid and poorly regarded positions amongst those that are accessible to Romanian workers. In the context of a Romanian village, however, fi ndings indicate a negative attitude towards non-working people. Thus, simply to have a job, even if it is 'slave labor' in Germany, guarantees a better position within the local community than that held by those who do not work and are at the bottom of the social hierarchy.

Conclusion
This paper reconstructed four work classifi cations among Romanian construction workers in Germany. Each classifi cation off ers a diff erent rationale for hard work under harsh conditions: drudgery may be interpreted as the fulfi llment of duties within a relationship or as necessary for economic revenue; hard work itself can be a symbolic contribution to one's own sense of identity or it can have the meaning of being part of everyday normalcy. Those categorizations are embodied as well as embedded in the everyday life of workers -not only in the German context with its dormitories but also within the Romanian context and its history of labor. These classifi cations are part of the symbolic net reaching from Romanian villages to German construction sites. As the chosen examples have demonstrated, the relationship between the elements of this network is sometimes confl ictual: in one case, workers who derived their identity from their work ridiculed others whom they accused of only wanting to make money. On the other hand, the worker's wife respects those who work more to earn more, and she is dismissive of her co-worker who works only normal hours. It follows that while the classifi cations each have their clear, unique position in the network, the ways in which they relate to other classifi cations demonstrate that they are part of the fi eld and exist in the actors' cultural repertoire. The classifi cations unfold their power as workers interpret their work through them, resulting in fi eld-specifi c social eff ects.
The creation of plausibility and thereby of vulnerability are the two intertwined social eff ects of these classifi cations that contribute to the ongoing labor exploitation of Romanian construction workers in Germany. As demonstrated, each of the deeply embedded work classifi cations off ers a diff erent reason to make hard work plausible in the eyes of the workers. Without direct physical coercion, these ideas motivate workers to take on work that they themselves criticize as 'slave labor.' At the same time, employers actively exploit workers' interpretations, leaving them vulnerable. For instance, if an employer reminds his workers of their indebtedness to him, he is trying to turn a work classifi cation which acknowledges personal relationships into a mechanism of vulnerability. This is not to argue that the exploitation of migrant workers is based solely on their classifi cations or that they have themselves to blame for it. On the contrary, it is of utmost importance to analyze actors like subcontractors and general contractors, local authorities and the German state, as well as structures such as labor and welfare laws to get a clear picture of modern labor exploitation. What this paper argues is that in the specifi c context of these workers, social classifi cations of work play a crucial role, their social eff ects, among others, consisting in rendering them vulnerable. Without the recognition of such classifi cations and their social eff ects, our understanding of labor exploitation remains incomplete, failing to account for the workers' own interpretation.
Multiple work classifi cations are present in the fi eld and actors refer to these classifi cations. Some elements of the workers' interpretations reach back to rural Romania and to Romanian labor history itself. This indicates workers do not, as it were, travel alone, but carry their social classifi cations with them.