Impact of flexible labour market arrangements in the machinery
electrical and electronic industries
Report for discussion at the Tripartite Meeting on
the Impact of Flexible labour market Arrangements
in theMachinery, Electrical and Electronic Industries
Copyright ® 1999 International Labour Organization (ILO)
6. External flexibility
and the
structure of employment
Working time arrangements have become increasingly diversified. New, more flexible patterns are emerging in a number of countries, often in conjunction with, or triggered by, shorter working weeks in order to maintain (or increase) operating hours of machines. High unemployment rates have provided incentives for reducing working time in an effort to preserve or create jobs. This chapter focuses on the impact of these developments on various aspects of external flexibility: the length of the working week, part-time and temporary employment, labour turnover, early retirement (another instrument that has been utilized to reduce unemployment and facilitate technological and organizational innovations), and finally the employment creation potential of shorter working weeks and careers. The gender dimension of flexible working systems is also discussed in conjunction with the gender composition of the sector. The impact on internal flexibility and the organization of work has been examined in Chapter 4. Both dimensions are closely related, as firms can compensate for a lack of external flexibility with more extensive internal flexibility, and vice versa.
6.1. The length of the working week
In the past decades, normal working time has decreased in a number of countries,
mainly in Europe, where it is generally shorter than elsewhere. In 1993, the
Council of the European Union (EU) adopted a Directive on working time; it was
implemented in 1996 (see box 6.1). In North America, contractual working time
remained stable at 40 hours a week. Progress has been much slower in Asia, except
for Japan and Australia. In many Asian and Latin American countries legal working
time is still 48 hours(1) (see table D.1, The
industry in numbers).
Box
6.1 The Directive limits the average working week to 48 hours (including overtime) and night work to an average of eight hours in any 24-hour period. This quota represents an actual maximum for work which involves special hazards or heavy physical or mental strain. In principle, all workers are entitled to a minimum rest period of 11 consecutive hours, every 24 hours, plus a pause in the course of the working day (when it exceeds six hours). They are also entitled to a minimum uninterrupted weekly rest period of 24 hours plus the 11 hours' daily rest mentioned above. There is a guaranteed minimum of four weeks' paid leave per year. Some areas of activity, such as the transport sector in particular, do not come under the Directive. Derogations are allowed for some types of jobs in which round-the-clock service has to be available (for example, hospital services and law enforcement). Source: Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 Nov. 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time (Official Journal of the European Communities, No. L 307, 13 Dec. 1993, pp. 18-24). |
To compensate for the shortening of the normal working week firms may increase overtime rather than reorganize their working time system. It is the classical adjustment mechanism. In spite of the premium rates that must be paid, overtime is still cheaper than hiring additional staff because of non-wage labour costs that are correlated with levels of employment, not working hours; they account for up to 30 per cent of payroll costs. Moreover, overtime offers the significant advantage of flexibility without losing skilled workers. In some cases, for example in India and the United Kingdom, overtime has become a common means of offsetting low basic wage rates. Employees therefore resist reductions in overtime because they depend on this "second salary". Japan also has a "long hours" culture, although the revised Labour Standard Law of 1987 instituted the 40-hour week in several steps that have been completed in 1997. European companies, on the other hand, are still in the process of finding socially acceptable mechanisms for creating such downward flexibility. Overtime has become systematic and endemic, resisting the downward trend in working time.(2)
Information on overtime in the machinery industry is patchy. International data reported in table 6.1 indicate generally higher levels of overtime work in countries other than those of North America and Europe, with the striking exception of the United Kingdom. Moreover, figures reported in table 6.2 do not show a general trend downward. Between 1985 and 1996, overtime remained at the same level in Australia, declined in Japan during the economic slump and resumed in 1995, kept declining in Germany, and in the United States and the United Kingdom actually increased over the period. In Germany, the long-term downward trend is the result of measures taken to increase working time flexibility.(3) In the United States, higher overtime premiums have generally proven to be more of an incentive for workers to increase overtime than a deterrent for employers; the rise in non-wage labour costs reinforced this tendency. In the United Kingdom manual workers performed more overtime than non-manual workers, deriving a substantial portion of their earnings from overtime.(4)
Nevertheless, average hours actually worked in machinery industries (see table D.1, The industry in numbers) reveal a general downward trend over the last two decades, which parallels reductions in contractual working time. These figures include both overtime and part-time employment. Thus, increments in the latter may swamp the impact of overtime on actual working hours and result in an overall decline. This might explain in part the rather low figures for Japan, which has a larger proportion of part-time employment in the sector than European countries. Retrenchments in working hours were most pronounced in Poland, Hungary, Finland, Norway and Belgium. In all regions, non-electrical machinery registered the largest declines compared to electrical machinery, except for the Netherlands, Cyprus, Israel and Argentina.
