minutes of the nace/cpa committee - circabc.europa.eu · web view6-7 october 2010 – luxembourg....

Doc. ISCO/10/09

Minutes of the Task Force "Implementation of ISCO-08"6-7 October 2010 – Luxembourg

Agenda point

Presentation Opinions Conclusions

1 Adoption of the agenda

A. Franco opened the Task Force meeting, briefly outlining the agenda points foreseen.

The latest ESSC meeting has approved the ESeC ESS-net. The Task Force will dedicate time to a brief discussion in the ISCO-08 workshop on 19 November 2010.

Document(s):

Doc. ISCO/10/05 - Agenda

D. Hunter, already having received input worldwide on the introductory guidelines to ISCO-08, asked for comments from the EU countries.

Adding a brief discussion on the subjects to be treated on the ISCO-08 workshop on 19 November 2010 and on the introductory guidelines to ISCO-08, the draft agenda was adopted without further amendments.

2 Problems of borderlines between ISCO-08 Groups

The Task Force conducted an in-depth analysis of the borderlines problems between ISCO-08 Groups.

For further details see document ISCO/10/06.

Document(s):

Doc. ISCO/10/06 - Implementation of ISCO-08

The ILO is considering – as a future project – to elaborate implementation guidelines for the use of ISCO-08 at national level.

The elaboration of implementation guidelines will be discussed at the ISCO-08 workshop on 19 November 2010.

1

Doc. ISCO/10/09

Agenda point


Traditional and complementary medicine professionals (2230) and Traditional and complementary medicine associate professionals (3230)

How do we make the difference between Groups 2230 (traditional and complementary medicine professionals) and 3230 (traditional and complementary medicine associate professionals) occupations when no formal health qualification is indicated along with a denomination?

§ 197,198 and 199 of the ISCO-08 introductory guidelines provide the answer.

Domestic housekeepers (5152) and Domestic cleaners and helpers (9111)

In the two unit Groups there is a certain overlapping of the tasks. How should these be distinguished?

See proposed solution as laid out in document ISCO/10/06.

2.1.3 Chefs (3434); Cooks (5120); Fast food preparers (9411) and Kitchen helpers (9412)

Where is the border line among the ISCO-08 Groups: 3434 Chefs, 5120 Cooks, 9411 Fast food preparers and 9412 Kitchen helpers?

Fast food preparers sometimes rotate and can for instance work as cashiers.


2.1.4 Early childhood educators (2342) and Child care workers (5311)

Explanation of the notion “below primary school” is needed for the appropriate classification of those taking care of children up to 3 years old in crèche, who perform similar (or a mixture of) tasks like those in 2342 and in 5311. In these institutions work nannies as well as more qualified care


2

Doc. ISCO/10/09

Agenda point


workers.

2.1.5 Mine manager (1322) and Mine deputy (3121)

Mine manager - 1322 and Mine deputy - 3121) perform the same, or nearly the same, tasks as directors.

D. Hunter mentioned that the use of language can vary from industry to industry and from country to country in terms of cultural differences.

Sweden pointed at problems in relation to the answers obtained in surveys, which could require additional questions for clarification.


A set of harmonised questions to help identify supervisors or managers could be defined and tested by the ESeC ESS-net.

2.1.6 Mixed crop and animal producers (613) and Subsistence mixed crop and livestock farmers (633)

The criterion used in NACE Rev. 2 may be used to distinguish mixed crop and livestock farmers from others such as stated below:

NACE Rev. 2: “This class includes the combined production of crops and animals without a specialised production of crops or animals. The size of the overall farming operation is not a determining factor. If either production of crops or animals in a given unit is 66% or more of standard gross margins, the combined activity should not be included here, but allocated to crop or animal farming".

§ 211 – 215 of the ISCO-08 introductory guidelines are more appropriate.

2.1.7 Market-oriented skilled agricultural workers (Sub-Major Group 61) and Subsistence farmers, fishers, hunters and gatherers (Sub-Major Group 63)

It is clear that some farmers in the European Union

D. Hunter agreed that in countries that have subsistence workers, it would be justified to ask additional questions, to identify these workers.


