Conference on The Future of Work, Employment and Social Protection
Annecy, January 18-19, 2001
Wide-ranging forms of work and employment in Europe
Review and challenges for the players
Raymond-Pierre Bodin
Director
European Foundation for the Improvement
of Living and Working Conditions
Wyattville Road, Loughlinstown
CO. DUBLIN
Ireland
INTRODUCTION
Rather than replying in a general and, as a result, inevitably reductive way to the questions raised by this conference, we
have opted, with the Foundation team, to base this text on the analyses and findings of the research that the Foundation has
been conducting for over ten years in the area of work and employment.
It has become commonplace nowadays to speak of the development of atypical forms of work in the western economies.
Whatever the research background, works highlighting the erosion of the Fordist standard of employment embodied in the
permanent full-time contract as the main, not to say exclusive, way of organising labour markets and integration into social
life are now innumerable.
The extent of this erosion is a source of lively debate. Is it merely a temporary differentiation of forms of employment,
bearing out the inflexibility of the labour market, or a trend placing the workforce in general in a more precarious position.
We merely note that the Fordist standard crystallises a dual conception of time: working hours, period of the contract of
employment. These stable timeframes are essential prerequisites for a social contract of the Fordist type. A breakaway
from either of these two timeframes would, however, tend to erode what has been a founding matrix of employment
society.
Whatever the criticisms that may be attributed to it, the term flexibility also seems to correspond to the changes taking
place in this field, despite or even as a result of the polysemy of which it is accused. We shall therefore use this term in the
same way as the term precariousness in our presentation of these findings and our analyses.
I - EMPLOYMENT AND NUMERICAL FLEXIBILITY
The data given here are based largely on the Third European Survey on Working Conditions conducted in Spring 2000 in
the 15 Member States(Endnote 1)
. Although some variables and/or questions have been modified, these surveys provide material that
can be analysed longitudinally, making it possible to pinpoint the most significant trends during the 1990s.
In the year 2000, the European population in work totalled 159 million people, 83% of whom were employees and 17%
self-employed. In 1995, the figure was 147 million with the same ratio between the self-employed and employees.
Precarious employment in Europe: a growing diversification
Numerical flexibility has an impact on the volume and differentiation of employment statuses. Over and above the
permanent contract, which represents permanent employment, the European employment structure contains a significant
proportion of "non-permanent" or "precarious" jobs. The term "precarious" is used here in its broad sense, as opposed to
contracts of employment that guarantee, from the legal point of view at least, stable employment(Endnote 2)
. Precarious
employment includes at least the following four subgroups:
fixed-term contracts;
temporary agency work;
work experience and apprenticeship schemes;
"other" contracts which are increasingly difficult to identify and list(Endnote 3)
.
While this type of employment increased substantially during the first half of the 1990s, the relative proportions of
permanent and non-permanent jobs remained almost unchanged between 1995 and the year 2000: permanent (82%), non-permanent (18%). In terms of employment structure, precarious employment is now a fact: in Europe close on one out of
five jobs has been precarious during the last five years.
Precarious jobs have also become more diverse. The following changes took place between 1995 and the year 2000: fixed-term contracts (12.3% - 10%), temporary agency work (3.7% - 2.2%), work experience (2% - 1.8%), others (0% - 4%).
These data bear out the notion that the boundaries between unstable jobs are becoming blurred. In the year 2000, the
number of employees no longer falling into the "conventional" precarious categories (fixed-term contracts, temporary
agency work) accounted for a very significant proportion of non-permanent jobs (21%).
Major differences can also be seen between countries and sectors. Trends differ greatly in different countries as the country
data show(Endnote 4).
