Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
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. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
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
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
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
Job quality, Average tenure and Employment Security, 1996 * Data refer to 1991 Source: ILO, OECD, EU ILO:EMP/ANALYSIS, June 2003
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
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
Job tenure and job quality (ranking), 1996 Coefficients are significant at 5% level Source: Based on Eurostat, Economic Commission ILO:EMP/ANALYSIS, June 2003
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
Distribution of Employment by Class of Tenure, Percent Share, 2001 A B C Based on Eurostat ILO:EMP/ANALYSIS, June 2003
Transition rates (temp to perm jobs) and Tenure, 1995-1998 C B A Source: Based on Eurostat ILO:EMP/ANALYSIS, June 2003
Transition rates (low to higher quality) and Tenure, 1995-1998 C A B Based on Eurostat ILO:EMP/ANALYSIS, June 2003
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
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
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