In countries that have subsistence workers, it may be justified to ask additional questions, to identify these workers as proposed in § 257 of the ISCO-08 introductory guidelines.

3

Doc. ISCO/10/09

Agenda point


could be considered close to a situation of agricultural subsistence (in France, in particular in overseas communities); it is necessary that a European-wide standard is proposed (possibly the removal of the category, as was the case in ISCO-88(COM)). On the question of criteria, China cited the use of motorised machines as a criterion for making a local distinction in its classification. Could other criteria be proposed?

2.1.8 Skilled agricultural, forestry and fishery workers (Major Group 6) and Elementary occupations (Major Group 9)

Regarding agricultural occupations, questions may arise on the skill criterion for distinguishing between skilled workers (Major Group 6) and unskilled workers (Major Group 9).

Part of the solution could be to classify farm owners in Major Group 6 on the ground they use managerial and supervisory skills.

France asked for the distinction in treatment between self-employed farmers as opposed to farm owners (not participation in the work on the farm) who let somebody else carry out the work on the farm. Furthermore the work by family members should be considered.

The Netherlands proposed to make the distinction between Major Groups 6 and 9, based on the training received.

Austria pointed at the need for an overview of key concepts of ISCO-08, in the form they have been elaborated for classifications like ISIC/NACE and CPC/CPA.

Self-employed farmers who work on the farm should be classified to ISCO-08 Major Group 6.

The ILO will add some words that limited training (for Major Group 9) is required to fulfil the tasks, stressing the fact that simple and routine tasks are concerned, including the use of hand held mechanical tools.

Farmers and farm managers should not be classified to Major Group 1 unless they are managers of agricultural production in large agricultural establishments such as a large coffee plantation. They are likely to be rare in Western Europe.

The ILO agreed to make a presentation of the key concepts of ISCO-08 at the ISCO-08 workshop on 19 November 2010.

2.1.9 Assemblers (Sub-Major Group 82) and Labourers in mining, construction, manufacturing and transport (Sub-Major Group 93)

At present, within the Major Groups of manual occupations, in France, it seems particularly hard to distinguish “Assemblers” (Sub-Major Group 82)

France stated that a distinction could be made using a job skill variable.

Spain added that an assembler needs certain training, taking motor vehicle assembly as and example.

D. Hunter mentioned that some countries have additional skill levels, usually by splitting ISCO skill level 2 which is quite broad.

The , main distinction between “assemblers” (Sub-Major Group 82) and labourers in manufacturing (Sub-Major Group 93) is that the work performed by assemblers involves relatively complex assembly component parts, whereas work performed by labourers typically involves movement of materials, packing by hand and cleaning up. Any assembly work is of

4

Doc. ISCO/10/09

Agenda point


from labourers in manufacturing (Sub-Major Group 93).

Moreover, one could envisage the definition of a variable for job skill level to help coding when job title is too vague.

a simple and routine nature. The ILO will add in the introductory guidelines

some details on the distinction between Major Groups 7, 8 and 9.

2.1.10 Engineering professionals (excluding electro technology) (214), Electro technology engineers (215), Software and applications developers and analysts (251) and Database and network professionals (252)

How to classify all the detailed occupations regarding Minor Groups 214 and 215 (engineering professionals) and in addition 251 and 252 (ICT professionals) when the information is lacking?

It was proposed to use only a 3digit level if it is difficult to distinguish between the occupations in the last digit. When even this is not possible, what should then be done? Use 2510, 2520 or 0000? Could we have a common European guideline here?

Another problem concerning ICT professionals and ICT technicians: in a small enterprise or organisation, one person may do a lot of tasks, which directs us to three or more occupations. Where is the occupation to be classified, if the main occupation cannot be defined?

Issue to be discussed at European level what to do with vague codes only at 2- or 3-digit level). A common rule for coding is needed. The aspect of the dissemination of the data should also be considered.

The topic will be discussed at the ISCO-08 workshop on 19 November 2010.

Programmers are now classified in 2514 and some of them are possibly not appropriate to be classified in MG2. Adding a task to the definition of unit Group 3512, to reflect the work performed by programming assistants could clarify this issue.