Table 1 - Precarious employment in Europe: development levels and recent trends by country in the
year 2000 (precarious employment: fixed-term contracts, temporary agency work, work experience,
other)
|
Development levels (2000)
|
Recent trends (1995 - 2000) |
|
Countries with the highest levels of precarious employment:
Spain (35%)
Portugal (24%)
Finland (21%)
|
Countries where employment has become less stable:
United Kingdom (-6%)
Portugal (-6%)
Finland (-4%)
Austria (-4%)
Ireland (-3%)
|
|
Countries with the lowest levels of precarious employment:
Luxembourg (10%)
Germany (12%)
Austria (14%)
Sweden (14%)
|
Countries where employment has become more stable:
France (+7%)
Spain (+6%)
Belgium (+3%) |
|
Countries close to the European average:
Ireland (18%)
Denmark (18%)
Netherlands (18%)
United Kingdom (16%)
France (16%)
|
Countries where the structure of employment has remained unchanged:
Denmark
Italy
Netherlands
|
% Employees
These country trends encompass differing data for different types of precarious employment. Fixed-term contracts, for
instance, are used to the greatest extent in Spain (27%), followed by Finland (15%), Portugal (12%) and the Netherlands
(11%). Temporary agency work is most widespread in Italy (5%), Ireland (5%) and France (3%). Figures for the "other"
category are particularly high in Portugal (10%) and Denmark (8%).
The following trends can be seen when the data are examined by sector:
in the year 2000, agriculture (69%) and hotels and restaurants (72%) were still the sectors with the lowest
proportion of permanent jobs, although the situation in agriculture has improved substantially since 1995 (+6%);
there has, however, been a substantial downturn in the construction sector, where permanent employment has
fallen to 78% (-4%), and in "other services" where permanent employment has fallen to 80% (-3%);
at 81% (-2%), the real estate sector has crossed the threshold of the multisectoral average;
the sectors with the most stable employed population were, in the year 2000, water-gas-electricity (89%),
financial intermediation (89%) and transport and communications (87%). This situation is very similar to that in 1995.
Are career paths becoming precarious?
These stock data have to be related to the flow data, i.e. to recruitment during the last year.
The proportion of employees recruited into precarious jobs during the last year was similar to the 1995 figure: close on
one out of two employees (48%). The breakdown by type of employment was as follows: permanent contracts (52%),
fixed-term contracts (28%), temporary agency work (8%), work experience (6%), other (6%).
Although precarious employment is not set in stone, it is nevertheless affecting career paths: rather than being "passive" in
nature, it is being "actively" used during labour market entry, often as a recruitment filter. It seems that we can speak of
"precarious career paths". What this notion means is that the universe of precarious jobs is a changing universe, linked to
labour market trends, in which organisations play a decisive role: it is these organisations that set the conditions for entry
into and mobility in the market, through the variable of employment status.
This trend is borne out if we look at the breakdown by age. Massive numbers of young people "<25" are experiencing
precarious employment, although all the age groups, in particular the "25-34" age group where the use of fixed-term
contracts is most marked, are being affected. Among the oldest age group (">55"), the "other" category predominates
largely as a result of the various early retirement schemes.
Precarious employment and qualification levels
If we look at the breakdown of employment by qualification levels, there are major differences among the forms of non-permanent employment. For instance:
fixed-term contracts are at a peak among "skilled agricultural and fishery workers" (17.9%) and are strongly
represented among "elementary occupations" (13.5%), "professionals" (12.3%), "service, commerce and distribution
workers" (11.7%) and "technicians and associate professionals" (10.6%);
the largest numbers of temporary workers are to be found among the "elementary occupations" (5%) and "plant
and machine operators and assemblers" (4.6%); temporary workers are also to be found among "skilled agricultural
and fishery workers" (2.1%) and "service, commerce and distribution workers" (2.0%);
in contrast to fixed-term contracts, whose proportions are significant among certain high qualification levels (in
particular "professionals"), the proportion of temporary workers is also fairly directly shaped by qualification levels
and the services/industry divide: the lower the qualification level and the more it concerns industry, the greater the
proportion of temporary workers;
both are very marginal among "senior officials and managers" (4.9% for fixed-term contracts and 0.1% for
temporary agency work);
lastly, the "others" category", accounting for 3.7% of the active population, is strongly represented among "skilled
agricultural and fishery workers" (8.6%), "elementary occupations" (7.1%) and "service, commerce and distribution
workers" (5.3%), all of which are qualification profiles in which types of employment seem to be proliferating,
whereas this trend seems to be less marked among industrial qualification profiles.
|
Box 1 - Fixed-term contracts and temporary agency work in Europe - Different populations
It is possible to use the various information given above to pinpoint the main traits characteristic of the fixed-term contract and temporary worker populations in
Europe, according to the following variables: gender, age, sectors, qualification levels.