In high-income OECD countries the working week lengthened in few cases, always in both subsectors. In Austria it increased while contractual hours were declining, but without exceeding normal hours. Conversely, in the United States, Ireland and New Zealand actual hours have increased and exceeded contractual working time, thus pointing to a more extensive use of overtime. Again, increments in working hours were greater in non-electrical machinery compared to the other set of industries, except for New Zealand. Moreover, some low-income countries registered an increment even though they were already working long hours. In Egypt, the working week reached an industry high of 60 hours (in electrical machinery), followed by Costa Rica, Singapore, the Philippines and Bolivia with about 50 hours. In countries other than high-income OECD nations, increases appear to have been more sizeable in electrical machinery.
Thus, we find again a contrasted pattern, both by region and by sector. Non-electrical industries seem to have been subject to more sizeable long-term changes in working hours, but adjustment followed a dualistic pattern. Usually it translated into retrenchments, but in some cases hours of work were extended. Conversely, in countries other than those in the high-income OECD group, increments in working hours were greater in electrical machinery.
Table 6.1. Overtime work in the machinery industry, 1996
Country or area |
Industry or firm |
Weekly hours |
Annual hours |
||
High-income OECD |
|||||
Austria |
SKF |
- |
108 |
||
France |
SKF |
- |
50 |
||
Germany |
ABB |
- |
±50 |
||
Italy |
ABB |
- |
100 |
||
Japan 1 |
Electronics |
4.2 |
217.9 |
||
Korea, Republic of |
Electronics |
7.1 |
342.5 |
||
Sweden |
ABB |
- |
90 |
||
Switzerland |
ABB |
- |
29 |
||
United Kingdom |
SKF |
- |
440 |
||
United States |
ABB |
- |
80 |
||
High-income non-OECD |
|||||
Hong Kong |
Electronics |
10-12 |
400 |
||
Singapore |
Metal industry |
18 |
864 |
||
Taiwan, China |
Metal industry |
15 |
557 |
||
Middle-income (upper) |
|||||
Malaysia |
Metal industry |
25 |
1 300 |
||
Middle-income (lower) |
|||||
Philippines |
Metal industry |
12 |
576 |
||
Poland |
ABB |
- |
48 |
||
Thailand |
Electronics |
15.6 |
573.1 |
||
Low-income |
|||||
India |
SKF Bearing |
12 a |
623 |
||
1 Value in 1995. 2 Overtime
pay at Simpson accounts for 30 per cent of the total wage. a On
average. |
|||||
Table 6.2. Overtime work in the machinery industry, 1985-96
Country and industry |
1985 |
1990 |
1991 |
1992 |
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
|
Australia |
|||||||||
Manufacturing 1 |
2.5 |
2.8 |
2.4 |
2.6 |
2.9 |
3.1 |
2.6 |
2.6 |
|
Germany (East) |
|||||||||
Metal industry 2 |
- |
- |
- |
52.2 |
64.5 |
59.4 |
54.1 |
42.1 |
|
Germany (West) |
|||||||||
Metal industry 2 |
66.4 |
- |
61.7 |
58.6 |
46.2 |
54.3 |
70.3 |
54.4 |
|
Metal and electrical industry 3 |
1.6 |
1.5 |
1.4 |
1.1 |
1.3 |
1.6 |
1.3 |
- |
|
Japan 4 |
|||||||||
General machinery |
- |
23.6 |
23.0 |
16.6 |
11.7 |
13.0 |
15.9 |
- |
|
Electrical machinery |
- |
20.3 |
18.6 |
12.9 |
11.8 |
12.8 |
14.3 |
- |
|
Precision instruments |
- |
17.1 |
15.8 |
11.2 |
8.7 |
9.3 |
10.7 |
- |
|
United Kingdom 5 |