D. Hunter will consider providing more examples in paragraphs related to the case where jobs involve performance of atypical combinations of tasks.

5

Doc. ISCO/10/09

Agenda point


2.1.11 Environmental engineers (2143), Environmental and occupational health and hygiene professionals (2263) and Environmental and occupational health inspectors and associates (3257)

How to distinguish Environmental engineers (2143) Environmental and occupational health and hygiene professionals (2263) and Environmental and occupational health inspectors and associates (3257)? A common rule/guideline: inspectors in 3 and researchers and planners in 2?

Sweden mentioned that 2133 is also a Group with unclear borderlines with the other Groups mentioned.

An environmental engineer in 2143 performs engineering tasks (developing and designing products) aiming at improving the environment.

2263 covers occupations monitoring the impact of environment on human health, at work or anywhere else, for example radiation protection experts.

2133 focuses on preserving the natural environment.

A paragraph in the introductory guidelines will be added to better understand the distinction.

2.1.12 Mining, manufacturing and construction supervisors (312) and Process control technicians (313).

ISCO-08 has created the new Minor Groups, 312 Mining, manufacturing and construction supervisors and 313 Process control technicians.

The first devoted to the co-ordination and control of the activities of workers in 3 sectors (manufacturing, mining and construction); the second, devoted to 5 plant operator (Incinerator & water treatment plant operators, Chemical processing plant controllers, Petroleum & natural gas refining plant operators, Metal production process controllers).

From the correspondence tables we see that some of the ‘old’ (ISCO-88) plant operators or assemblers of Major Group 8 have been ‘promoted’ to Major Group 3 (in ISCO-08), even though 4 of the 5 plant operators of Major Group 3 have a corresponding operator in Major Group 8 (see table 1).

Job titles do not always enable a distinction. The distinction between Major Groups 3 and 8 is

primarily based on identifying if the work is mainly intellectual or mainly physical.

The ILO will improve the ISCO-08 index in order to bring about a clearer distinction between Major Groups 3 and 8, based on the type of machinery operated.

6

Doc. ISCO/10/09

Agenda point


The reason for these new Minor Groups could be easy to understand: the technological progress has introduced such a complexity both on the work organisation and on the plants used, to upgrade the skills required to perform the occupation.

Nevertheless, the ISCO decision leaves some questions:

1. Is it feasible (for us or for the classification user) to separate the two type of plant operators (Major Group 3 or 8)? With ISCO-88 it was very simple: the conduction of a plant/machine leads us directly to Major Group 8. Now we have to make a further step and understand the type of plant the worker operates. The single versus the multifunction process control machinery and equipment seems to us quite difficult to catch.

2. Are we sure that the five sectors (power production, incinerator, chemical process, petroleum and metal production) are exhaustive? See for examples the construction sectors and the jumbo machine operating for the tunnel construction.

3. In the real world, where the main duty is to organise at best the human resources, the boundaries between a supervisor, whose main duty is to organise at best the human resources, and a process control technician, whose duty is rather a technical control of the production process are clear. In the Italian labour market the two functions (technical and organisational) are usually joined together in a single occupation.

7

Doc. ISCO/10/09

Agenda point


2.1.13 General office clerks (4110), Secretaries (general) (4120) Contact centre information clerks (4222) Enquiry clerks (4225)

It seems that the clerical occupations performed in the Italian labour market melt the work activities of different categories of Major Group 4. Hence, it could be difficult for instance to take 4110 apart from 4120 or 4222 and 4225.

If this is a general problem for the EU Member States, we should agree on a common way to proceed, as the commission regulation No 430/2005 of 15 March 2005 says that occupation ISCO-88 (COM) should be coded at 3 or if possible 4 digit level.

Spain mentioned that 5244 is also a Group with unclear borderlines with the other Groups mentioned.

A secretary is focused on documentation tasks, A clerk mainly carries out administrative tasks,

in accordance with an established procedure. In 4222 work is carried out by using the

telephone or computer in a centralised place, dealing with several companies.

In 4225, contact with customers can also be personal and they work for a single company.