the temporary worker population is mainly male (52% M, 48% F) but the proportion of women is larger than in the population in employment (44%)
and has increased since 1995 (47%), to a lesser extent, however, than for fixed-term contracts (where the proportion of women increased from 48% in 1995 to
49% in the year 2000). The temporary worker population is particularly young since over one third of this population is aged under 25 (34%) and close on two
thirds (65%) is aged under 35; similar proportions are to be found among fixed-term contracts where the 25-34 age-group nevertheless continues to account
for the largest numbers (35%);
the industry/services divide is a factor of differentiation between these two forms of employment. Fixed-term contracts are, for instance, used on a
massive scale in services (73%) whereas the temporary worker population is 41% in industry, 57% in services and 3% in agriculture. These two populations
have different sectoral peaks: one out of four temporary workers works in the manufacturing industries while close on one out of three workers on fixed-term
contracts works in the "other services" sector;
lastly, qualification levels show very different profiles. Close on one out of four temporary workers (23%) is in an unskilled job, one out of three (33%)
is a manual worker (industry or craft sector) and one out of four (26%) is a white-collar worker (service workers or clerical personnel). The proportion of
white-collar workers is much greater (28%) among workers on fixed-term contracts, but there are marked differences for the other qualification levels: less
than one out seven workers on fixed-term contracts is in an unskilled job (13%), less than one out of five (19%) is a manual worker (industry or craft sector),
whereas "technicians and associate professionals" and "professionals" account for 31% of this population.
In general, the European temporary worker population is more male, younger, more industrial and less qualified than the population of workers on fixed-term
contracts, which covers a wider range of qualification profiles, is predominantly employed in the service sector and includes a larger number of women. These
differences are due to the nature of the contracts themselves, the ways in which they are used in sectors or in organisations, the populations on which they are
targeted and the rules that determine their use.
|
II - WORKING TIME AND TEMPORAL FLEXIBILITY
Our aim in this section is to pinpoint the most characteristic trends in working time in the EU. We need to look at the
breakdown of working hours and at part-time work and the ways in which working time and employment status are
combined.
Weekly working hours in Europe fell from 38 hours in 1995 to 36.7 in the year 2000.
While there is greater temporal flexibility, national situations are very different
On average in Europe, the breakdown of working hours among the population in employment (employees and the self-employed) has changed slightly in the sense that it has become less comparable. Between 1995 and the year 2000:
- the "30-39 hour" band decreased from 36% to 35%;
- this reduction has gone together with increases in the two following hour bands:
- "marginal" part-time work (the "<10 hours" band doubled from 1% to 2%);
- "conventional" overtime (the "40-44 hour" band increased from 26% to 28%);
- on the other hand, very long working hours (">45 hours") fell from 23% to 20%;
- the "10-19" and "20-29 hour" bands remained unchanged (5% and 9% respectively).
On average in Europe, changes in working hours are tending to take the form of a reduction of weekly working hours, a
slight contraction of the standard 30-39 hours with respect to other hour bands, a growth of part-time work and
"conventional" overtime and a reduction of very long working hours. In other words, the reduction of the working week in
Europe is going together with greater temporal flexibility.
In the same way as for numerical flexibility, the European average again masks many differences among countries. In
some, working hours are still highly regulated and concentrated (for instance Denmark), whereas in others the spread of
working hours is well above the European average (for instance the United Kingdom).
Five configurations can be pinpointed from the data that we have available. These, as we will see, are not mutually
exclusive. The pride of place that may be given in some countries to the main band ("30-39 hours") as a result of collective
agreements or national legislation may go together with more or less structural part-time work (Belgium) and/or a large
volume of overtime hours (Germany). On the other hand, structural part-time work may also be combined with very long
hours (United Kingdom) or relatively concentrated working hours (Netherlands). The following configurations therefore
show country-specific trends at the end of the 1990s.
