1 / 14

Employment Tenure, Security & Job Quality Analysis

Explore the resilience of long-term jobs and the impact of tenure on employment security and job quality, with a focus on policy implications and national employment models.

oliver-nichols
Download Presentation

Employment Tenure, Security & Job Quality Analysis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Employment tenure, employment security and labour market policies • Points for discussion • The resilience of the long term job, but some changes • Tenure, employment security and job quality • The paradox of tenure and perceived employment security • Tenure and mobility • Protected and unprotected mobility • Conclusions ILO:EMP/ANALYSIS, June 2003

  2. Average employment tenure*, 1992 and 2002 *Ranked by year 2002 (a) Data from 1998 (b) Data from 2001 Source: Based on Eurostat ILO:EMP/ANALYSIS, June 2003

  3. Distribution of employment by class of tenure (%) (a) Data refer to 2001 * For the US data refer to 1991 instead of 1992. For Japan data refer to 1998 instead of 2002 ** Change from 1995 to 2002 instead of 1992 – 2002. *** Without Austria. AAC = Average Annual Change Source : Own calculations based on Eurostat and national sources ILO:EMP/ANALYSIS, June 2003

  4. Job quality, Average tenure and Employment Security, 1996 * Data refer to 1991 Source: ILO, OECD, EU ILO:EMP/ANALYSIS, June 2003

  5. Job insecurity and tenure (ranking), 1996 High Low High Note: Coefficients are not significant Source: Data supplied by International Survey research, OECD, Eurostat and national sources ILO:EMP/ANALYSIS, June 2003

  6. Job insecurity and job quality (ranking), 1996 Note: the coefficients are significant at 5% level Source: Data supplied by International Survey research OECD, Economic commission ILO:EMP/ANALYSIS, June 2003

  7. Job tenure and job quality (ranking), 1996 Coefficients are significant at 5% level Source: Based on Eurostat, Economic Commission ILO:EMP/ANALYSIS, June 2003

  8. Job insecurity and Labour Market Policies, 2000 High Low High Coefficients are significant at 5% level worried = percentage worried about the future of their company, unsure = percentage unsure of a job with their company even if they perform well Note: job insecurity is the average percentage among worried and unsure people. Source: Data supplied by International Survey research, cited from OECD ILO:EMP/ANALYSIS, June 2003

  9. Distribution of Employment by Class of Tenure, Percent Share, 2001 A B C Based on Eurostat ILO:EMP/ANALYSIS, June 2003

  10. Transition rates (temp to perm jobs) and Tenure, 1995-1998 C B A Source: Based on Eurostat ILO:EMP/ANALYSIS, June 2003

  11. Transition rates (low to higher quality) and Tenure, 1995-1998 C A B Based on Eurostat ILO:EMP/ANALYSIS, June 2003

  12. Different employment systems in 2001 Note: Countries are clustered by tenure distribution, therefore some with high employment rates are in group A (Swe, Port.) and one (Fin) is in group B. This would be different, if another cluster criteria would be used. Source: Based on Eurostat ILO:EMP/ANALYSIS, June 2003

  13. High social protection Low social protection High employment protection France (EPL21 / SP08) (AT11.1 / S16) Germany, Sweden Japan (EPL25* / SP24) (AT12 / S25) Portugal, Greece, Italy, Spain Low employment protection Denmark (EPL08 / SP01) (AT8.3 / S02) Belgium, (Netherlands), Finland, Ireland United States (EPL01 / SP25) (AT6.6 / S21) United Kingdom Employment protection or Employability protection Rank 1: EPL strictness, 1 = less strict, 26 = most strict (*Estimation for Japan) Rank 2: SP = Expenditures for labour market policy, 1 = highest, 25 = lowest; Rang 3: S = Employment security indicator, 1 = most secure, 26 = least secure. AT= Average employment tenure (years) Source: OECD, Eurostat ILO:EMP/ANALYSIS, June 2003

  14. Employment tenure, employment security and labour market policies • Conclusions • Tenure alone seems not enough for transmitting employment security • Medium tenure, combined with “protected mobility” seems to yield best perceived security, good labour market performance and also good job quality • Tenure and productivity • What are the policy implications? • Caveats: • analysis has to be refined and does not imply strong causal relationships • Difficulties of transposing national employment models: shaped by national policies, culture and institutions • stability and flexibility instead of flexibility alone • Trade-off between EP and LMP: enlarged bargaining agenda and changed legal rules? • More and/or better LMP for flexibility and security ILO:EMP/ANALYSIS, June 2003

More Related