In 5244 the aim is mainly to sell something. Some extra clarifications between these Groups

could be added in the introductory guidelines.

2.1.14 Sports coaches, instructors and officials (3422) and Fitness and recreation instructors and program leaders (3423)

What is the distinction between 3422 and 3423?

Ski instructor and swim instructors are in 3422 and sailing instructors, horse riding instructors and underwater diving instructors are in 3423.

The emphasis for 3422 is for competition, whereas for 3423 is for recreation.

2.1.15 Fruit, vegetable and related preservers (7514) and Food and related products machine operators (including “canning machine operator“) (8160)

If, for a particular occupation, I have to choose between a unit Group of the Major Group 7 "Craft and related trades workers" and a unit Group of the

In Major Group 7 the work is predominantly manual (although some machines can be used occasionally), whereas in Major Group 8 the work is predominantly machine based.

The ILO will add material to the introductory guidelines to clarify the borderlines between Major Groups 7 and 8.

8

Doc. ISCO/10/09

Agenda point


Major Group 8 "Plant and machine operators and assemblers", I sometimes ask certain economic organisations or enterprises whether the working processes involved are for the most part carried out manually or by machine. On the basis of the information provided, I then apply the ISCO recoding. But this procedure does not always lead to a clear allocation for problems of this kind. The same problem applies to the following unit Groups:

7533 Sewing, embroidery and related workers8153 Sewing machine operators

7535 Pelt dressers, tanners and fellmongers8155 Fur and leather preparing machine operators

7536 Shoemakers and related workers8156 Shoemaking and related machine operators

How do we classify a generalist medical practitioner (=someone who has completed the corresponding university degree) who practices its profession with an alternative, traditional o complementary orientation?

- 2211 Generalist medical practitionersor - 2230 Traditional and complementary medicine professionals

In Hungary, Netherlands, Italy, Austria and Bulgaria traditional or alternative medicine practitioners need to have also a diploma in western medicine.

As for France and Sweden the situation needs to be clarified.

Spain stated that there are some restrictions: the use of the word “Médico” and some of the tasks in code 2230 are restricted to graduated professionals in modern medicine (independently of the final orientation they apply, modern or complementary). A part from that the uses of titles like the ones used in 2230 and 3230 are completely free (without requirements) and do not have a clear meaning in terms of neither tasks actually performed nor skill level.

National regulations in the field of traditional and complementary medicine professionals may vary.

When a generalist medical practitioner also is working as traditional and complementary medicine professional the rule of prevalence should be applied, resulting in either 2211 or 2230.

Those who declare themselves doctors in traditional medicine should be coded on 2230.

9

Doc. ISCO/10/09

Agenda point


Where to classify lawyer-candidates going through his probation? Do they belong to 2611 or 2619?

As indicated in § 176 of the introductory guidelines, a lawyer candidate is classified in 2611.

Where to classify the Inspectors of high level? Where to classify the high level staff without leadership functions of the safety and policeman forces? An important part of their jobs is a scientific-research oriented job and most have tertiary education. It does not look appropriate to classify them in Group 3355, but there is no suitable Group in Major Group 2.

According to the general rule these inspectors should be classified with the equivalent occupation outside the police force.

Depending on the tasks performed a proportion of such jobs should classified to 2422 or (for ICT specialists) in 2529.

Where to classify those who work at waterworks, operate, maintain, control and repair of water supply systems. We find similar occupations among engineers, technicians (3132) but we are not quite sure.

Those who work at waterworks, operate, maintain, control and repair of water supply systems are classified to 3132.

How to treat persons who work as "pizzaiolo" (i.e. a person who prepares pizza).


Where can we classify “Head of department” in universities? For example, head of department of statistics.


Where to classify bank intelligence officer and similar occupations?

Ask the requester for further clarifications.

10

Doc. ISCO/10/09

Agenda point


Where to classify workers in travel agencies at higher level?


Where to classify convenors who are core workers in trade unions? Could it be 3411 Legal and related associate professionals, because convenors’ work is closer to legal work (34) or any other Sub-Major Groups in 3?

