Labour Market security in between employment protection and social protection

Transcription

1 Labour Market security in between employment protection and social protection Peter Auer, ILO Discussion points Job-,employment-, and labour market security Internal and external flexibility Worker and Employer oriented flexibility Paradoxes of flexi-curity Conclusions 1

2 From Job- to labour market security Time Job security* employment security** labour market security*** * Protection of a job/task ** Protection of employment within single firms but not on any particular job *** Protection of employment combined with social protection (LM policy, social rights) 2

3 Different ways to organize flexibility.. Numerical Flexibility Functional Flexibility External Flexibility Internal Flexibility Hiring/firing Temporary jobs (including temporary agencies) PT jobs Working time reductions/ extensions (Alternative: wage flexibility) Outsourcing Insourcing Work organisation changes Polyvalent skills Working time arrangements (shift work, etc.) 3

4 Enterprise-and worker oriented flexibility in Europe High degree of worker oriented flexi** Low degree of worker oriented flexi High degree of enterprise oriented flexi* Low degree of enterprise oriented flexi NL (3,1), SWE, DK, FIN, DE (6,5) BE, IE [A(10,7)] UK (1,8) PT (15,15), LUX, ES, EL, IT, FR *PT work, atypical working time, telework, telecooperation, dismissal protection, involuntary temp jobs, MbO, enterprise training ** Voluntary PT, decision rights over WT, hometelework, possibilities for telework, perceived job security, tenure, decision making, lifelong learning Ranks from 1 to 15 on each of the 8 Indicators. High complementarity between both forms of flexibility. In brackets enterprise oriented flexibility and worker oriented flexibility ranks of countries Source: Gareis/Korte: ICTs and the Adaptability of Work arrangements in the EU- update 2002, empirica, Bonn 4

5 And flexibility is increasing Growth (92-02) of LT/PT:57,4% Growth of PT : 27,6% part-time temp jobs self emp total 5

6 But in a time of flexibility, overall employment stability is maintained Figure 1.1 Average Job Tenure in Years EU-15 for 1992 and United Kingdom Ireland Denmark Spain Austria Finland Germany Sweden Netherlands Luxembourg Italy France Belgium Portugal Greece EU 15 average: , ,74 (Japan 12 (2000), USA 6,9 (2004) 6

7 However the average hides some changes Gender gap closing? EU 14: men 11.3/11.0 women 9.5/9.8 (1996/2005) gap year (-0.6 years) Recentering on the core and polarization? (15-24) 2.0/2.0 (25-44) 7.8/8.4 (>45) 18.0/17.1 ( ) <1 Year 13.8/14.5 >10 Years 41.2/40.8 ( ) Flexibility in Services? (1996/2005) Manufacturing: 11.1/11.3 Public service: 10.9/11.4 Private services (e.g. trade/transport/communication/hotels) 9.4/9.3 Groups of workers affected differently Large country differences but no convergence: standard deviations increase 7

8 Effect of 1% increase in Share of Tenure Group on Firm Productivity The benefits of stability I: Employment Tenure is good for Productivity...up to a point Tenure-Productivity relationship Productivity Growth 4-10 years of tenure 1-4 years of tenure Less than 1 year of tenure Kramarz and Roux, Productivity EUROS tenure (years) Auer/Berg/Coulibaly,

9 The benefits of tenure II:Employment insecurity and tenure Unit ed st at es Unit ed Kingdom Net herlands Denmark Spain Fr ance Ger many Finland Ireland Japan Port ugal Sweden It aly Belgium Gr eece Adj. R 2 = Average tenure (years) Note: Coefficients are not significant Source: Data supplied by International Survey Research (cited in OECD, 2001 Eurostat and national sources 9

10 Labour Market Policies and insecurity R 2 = High Job insecurity (%) Japan Portugal United States Greece United Kingdom Italy Austria Spain France Sw eden Germany Belgium Finland 30 Netherlands Ireland Denmark Low Public expenditures ( % GDP) in LM P 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. Data for Ireland Source: OECD 10

11 Conclusions: Flexicurity: balancing employment stability, flexibility and security yielding labour market security. Rights and duties for the different actors: individuals, unions, employers, state No one size fits all, but common principles. (Medium level) employment security + internal flexibility Combined with high level of «activated» and innovative social security to protect mobility Old and new social rights with impact on flexibility/security Complementarity between worker and company oriented flexibility Tripartite Social dialogue on labour market security underpinning ESM, Lisbon agenda, the EES and contributing to decent work. 11

12 Economic, labour market and social performance Country groupings Greece, Luxembourg, Italy, Belgium, Portugal, Sweden France, Germany, Finland, Spain Denmark, the Netherland Ireland, United Kingdom (C+ = DK and NL) A B C C+ Average Tenure** Ratio -1year/+10years of tenure** Employment Protection Strictness, regular jobs Productivity level and growth (1990U$ and 1980=100) 28U$ 158 Poverty and Inequality (below50%median and Gini) :4.2 1:2.2 1:1.6 1: * U$ U$ 32.5 U$ Expenditure on EMP/ANALYSIS labour market policies 2007(per 1% of unemployment) Employment rates for Employment rates for Employment rates for Employment rates women Share of temporary jobs Share of part-time jobs Total unemployment rate Youth unemployment rate Long-term unemployment rate