- Structural part-time work. This first configuration is characteristic of countries in which, despite their differences, considerable importance is
attached to part-time work in the regulation of working time. These countries are chiefly the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and, to a lesser
extent, Belgium and Germany;
- Regulated working time. This second configuration groups countries among which the "30-39 hour" band predominates chiefly because of
collective agreements or legislation which regulate working hours. The overtime band also predominates. This group includes Denmark and France
as well as Belgium;
- Concentrated working hours. This third configuration includes countries among which the main "30-39 hour" band and the overtime band ("40-44 hours") are the two main pillars of working time arrangements. The overtime band is not used to the same extent, however, as the main band
("30-39 hours"). This group includes Germany, Austria, Finland, Ireland and the Netherlands. In other words, overtime is used as a way of
supplementing or supporting a main but not exclusive form of regulation;
- Structural overtime. This fourth configuration is the reverse of the previous. Particular importance is attached to overtime ("40-44 hours") in the
organisation of working time, and overtime is the main point of reference instead of the "30-39 hour" band. In this case, overtime is not just an
adjustment lever, but is a preferred and structural way of organising working time at national level. Apart from Luxembourg, the typical case here is
Sweden, followed by Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal;
- Non-comparable working time. This final configuration is true of countries in which working hours are spread over almost all the hour bands with
"very long hours" occupying an important place. The main case here is the United Kingdom, together with Ireland.
These factual data show that it would be wrong to speak of a European model of working time or to assume that there will
be any convergence in the short term. Over and above the reduction of the working week (as a European average), analysis
of the most recent data shows that countries have, depending on their culture, their economic history and their types of
regulation, very different ways of regulating the difficult issue of working time.
The increase in part-time work is "bottom-up" and imposed
General background
On average in Europe, the trend in part-time work between 1995 and the year 2000 among the population in employment (employees
and the self-employed) was as follows:
The increase in part-time work in Europe is therefore largely "bottom-up". This increase has been brought about by the growth of
marginal part-time work ("<10 hours") where employment and pay conditions are unfavourable. In parallel, the numbers of women in
this kind of employment have increased substantially.
Major differences in different countries
Here again, these European data mask substantial differences in different countries.
It is useful, in this respect, to compare both development levels and recent trends.
Table 2 - Part-time work in Europe: development levels and recent trends by country, in the year 2000 (PT: "less
than 30 working hours per week")
|
Development levels (2000)
|
Recent trends (1995 - 2000) |
|
Countries with the highest levels of part-time work:
Netherlands (30%)
United Kingdom (21%)
Belgium (18%)
Germany (17%)
|
Countries with the highest increase in part-time work:
Netherlands (+7%)
Ireland (+7%)
Austria (+4%)
Belgium (+4%)
France (+3%)
Italy (+3%)
|
|
Countries with the lowest levels of part-time work:
Portugal (9%)
Finland (9%)
Sweden (11%)
Spain (11%)
|
Countries where part-time work is declining:
United Kingdom (-2%)
Sweden (-2%) |
|
Countries close to the European average:
Ireland (15%)
France (14%)
Italy (14%)
Austria (14%)
|
Countries where there has been little change in part-time work:
Denmark
Portugal
Finland
Greece
|
% Employees and self-employed
In the case of "less than 30 working hours per week", the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Belgium are the countries in which
part-time work is most widespread. The Netherlands is the only one of these three countries in which there has at the same time been a
substantial increase (+7%), followed by Belgium (+4%). Although starting from a lower initial level, there has also been a significant
increase in part-time work in Ireland (+7%) and Austria (+4%).
Part-time work as a method of sectoral regulation
In the same way as for numerical flexibility, temporal flexibility linked to the use of part-time work varies substantially in different
sectors, and among the qualification levels that in most cases correspond to them.
Three sectors emerge clearly. These are:
hotels and restaurants (32%);
"other services" (28%);
the wholesale and retail trade (21%).
These are followed by real estate (16%), financial intermediation (13%) and administration (12%). Part-time work is very marginal in
the water-gas-electricity (3%) and construction (7%) sectors.
The differences between sectors are such that it is possible to speak, as regards part-time work, of a sectoral method of regulation.
Massive use is made of part-time work in the services and, among these, by services using a labour force with few qualifications, in
particular in hotels, restaurants and the foodstuffs trade. This differentiation also has to do with the proportion of female labour in
these sectors and activities. In these sectors, part-time work can therefore be seen as a key way of controlling and managing the
workforce in the labour market and of providing a basis for a sectoral policy of flexibility.