These convenors are most likely classified to 2422 – to be verified.

The ISCO-08 index will include convenors.

Where to classify emergency call operators and rescue leaders? Perhaps 3521 could be used, but it is probably focused on technical aspects.

Rescue leaders could be classified to 1349 but the exact definition of their tasks should be clarified.

Emergency call operators are classified to 4222.

It is clear in the ISCO-08 that carpenters and joiners who cut, shape, assemble, erect, maintain and repair various types of structures and fittings made from wood and other materials, are classified under 7115.

Where should we classify similar professionals who cut, shape, assemble and fit iron or aluminium structures and fittings (doors, windows, etc.)?

Cutting, shaping, assembly of iron or aluminium structures and fittings (doors, windows, etc.) is classified to 7115. These are often referred to as metal or PVC carpenters.

The ILO will do some further research and come back with final comments.

Where to classify a medical doctor if he/she is head of section in the hospital? In which Group it should be classified – 1342 or 221?

If they perform mostly management tasks they should be classified in 1342.

Where do we classify wellness occupations like wellness trainers, wellness and vital coaches, wellness coaches, yoga trainers, shiatsu practitioners etc.? Where is the borderline between

Massage therapists are classified in 3255. Relaxation massage will be added to 5142 Entries will be modified in the ISCO-08 index to

distinguish "relaxation" from "therapeutic"

11

Doc. ISCO/10/09

Agenda point


wellness and health? massage. "Yoga trainers" are classified with recreational

trainers in unit Group 3423.

Scrap merchants are mentioned in the explanatory notes in 9612. We believe that the scrap merchants have other tasks than refuse sorters that are classified in 9612. Is the classification in 9612 correct?

As scrap merchants of different levels probably exist the reference to "scrap merchants" will be removed from 9612.

Can you give us some examples for occupations classified in 2422?


The entry "Researcher, health: policy" will be removed from this Group in the ISCO-08 index.

For this Group some similar occupations in the private sector need to be added to the ISCO-08 index.

Can you give us some examples for occupations classified in 2143?


The list of occupations provided in the document concerning Group 2143 will be completed with new examples from the ISCO-08 index.

What is the borderline between 1349 van 1439? Some extra questions from Norway were raised by Sweden

The borderlines are dealt with in the notes for Sub-Major Group 14. A similar note will be added to 1349 and 1439.

What is the borderline between 2635 and 3412? Those in 2635 frequently provide formal counselling services and/or have decision-making powers or provide recommendations to

12

Doc. ISCO/10/09

Agenda point


courts and other legal proceedings, or similar levels of discretion. Generally this requires a skill level 4 and relevant formal education.

Those classified to Major Group 3 do not have the authority of those classified to Major Group 2 and their tasks are mostly of providing support.

Some clarifications should be provided on Group 7111 - house builders

The definitions of 7111 were considered complete and no need for extra clarifications was considered necessary.

3 Scope of the armed forces

The question of the scope of the armed forces occupations was discussed in the November 2009 workshop and in the last Task Force meeting.

The conclusion was that more information was needed on how the different Member States were treating this Group of occupations and on the limitations that they have to decide which approach to propose for a harmonised classification.

Therefore, the following question was addressed to all Member States:

"Are you able to identify in your country the non-strictly military occupations in the armed forces (doctors, cooks, secretaries, etc)? If not could you please explain why?"

The majority of the countries tend to have a preference for classifying armed force occupations which have an equivalent among civilian

The Netherlands mentioned that activity is not coded during the interview therefore those working in NACE 8422 cannot be identified for additional questions.

Use the definition "if member of the armed force then ISCO code 0".

Use ancillary variables to identify possible members of the armed forces (information on the employer, economic activity of the local unit - 84.22 Defence…) and in the case the person self declare be something else, ask an extra question to verify if he/she is indeed a member of the armed forces.

The scope of the armed forces will be discussed at the ISCO-08 workshop on 19 November 2010.

13

Doc. ISCO/10/09

Agenda point


occupations (doctors, drivers, kitchen staff, etc) in the respective Groups corresponding to the tasks performed. Nevertheless, some countries classify all of them together either because they do not get enough information on the tasks performed to do a more precise classification, or for confidentiality reasons. Finally there are also countries which use both approaches depending on the sources.

