quality of employment from the french perspective

O. MARCHAND

INSEE France

Quality of Employment from the French perspectiveTask Force on the Measurement of Quality of Employment

Genève 28-29/05/2009

Quality of EmploymentO. Marchand 28-29/05/2009

Introduction : aims of this presentation

› Looking back on the presently retained dimensions of QE

›Critical review of indicators for each (sub)dimension

› Particular development on dimension 4a) “Stability and security of work”


The 14 (sub)dimensions of Quality of Employment

› In reference to dimensions adopted by EC or ILO, are there in our list : - apparently missing dimensions, such as « Inclusion and access to the Labour market » or « Overall work performance »? - not very clear dimensions, such as « Social protection » or « Intrinsic nature of work »?

› It is important to fix clear objectives in order to assess the relevance of indicators


For each (sub)dimension, remarks or propositions of indicators

› To select relevant and easy to interpret indicators› To have regular measure for many countries› To ensure the best comparability › To have a small number of indicators (or distinguish

key- and context-indicators)› To mix quantitative and qualitative indicators


Dim. 1a) Employment safety

› Fatal and Non-fatal occupational injury rates are relevant

›Occupational disease contraction per 100 000 employees and Share of employees working in « hazardous » conditions are also interesting, but more difficult to define and measure

›Workplace expenditure on safety improvements as a share of total workplace labour costs seems too difficult to obtain

› Add an indicator about workers exposed to stress?


Dim. 1b) Child labour and Forced labour

› Fetch inspiration from the resolution on Child labour adopted during the 18th ICLS

›Complement the Average weekly hours worked by children (by age and sex) with indicators on importance (number and rate) of Child labour

› Add Children not in school by employment status (by age)

› Add indicator on Forced labour?


Dim. 1c) Fear treatment in employment

› Employed women as a share of total employment has to be complemented by « Gender employment rate gap » and « Gender pay gap »

› These indicators must be extended to other categories (immigrants, foreigners, disabled persons…)

›Occupational segregation by sex doesn’t seem operational (what’s the objective?)


Dim. 2a) Income from employment

› Low pay is relevant, as well as average weekly earnings of employees (in PPA?)

› Indicators related to minimum wage concern only few countries

› To add: Working poors?


Dim. 2b) Benefits from employment

› Share of employees entitled to paid annual leave and Average length of paid annual leave are relevant

› To add: Share of employees entitled to sick leave?


Dim. 3a) Working hours

› Average annual hours worked per person doesn’t say anything. What is important is to know if these hours correspond to individual choices. So, a better indicator could be the Share of employees working less (resp. more) than what they wish

› Share of employed persons working > 48 hours per week is a negative indicator of QE, but in some countries it’s a good indicator of flexibility!

› Share of employed persons working < 30 hours per week involuntarily could be replaced by Time-related underemployment rate


Dim. 3b) Working time arrangements

› Percentage of employed people who usually work at night/evening, or on week-end or bank holiday, should also be regarded as bad indicators in terms of QE, unless it corresponds to individuals choices.

› Add an indicator on voluntary (or negociated) forms of flexitime, which can be interesting for employees ?


Dim. 3c) Balancing work and non-working life

›Ratio of employment rate for women with children under compulsory school age to the employment rate of women aged 20-49 is relevant but absolute difference may be a better indicator

› Share of women (resp. men) receiving maternity (resp. paternity)/family leave benefits depends on demographic caracteristics in the country. It is perhaps better to know the share of women or men entitled to these benefits

› Add indicators on care for dependants other than children?


Dim. 4a) Digression on QE vs Flexicurity (1)

› In the Laeken framework, « flexibility and security » was one of the 10 dimensions of the QE

› Flexicurity is becoming in European Strategy an omnipresent theme which now covers the fields of life-long learning, balancing work and non-working life, work and working time organisation, security at work, social protection…

› Flexicurity has, in a certain way, « replaced » quality in the European strategic objectives


Dim. 4a) Digression on QE vs Flexicurity (2)

› Between the 2 approaches, there are actually important differences which require to specify what we want to measure

› The flexicurity has a more economic and dynamic orientation (it’s rather the « flexibility » component), the QE a more social orientation (driven by the « security » component)

› The choice of indicators for the former or the latter has to reflect that opposition


Dim. 4a) Stability and security of work

› Percentage of employees with non-fixed term jobs instead of « temporary jobs »

› Suggestion: Distribution by job tenure instead of «Percentage of employees with job tenure of less than one year » only

› Proposals: Rate of voluntary mobilities every year and Share of these mobilities among the whole mobilities, to promote «good» mobility and security of transitions


Dim. 4b) Social protection

› Share of employees covered by unemployment insurance and Public social security expenditure as share of GDP are relevant

› Share of economically active population contributing to a pension fund is more distant from QE


Dim. 5a) Social dialogue

› Share of employees covered by collective wage bargaining could be extended to Share of employees covered by collective agreements

› Average number of days not worked due to strikes and lock-outs is not so easy to interpret : a low value of the indicator may mean absence of social dialogue if many employees are not covered by strike law

› Proposal: to add Trade union density or Proportion of employees with recognised worker representation


Dim. 5b) Workplace relationships

› Subjective indicators like the 2 indicators suggested by the Task Force last year?

›Or regroup 5a) and 5b) ?


Dim. 6) Skills development and life-long learning

› Share of employed persons in high skilled occupations is relevant

› Share of employees who received job training within the last 12 months is easier to measure if the inquired period is 1 month instead 12 months (like in LFS)

› Share of employed who have more (or less) education than what is normally required in their occupation is very difficult to measure


Dim. 7) Intrinsic nature of work

› Subjective indicators like the indicators suggested by the Task Force last year?


Conclusion Subsidiary questions

› 2 questions asked by EMCO Indicators Group - Aren’t we building a supplementary conceptual framework with its own indicators, which will make things still more confusing for users?

- Is it not necessary to distinguish several approaches of the QE, corresponding to different types of policy?

›Other question : objective/subjective indicators (cf. discussion with CES Bureau)


THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

quality of employment from the french perspective

Documents