It is interesting to compare these data with those on precarious employment. There are major sectoral differences in the ways in which
the two forms of quantitative flexibility are or are not combined:
hotels and restaurants and other services are the sectors in which the two forms of flexibility are combined to the greatest
extent;
priority is given, on the other hand, to numerical flexibility in agriculture and construction, while priority is given to
temporal flexibility in the wholesale and retail trade.
Logically, there are also major differences by levels of qualification. These differences are not just between the "top" and "bottom"
qualification levels: the most significant variations are between manual and non-manual workers and, within this population, between
those who have a vocational qualification and those who do not.
In practice, part-time work:
is lowest among "plant and machine operators and assemblers" (5%) and "craft and related trades workers" (6%);
is highest among "service, commerce and distribution workers" (33%) and "elementary occupations" (31%);
is also high among "clerical workers" (23%), "technicians and associated professionals" (17%) and, to a lesser extent,
"professionals" (15%);
is very marginal among officials and senior managers (7%).
The qualification levels in which part-time work is at a peak are also the categories in which this type of employment is most clearly
viewed as imposed. 25% of "service, commerce and distribution workers" and 28% of those in "elementary occupations" consider that
part-time work has been "imposed" on them.
"Full-time permanent contracts" continue to decline
The increase in part-time work, as a European average, can be related to the structure of employment described above. By aggregating
these two variables, it is possible to pinpoint the increase in "particular forms" of employment, i.e. all those forms of employment that
escape the principle of the "full-time permanent contract". These "particular forms" include both precarious jobs and part-time jobs,
and their combinations. In the year 2000, they accounted for 30.5% of the population in employment.
This figure has increased substantially in comparison with 1995. The data that we have available make it possible to draw up a
comparison for the period only for over 30 working hours per week. When defined in this way, the "full-time permanent contract"
declines by close on two points.
III - LABOUR organisation AND TEMPORAL FLEXIBILITY
In this section, the changes that have taken place within the EU from the point of view of forms of working time organisation, which
are another component of temporal flexibility, will be reviewed.
In this case, working time organisation chiefly covers:
flexible hours (evening, night, weekend work, etc.);
working hours that are irregular and/or unpredictable.
In general, there has been a slight reduction of flexible hours (evening, night, weekend work, etc.)
"Flexible hours" - sometimes known as unsocial hours - are working hours that lie outside work during the day from
Monday to Friday. While shift work has long been the most conventional way of introducing flexible working hours into
continuous process industries or some non-commercial services (for instance hospitals) where production needs to be
continuous, there are now many other ways of departing from daytime work during the week. In all cases, these hours have
an impact on workers' socialisation, both in and outside work, and change the ways in which family life is organised.
Table 3 - Organisation of working time, between 1995 and the year 2000
|
Organisation of working time
|
1995 |
2000 |
|
> 10 hours/day |
- |
28 |
|
Evening work |
- |
43 |
|
Night work |
19 |
18 |
|
Saturday work |
48 |
47 |
|
Sunday work |
25 |
24 |
|
Shift work |
- |
22 |
% Employees
This trend is not without an impact from the point of view of the regulation of flexibility: whereas shift work has
traditionally been included in collective bargaining and workers have received appropriate compensation, the Foundation's
work shows that this is not always the case for other flexible hours which increasingly lie outside the control of workers'
representatives. From this point of view, the downturn in some flexible hours can be seen not just as a factor in reducing
occupational risks, but also as a factor limiting the deregulation of working hours.
This downturn nevertheless masks national and sectoral differences: some flexible hours are still widespread in several
countries or sectors.
In this respect, there are similarities in the ways in which some countries have allowed, or in contrast restricted, the various types of
flexible hours. Night work is for instance very widespread in Finland (26%), Greece (23%), Ireland (20%) and the United Kingdom
(22%), and Sunday work is again widespread in Greece (42%), Finland (39%), Denmark (34%), Ireland (31%) and the United
Kingdom (33%). The countries in which these two variables are least widespread are Portugal and Italy (night work accounting for
15% and Sunday work for 18%).