Eurostat proposed the following:

Use the definition "if member of the armed force then ISCO code 0".

Use ancillary variables to identify possible members of the armed forces (information on the employer, economic activity of the local unit - 84.22 Defence…) and in the case the person self declare be something else, ask an extra question to verify if he/she is indeed a member of the armed forces.

The Task Force conducted an in-depth analysis of the comments received.

Document(s):


4 ISCO-08 Groups not used in the EU

During the last Task Force meeting, the question of ISCO-08 occupations which do not exist in EU

In general it is not possible to identify ISCO-08 Groups of occupations that do not exist in the EU countries.

This list can nevertheless be useful for the

14

Doc. ISCO/10/09

Agenda point


countries was raised. All Member States were consulted on this issue.

Eurostat proposed the following:

In general it is not possible to identify ISCO-08 Groups of occupations for which we can say that they do not exist in the EU countries.

This list can nevertheless be useful for the interpretation of the data and for the national statistical offices which can use it to identify errors in the codification (ex: if some of the codes in the list are coded) but this should be used with care and the country has to be absolutely sure that the occupation really do not exist.

The Task Force analysed the list of comments received.

Document(s):


interpretation of the data and for the national statistical offices which can use it to identify errors in the codification (ex: if some of the codes in the list are coded) but this should be used with care and the country has to be absolutely sure that the occupation really does not exist.

ISCO-08 introductory guidelines

The Task Force discussed the comments made by Austria, Spain, France and Bulgaria on the draft ISCO-08 introductory guidelines.

Document(s):

Doc. ISCO/10/07 - Draft introductory guidelines Doc. ISCO/10/A/01 - Comments from Austria on

draft ISCO-08 introductory guidelines Doc. ISCO/10/BE/01 - Comments from Belgium

The ISCO-08 introductory guidelines will be generally reviewed to reflect the comments made by Spain, Austria France and Belgium.

The issue of the armed forces will be mentioned in the introductory guidelines as the treatment of this Group is an exception to the general guidelines of ISCO.

Some more examples should be provided in the introductory guidelines. Austria will inform the ILO on where they think that more examples are needed.

The reference in § 14 to "are used" will be

15

Doc. ISCO/10/09

Agenda point


on draft ISCO-08 introductory guidelines Doc. ISCO/10/BG/02 - Comments from Bulgaria

on the ISCO-08 definitions Doc. ISCO/10/ES/01 - Comments from Spain on

draft ISCO-08 introductory guidelines Doc. ISCO/10/FR/01 - Comments from France

on draft ISCO-08 introductory guidelines

replaced by the wording "may be used". The ILO will amend the ISCO-08 introductory

guidelines to take on board the concerns relating to the use of ISCO-08 at national level, not excluding non-statistical use and a paragraph could be added on the fact that ISCO is not meant to be used for regulatory purposes.

References to the national adaptation of ISCO-08 should be included in the introduction. The ISCO-08 introduction should illustrate that in some cases priorities, in order to meet requirements for international comparability or national needs, have to be set.

The ILO will add some examples in terms of persons employed in jobs that require higher formal qualifications than those held by the job holder, for example a veterinarian who should be classified in Unit Group 2250 Veterinarians, whether or not that person holds formal qualifications. However the example provided should be one where national legislation could not be an obstacle.

Some explanations on the value of note examples and index titles, for determining the classification of an occupation, should be included in the introduction.

The text of § 70 could be clarified. The titles used in the ISCO-08 index and in the

definitions may not necessarily be consistent with the use in a national context.

The ILO will add some words concerning voluntary work in the scope of ISCO-08.

§ 188 should be "softened" in order not to close the door concerning the use of ancillary information such as the size of the organisation.

§ 173 will be amended as follows: "in cases where the tasks and duties performed require

16

Doc. ISCO/10/09

Agenda point


skills usually obtained through different levels of training and experience, jobs should be classified in accordance with those tasks and duties which require the highest level of skills where these tasks are a significant component of the job".

