This document summarizes the results of a working paper that studied quality of work across 14 EU member states using data from 2004-2010. It found:
1) Variations in intrinsic job characteristics like skill discretion and job control across countries.
2) Differences between countries in employment quality measures like rates of part-time/involuntary part-time work.
3) Unequal distribution of quality work factors by population groups and some changes over time, possibly linked to economic crisis.
4) The study had some limitations but also strengths in its cross-national comparisons that have implications for policies around flexicurity and labor market segmentation.
2. Index
1. Objective
2. Results
3. Limitations and strengths
4. Policy implications
WP3. Labour market and employment related policies. Index.
3. O1. Study prevalence, distribution and health equity consequences of
employment and work characteristics; time trends (2005-2010) and position of
vulnerable groups in the European labour market.
1. Objective
Specific objective O1.1: To study cross-national variations in the prevalence
of health-related employment- and work-related risk factors.
Specific objective O1.2: Cross-national changes in the prevalence of
employment- and work-related risk factors and health outcomes.
Aim: Provision of general background for WP, identification of groups needing special
attention, general context for framing country policies
WP3. Labour market and employment related policies. Objective.
4. 2. Results of working paper
2.1. Background, method, measures
• Background:
• The quality of work (QOW) is related to workers’ health;
• Good QOW is socially unequally distributed (SEP, gender, ethnicity);
• Cluster tendencies in good/bad QOW (primary and secondary labour market);
• Crisis is assumed to affect QOW and so health equity;
• Methods:
• Analyses on existing data:
• ESS 2004/5 – ESS 2010 (QOW modules);
• In-depth country stratified analyses of prevalence/time, social stratification and
country variations in QOW;
• Pooled data
• Measures
• Intrinsic job characteristics
• Employment quality
• Socio-demographic factors and work environment
• Health outcomes
WP3. Labour market and employment related policies. Results of working paper.
5. 2. Results of working paper
WP3. Labour market and employment related policies. Results of working paper.
2.2. Measures of quality of work (QOW)
1. Task content
Skill discretion
Autonomy
2. Working conditions
Psychological demands
3. Employment conditions
4. Employment relations
Employment quality typology
Median cut-offs
Job quadrants
Demands Low Demands High
Control
High
Low-strain jobs Active jobs
Control Low Passive jobs
High-strain jobs
6. WP3. Labour market and employment related policies. Results of working paper.
2. Results of working paper
Employment quality typology
7. WP3. Labour market and employment related policies. Results of working paper.
2. Results of working paper
Employment quality typology
Non-permanent contract
Subjective income
Working time arrangements
(involuntary) part-time
Career opportunities
Training opportunities
Trade union membership
Say (allowed to influence
policy descissions)
8. 2. Results of working paper
Table 1. QOW characteristics
Variables Categories
INTRINSIC JOB CHARACTERISTICS
Country comparison association with various socio-demographic
factors and work environment
Skill discretion
dichotomised at the median of the 2010 sample
three-level variables using tertiles of the 2010
sample
Autonomy
Job control
Psych. demands
Job quadrants high strain / active / passive / low strain jobs
Social support 0 = yes / 1 = no not at all true / a little true/ quite true / very true
EMPLOYMENT QUALITY
Country comparison association with various socio-demographic
factors and work environment
Employment instability 0 = permanent / 1 = non-permanent
Low income 0 = sufficient income / 0.5 = too low income (contributory earner) / 1 = too low income (mean earner
Working time arrangements continuous variable three-level variables using tertiles of the 2010
sample
Involuntary part-time 0 = full-time / 0.5= part-time / 1 = involuntary part-time employment
Career opportunities continuous variable three-level variables using tertiles of the 2010
sample
Training opportunities 0 = yes / 1 = no
Collective representation 0 = member or trade union / 1= no member
Imbalanced power relations continuous variable three-level variables using tertiles of the 2010
sample
9. WP3. Labour market and employment related policies. Results of working paper.
2. Results of working paper
2.3. Outcomes
• Self-reported heath:
• Good, fair, bad
• Mental well-being:
• Based upon WHO five Well-being Index
• Constructed out of 3 items (α = 0.79)
• Health and safety risk of the job:
• Yes (a little true, quite true and very true)
• No (not at all true)
2.4. Analyses
• χ² test - p ≤ 0.05
2.5. Included countries
• 14 EU member states participating in ESS2 and ESS5
• Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, Spain, Finland, United Kingdom,
Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Sweden and Slovakia
10. 2.6. Results
2.6.1. Intrinsic job characteristics
WP3. Labour market and employment related policies. Research design.
Figure 1. Percentage of high skill discretion jobs across 14 EU-member states in 2010
Mean
11. 2.6. Results
2.6.1. Intrinsic job characteristics
Figure 3 Distribution of job quadrants (sorted by high
strain jobs) across 14 EU-member states in 2010
mean
12. 2.6. Results
2.6.2. Employment quality
Figure 2 Percentage of full-time, part-time and involuntary part-time jobs
across 14 EU-member states in 2010
mean
13. 2.6. Results
2.6.3. Distribution of the QOW across populations and work
environments
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
Belong to ethnic minority Do not belong to ethnic minority
Training
No training
Figure 2 Percentage of training or no training across 14 EU-member states in
2010
mean
14. 2.6. Results
2.6.3. Distribution of the QOW across populations and work
environments
-6.00 -4.00 -2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00
change in low educated
Change in medium educated
Change in high educated
High control
jobs
Medium
control jobs
Low control
jobs
Figure 13 The percentage of change in level of control for the 14 EU-
member states between 2004 and 2010
mean
15. 2.6. Results
2.6.4. Cross-national changes in the prevalence the QOW
Figure 34 Percentage of change in precarious working time arrangements
across 14 EU-member states between 2004 and 2010
mean
16. 2.6. Results
2.6.5. Health outcomes
Figure 52 Percentage of change in health and safety risk of a job across 14
EU-member states between 2004 and 2010
mean
17. 3. Limitations and strengths
1. We see some changes over time:
• Effect of the crisis?
• Other mechanisms?
2. Content of employment quality?
3. Polarization?
4. The necessity of a country typology? Which one?
5. Labour market dynamics
WP3. Labour market and employment related policies. Limitations and strengths.
18. 4. Policy implications
• The crisis did not hit equally hard in every country (e.g.
Greece, Ireland)?
•Between country differences are found in the evolution of the
QOW
•Policy responses of the governments are important
determinants of better or worse coping with crisis
•Flexicurity vs. Labour market segmentation
•The role of income equality
WP3. Labour market and employment related policies. Policy implications.