These similarities are also to be found in the sectors:
night work is widespread in particular in hotels and restaurants (36%), "other services" (17%), in particular health
services and transport and communications (14%);
massive use is made of Sunday work in hotels and restaurants (65%), followed by agriculture (46%), transport and
communications (41%) and "other services" (35%).
The trends for men and women are not the same. While flexible hours are, as a European average, decreasing for men, the
trends for women are different. Since 1995 Saturday work has remained the same for women and Sunday work has
increased.
Irregular working hours are a feature of a wide range of occupational groups
Some comments on the irregular or unpredictable nature of working hours may help to flesh out these trends in flexible
working hours.
Here, the difference between self-employment and employee status is substantial, although this is not true for all the
variables. For instance, the figures for changes of hours per month are identical for both (24%), although employees are
more concerned by the frequency of "1 to 5" monthly changes. Similarly, the lack of warning is similar in both cases (90%
and 88% respectively).
Even though work in employment seems less irregular than self-employment, it is still very unpredictable in the event of
change.
Table 4 - Irregularity and unpredictability of working time in the year 2000
|
Irregularity and unpredictability of working time
|
Self-employed |
Employees |
|
Irregular work (I): variable hours |
66 |
28 |
|
Irregular work (II):
number of hours different per day
number of days different per week
|
59
38 |
37
22
|
|
Irregular work (II): changes of working hours per
month:
no change
1 - 5 times
> 5 times |
76
9
15 |
76
17
7 |
|
Unpredictable work: warning of changes of hours:
none (the same day)
< 2 days
< 1 week
|
90
94
99
|
88
92
96
|
% Self-employed, employees
Variable hours are chiefly to be found among the high qualification levels, with the exception of "skilled agricultural and
fishery workers" (64%). They are widespread among "officials and senior managers" (50%), "professionals" (46%) and
"technicians and associate professionals" (39%).
In contrast, irregular weekly or monthly working hours are a feature of a range of occupational groups with different types
of irregularity affecting different groups.
Numerical flexibility, temporal flexibility: how are they combined?
Lastly, we can look at the way in which the data connected with temporal flexibility (working hours and organisation of
working time) are linked with the trends in employment status brought about by numerical flexibility.
We have already touched on this aspect in our analysis of the decline of the "full-time permanent contract" as the main
point of reference. We can build on this analysis by looking at the possible ways in which these two forms of quantitative
flexibility can be combined. From this point of view, significant differences emerge between working hours and the
organisation of working time:
in practice, it is in the area of working hours that numerical and temporal flexibility are combined to the greatest
extent. The growth of part-time work has been much greater among precarious jobs than among permanent jobs. In this
respect, the "others" category occupies a significant position. The proportion of part-time work in this category is more
than double the figure for permanent jobs. This type of employment is therefore particularly "precarious": it covers a
set of job positions that are very disparate, in terms of both status and working hours;
from the point of view of working time organisation, the data are more conflicting. Here again, a distinction needs
to be made between flexible hours and changes in timeframes:
from the point of view of flexible hours, precarious jobs are more likely to involve night work than
permanent jobs. This difference is even more marked for shift work. In the case of weekend work, the variations
are shaped more by the types of employment. Differences in comparison with permanent jobs chiefly concern
temporary workers in the case of Saturday work - although all non-permanent jobs are affected - and the "others"
category in the case of Sunday work. Again, this latter category seems to be in a much less favourable position than
the others from the point of view of working conditions. Long days (">10 hours") are nevertheless still typical of
permanent employment;
from the point of view of timeframes, the differences are not as clear cut. Irregularity measured in terms
of variations in the "number of hours per day" is predominantly the lot of workers on fixed-term contracts and
"others", and in terms of the "number of days per week", of temporary workers and "others". In general,
irregularity measured "by number of days per week" is more marked among all precarious jobs. Permanent
employees are more affected, however, by frequency of change and its unpredictable nature. These differences
would tend to show that the irregularity experienced by people in precarious jobs is in particular reflected by
differences in the days worked per week or month, whereas fluctuations in hours themselves, whether predictable
or unpredictable, are more likely to affect permanent employees.