5 Correspondence table between ISCO-88 (COM) and ISCO-08

Document(s):

Doc. ISCO/10/06 - Implementation of ISCO-08 Doc. ISCO/10/07 - Draft introductory guidelines Doc. ISCO/10/08 - Correspondence table ISCO-

88 COM - ISCO-08 Doc. ISCO/10/A/01 - Comments from Austria on

draft ISCO-08 introductory guidelines Doc. ISCO/10/BE/01 - Comments from Belgium

on draft ISCO-08 introductory guidelines Doc. ISCO/10/ES/01 - Comments from Spain on

draft ISCO-08 introductory guidelines Doc. ISCO/10/FR/01 - Comments from France

on draft ISCO-08 introductory guidelines Doc. ISCO/10/BG/01 - Comments from Bulgaria

on the correspondence table ISCO-88 - ISCO-08

Doc. ISCO/10/BG/03 - Comments from Bulgaria on the correspondence table ISCO-08 - ISCO-88

The Task Force members are asked to check the correspondence table and provide written comments.

Errors in the correspondence tables will be corrected and all Member States will be consulted on the validity of the table and on the content of the ISCO-88 (COM) Groups for which no equivalence was found.

6 Conclusions and next steps See detailed conclusions under agenda points 2-5.

17

Doc. ISCO/10/09

Agenda point


7 ESS-net on the improvement of quality of occupational data and the European socio-economic classification – French proposal

A. Franco briefed the Task Force members of the latest development of the ESS-net. Pending the necessary financial procedures, (approval of 2011 financing decision) a call for proposals will likely be sent to the Member States on March 2011. Under optimal conditions the contracts can be signed – and work begins - in June 2011.

INSEE would take the lead in this multi-beneficial contract.

C. Brousse (INSEE) briefed the Task Force members on the recent developments of the ESS-net project, outlining the objectives as laid down in document ISCO/10/FR/02.

The co-partners to participate in the project are:

France Italy Denmark Finland Poland Hungary Czech Republic Bulgaria (to be confirmed) Belgium (to be confirmed)

The work will be split into the following eight work packages, as follows:

Whilst recognising the ambitions of the project, Sweden repeated previous doubts on the project as such. The time table appears too optimistic. There is a risk that – given the investments involved – there will never be consensus on this classification. Researchers should evaluate the feasibility of the project.

D. Hunter felt there was a need for a more comprehensive statement on what types of analysis might be performed and what types of policy question might be informed, using data classified by socio-economic Group. Even though, a lot of resources have gone into the project and there will be a desire to find the perfect model and the project leaders would need to be decisive in focusing on the development of a practical tool for the production of useful statistics. It would nevertheless be important to ensure that the Initial creators of ESeC (David Rose) should be included on the board of social sciences researchers, which should have an advisory role.

Austria, which have some experience in ESS nets informed that the use of a methodological Task Force providing support to the ESS-net preparation can be very helpful.

D. Hunter noted that the derivation of socio-economic status was sensitive to the methods used for determination of household reference person. The project may therefore need to investigate and make recommendations on methods used in different surveys to identify "Reference persons" if the project aims to provide data on the Socio-economic status of the household.

Eurostat will get information on how to involve ESAC in the project and how to provide access to micro data in the most efficient way (either via data centres or asking ad doc extractions).

Due to the fact that the final output of the ESS-net will be a draft classification still needing to have a formal approval and the importance of the other working packages the package F was considered to be dropped (too much resources for the value added).

The proposed panorama was also considered premature.

18

Doc. ISCO/10/09

Agenda point


A: research on possible available sources and test of the methodology

B1: analysing the quality of professional status B2: analysing the quality of the coding of

occupations C: definition of 3 to 4 ESeC prototypes and

validation of their construction principles D: consultation of statistical information users E: test of the discriminatory power of ESeC

prototypes F: self-identification module to assess the

understanding of prototypes by the public Diss: presentation to ESAC and dissemination

The conversion tables ISCO-88 – ISCO-08 need to be amended with proportions.