IV - quantitative FLeXIBILITY AND GENDER
The data that we have for 1995-2000 require some comments:
the proportion of women in employment remained stable during the second half of the 1990s (44%);
this trend went together, however, with a decline in the stability of women's employment: 42% were in
permanent employment in the year 2000 in comparison with 43% in 1995;
… and a very sharp rise in part-time work: part-time work among women (<30 hours per week) rose from 26%
(1995) to 30% (2000).
Women's work is becoming less stable, especially in job categories that are difficult to pinpoint
On average in Europe, women's participation in the labour market is accompanied by a gradual weakening of their
employment status.
The proportion of women in stable jobs is falling, and the proportion on fixed-term contracts or performing temporary
work is increasing in similar proportions. The emergence of the "others" category (which accounted for 4% of employment
in the year 2000) is coupled with a very high rate of participation by women in this category of employment; this rate is
much higher than the rate for "conventional" precarious jobs. The increasingly precarious nature of women's work is being
shaped largely by those categories of employment that are difficult to pinpoint and more disparate.
Table 5 - Proportion of women by category of employment in the year 2000
|
Years |
Employment |
Permanent contract |
Fixed-term contract |
Temporary |
Work experience |
Other |
|
1995 |
44 |
43 |
48 |
47 |
48 |
- |
|
2000 |
44 |
42 |
49 |
48 |
38 |
54 |
% Employees
The sharp rise in part-time work by women is taking place chiefly in the lower hour bands (< 20 hours per week)
Looking at "less than 30 working hours per week", the proportion of women working part-time increased by 4% (from
26% in 1995 to 30% in the year 2000), whereas part-time work in Europe increased by only 1% over the same period.
This change is taking place chiefly in the lowest hour bands ("10-19 hours" and "<10 hours"). In this latter band, there has
been a threefold increase in comparison with the situation five years earlier. This hour band is also the only one in which
there has been an increase in part-time work by men.
Table 6 - Part-time work in Europe, by hour bands and by gender, in 1995 and the year 2000 (PT: "less than 30
working hours per week")
|
Hour bands
(per week) |
M
|
F |
Total |
|
< 10 hours |
0 1 |
1 3 |
1 2 |
|
10 - 19 hours |
2 2 |
8 10 |
5 5 |
|
20 - 29 hours |
3 3 |
17 17 |
9 9 |
|
Total
|
5 6 |
26 30 |
15 16 |
% Employees and self-employed
1995 2000
The increase in part-time work by women is therefore taking place mainly in the lowest hour bands, i.e. where working and
pay conditions are the least favourable. There has been a particularly substantial increase in marginal part-time work
("<10 hours") among women.
Trends in weekend work are a cause for concern
While long hours are chiefly worked by men and night work is declining among both populations:
- fewer men are working on Saturdays, but the figures for women have remained unchanged;
- there has been a sharp decline in the number of men working on Sundays, but the number of women has increased.
Table 7 - Organisation of working time by gender in the year 2000
|
Organisation of working time
|
M |
F |
|
> 10 hours per day |
41 |
22 |
|
Evening work |
51 |
40 |
|
Night work |
24 26 |
12 13 |
|
Saturday work |
54 59 |
49 49 |
|
Sunday work |
28 33 |
25 24 |
|
Shift work |
20 |
19 |
% Self-employed and employees
2000 1995
In general, therefore, women are being placed in a worsening situation by the growth of quantitative flexibility in
Europe: women are more likely than in the past to be in precarious employment, and especially in its less visible
component; they are increasingly likely to work part-time, for a few hours per week. From the point of view of time
organisation, weekend work has increased only for women, whereas, in contrast, the situation of men is improving.
CONCLUSION
By way of conclusion, I should like to provide some further food for thought from other research work carried out by the
Foundation.
At present, there is only a limited degree of convergence in Europe towards a flexible labour market. While the findings
undoubtedly show a common trend towards increased flexibility, trends in individual countries in this area differ
substantially. The form, extent and nature of the flexibility that employers are inclined to use vary in different countries. A
recent study by the Foundation entitled "Flexibility and working conditions in the European Union: a comparative and
qualitative study" shows that factors as diverse as trade unions, the collective bargaining system, the influence of the
Church, family structures, the status of Sunday work, the stage reached by legislation (especially if there is different
legislation for different sectors), employment legislation itself, etc., have a differing impact in different countries.