Document(s):

Doc. ISCO/10/FR/02 - ESS-et

8 Any other business

ISCO-08 workshop on 19 November 2010.

1. The participants were requested to suggest issues to be discussed / presented in the ISCO-

Sweden asked for a report on the state of the art of the implementation of ISCO-08 in the EU Member states. It was also suggested to include in the agenda a calendar for the availability of

The suggested issues will be put on the agenda of the ISCO workshop on 19 November 2010.

19

Doc. ISCO/10/09

Agenda point


08 workshop.2. D. Hunter announced the revision of the

classification of Status in Employment and has mentioned his interest on the results of the ESS-net concerning the comparability of this variable at EU level. He invited the Members of the Task force to show interest in being members of a Technical expert Group which could be formed in the short term to provide assistance in the revision of this classification.

indexes, translations into other languages, implementation guidelines, etc.

Bulgaria pointed out inconsistencies between indexes and correspondence tables.

D. Hunter noted that validation of the translation into French would involve France, Canada and Tunisia. In the case of Spanish, Spain has already translated part of the material and work will probably take place with other Spanish speaking countries to agree on a definitive version.

NEXT MEETING: The date for a next meeting will be announced later.

20

Doc. ISCO/10/09

EUROPEAN COMMISSION EUROSTAT

Directorate B: Quality, methodology and information systems Unit B-1: Quality; Classifications

AGENDA

Task force "Implementation of ISCO-08" Luxembourg – BECH B3/404

6-7October 2010

6/10, 9h30 Meeting start

1. Adoption of the agenda

2. Problems of borderlines between ISCO-08 Groups

3. Scope of the armed forces

4. ISCO-08 Groups not used in the EU

5. Correspondence table between ISCO-88 (COM) and ISCO-08

6. Conclusions and next steps

7. ESS-net on the improvement of quality of occupational data and the European socio-economic classification – French proposal.

8. Any other business

7/10, 17h00 Meeting end

21

Doc. ISCO/10/09

Participant list

Country Delegate name Administration addressPhone

MailAT

ÖSTERREICHMs. Margaretha ZELLER

Statistik ÖsterreichGuglgasse 13 - Postfach 9000 A-1110 WIENTel : [email protected]

ATÖSTERREICH

Mr. Norbert RAINER

Statistik ÖsterreichGuglgasse 13 - Postfach 9000 A-1110 WIENTel : [email protected]

BGBULGARIA

Ms. Galya STATEVA

Bulgarian National Statistical Institute2, P. Volov str.1038 SofiaBulgariaPresently working atEUROSTAT, unit [email protected]

ESESPAÑA

Mr. Julio NUNEZ ALONSO

Instituto Nacional de Estadistica (INE)Paseo de la Castellana, 183 E-MADRID 28071Tel : [email protected]

FRFRANCE

Ms. Cécile BROUSSE

Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques (INSEE)18, boulevard Adolphe Pinard F-75675 PARIS-CEDEX 14Tel : [email protected]

HUMAGYARORSZA

G

Ms. Márta ZÁHONYI

Hungarian Central Statistical OfficeKeleti Karoly u. 5-7 HU-1024 BUDAPESTTel : [email protected]

ITITALY

Ms. Francesca GALLO

Istituto Nazionale di Statistica (ISTAT)Via Cesare Balbo 16, I-00184 ROMATel :[email protected]

NLNEDERLAND

Ms. Sue WESTERMAN

Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (CBS)PO Box 24500, NL - 2490 HA Den HaagTel : [email protected]

SESWEDEN

Ms. Freja WERKE

Statistics SwedenSE - 701 89 Örebro Tel : [email protected]

22

mailto:[email protected]









Doc. ISCO/10/09

Country Delegate name Administration addressPhone

MailSE

SWEDENMr. Leif HALDORSON

Statistics SwedenSE - 701 89 Örebro Phone: +46 19 17 67 [email protected]

Other participants

ILO International

Labour Organisation

Mr. David HUNTER

4, route des MorillonsCH – 1211 Genève 22Tel. [email protected]

23



minutes of the nace/cpa committee - circabc.europa.eu · web view6-7 october 2010 – luxembourg....

Documents