The conclusions of this study took up a classification used in many other works: individual flexibility (United Kingdom
and Ireland) based on individual relations between employers and workers, State-driven flexibility (France, Spain and
Finland) where the legislator plays a more important role in constructing regulations, in other words working hours and, to
a certain extent, the social entitlements associated with different types of employment, are regulated more by legislation
than by collective bargaining and negotiated flexibility (Denmark, Netherlands, Germany) where actual working time is
set in particular by bargaining and enterprises' quantitative adjustment strategies make only limited use of precarious jobs.
This latter group is of interest, especially as it is very clear from our research that flexibility that is negotiated is a variable
that is necessary, but not enough on its own, to prevent employment from taking on the various dimensions of
precariousness. Put in another way, the levers of flexibility have proliferated to such an extent that they can be covered
only partially by collective bargaining which, despite its strength and relevance in some cases, cannot influence all the
changes that are under way. Account also has to be taken of the increasingly wide range of individual situations or
situations within enterprises. The changes under way, for instance, are increasingly difficult to regulate and control
because individual expectations are so varied and a whole range of regulation methods are being used.
The ways in which employers define and use flexibility and the uncertainties affecting not just precarious but also stable
employment as a result of the increasingly fragmented nature of the labour market seem to be placing the use of the levers
of flexibility "outside the scope" of collective bargaining; in other words, enterprises are tending to gain control over the
circumstances in which general employment rules can be reversed.
This is taking place, moreover, against a backdrop of unchanging expectations among employees and the self-employed as
regards employment and work. The results of a survey conducted by the Foundation in 1998 among over 30 000 people
working in the 15 EU Member States show that expectations as regards employment and work are relatively stable and
traditional. People want to work, and security of employment continues to be a key factor in everyone's jobseeking
strategies. The only group which is not looking for this security of employment is the group of "young labour market
entrants", probably because this group has taken what we said earlier on board, i.e. that precarious career paths are a
necessary step towards gaining a foothold in the labour market.
At European level, this situation raises the problem of the mutual roles of all the players: States, employers' organisations,
trade unions. This problem is especially urgent as, in our opinion, the dualism that is often applied to public "social
improvement" policies needs to be called into question: freeing the commercial economy from its fetters and developing
flexible labour organisations "versus" taking responsibility for those excluded from the commercial economy by means of
policies of social protection.
There can be little doubt that the rules of play are volatile, that decision-making processes are complex and in some cases
impenetrable and that States, employers' organisations and trade unions often tend to proscribe certain practices without
changing the rules of play, which obviously opens the door to new and equally censurable practices.
Is there another way? Is it possible to take steps, in Europe, to gain social control over strategic decisions and to introduce
factors of stabilisation and regulation into an environment that is arbitrary, reversible and uncertain?
Put another way, the criteria by which employers can develop this or that strategy, step backwards or change from one to
another are as volatile as the strategies themselves.
There is a genuine social issue here: negotiating these criteria and not just their effects and stabilising them to some extent
by placing them under the scrutiny of critical debate and collective bargaining. Market economies and systems of social
regulation coexist in all the Member States of the European Union. Our social systems are so dense that there is a growing
distortion between economic and social timeframes, raising the crucial question of the role of politics and a social
organisation of Europe that takes account of the wide range of players and institutions.
Is there not a place, between European institutions (that are often remote from citizens) and enterprise (which is probably
too low a level), for the construction of intermediate levels of negotiation and regulation (what some people call
intermediate Europe), one practical form of which could be sectoral and regional social dialogue?
Endnote 1:
The Third European Survey on Working Conditions was conducted in Spring 2000 among a representative sample of the active population of
1 500 people per country (500 in Luxembourg) in the 15 EU Member States (face-to-face questionnaires).
Endnote 2:
The system of "guarantees" associated with fixed-term contract status differs from one Member State to another.
Endnote 3:
These include "auxiliary" jobs in the public service, "seasonal" jobs in agriculture, jobs "on call" in some commercial services, etc.
Endnote 4:
Greece has not been included because the current data are unreliable.
| 