|||||||||
Mechanical engineering |
|||||||||
Men |
Manual |
6.2 |
7.3 |
5.3 |
6.3 |
5.9 |
6.1 |
7.0 |
7.5 |
Non-manual |
1.9 |
1.8 |
1.8 |
2.1 |
1.9 |
2.2 |
1.9 |
- |
|
Women |
Manual |
1.7 |
2.9 |
1.5 |
2.7 |
2.2 |
2.4 |
2.7 |
- |
Non-manual |
0.8 |
0.7 |
0.6 |
0.6 |
0.7 |
1.0 |
0.9 |
- |
|
Electrical and electronic engineering |
|||||||||
Men |
Manual |
4.7 |
6.1 |
4.6 |
4.6 |
4.6 |
4.6 |
5.1 |
5.1 |
Non-manual |
2.2 |
2.0 |
1.6 |
1.6 |
1.6 |
1.6 |
1.8 |
- |
|
Women |
Manual |
1.6 |
2.2 |
1.7 |
2.0 |
2.3 |
2.7 |
3.2 |
- |
Non-manual |
0.7 |
0.8 |
0.8 |
0.7 |
0.8 |
0.8 |
1.1 |
- |
|
Instrument engineering |
|||||||||
Men |
Manual |
4.1 |
4.9 |
4.3 |
5.1 |
3.8 |
4.0 |
4.4 |
- |
Non-manual |
1.6 |
1.4 |
1.5 |
1.6 |
1.3 |
1.2 |
1.4 |
- |
|
Women |
Manual |
2.2 |
1.7 |
- |
2.1 |
1.6 |
1.9 |
3.2 |
- |
Non-manual |
- |
- |
- |
0.4 |
0.6 |
- |
1.0 |
- |
|
United States 6 |
|||||||||
Industrial machinery (SIC-35) |
3.4 |
3.9 |
3.7 |
4.0 |
4.7 |
5.4 |
5.1 |
4.9 |
|
Electrical equipment (SIC-36) |
- |
3.1 |
3.2 |
3.4 |
3.9 |
4.3 |
4.0 |
4.0 |
|
Instruments (SIC-38) |
- |
2.8 |
2.9 |
2.8 |
2.8 |
3.3 |
3.4 |
3.7 |
|
1 Weekly overtime hours in manufacturing;
OECD data. |
|||||||||
Shorter working weeks provided an impetus for reorganizing work at the plant level. In Germany, for instance, the initial cut of 1.5 hours in 1985 had little effect on work organization. For the most part, firms retained their existing working time system. They made little use of the new opportunities for flexibility offered by the collective agreements, so that staff shortages developed in some cases. A trend towards more innovative time management systems to address these problems became apparent only with the implementation of the second and third phases of cuts in 1988-89, down to 37-37.5 hours a week, and with the introduction of new regulations on working time differentiation from 1990 onward. It was primarily large plants that made the most extensive use of the new opportunities for time differentiation and variabilization. The strong economic upturn provided an additional incentive for restructuring work organization in order to maintain or increase operating hours of machines.(5)
Innovative firms were able to decouple working hours and operating hours. Some evidence for this pattern is apparent in aggregate data. In the OECD, the rate of capacity utilization in metal and machinery industries increased during the nineties, while working hours declined or remained at the same level, in the following countries: Denmark, Greece, Japan, Spain and Sweden (see table 6.3; and table D.1, The industry in numbers). In the EU, however, it generally declined between 1990 and 1994 as a result of the economic recession.
Table 6.3. Rate of capacity utilization in metal products, machinery
nd equipment (ISIC 38), 1990-97 (per cent)
1
Country |
1990 |
1991 |
1992 |
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
^% |
|
Austria 3 |
53 |
38 |
28 |
22 |
39 |
38 |
82 |
84 |
-2.9 |
a |
Belgium |
83 |
79 |
78 |
76 |
77 |
- |
- |
- |
-1.4 |
|
Denmark |
81 |
79 |
78 |
77 |
81 |
- |
- |
- |
0.1 |
|
Finland 3 |
50 |
18 |
20 |
79 |
85 |
87 |
83 |
87 |
2.6 |
b |
France |
86 |
82 |
80 |
77 |
81 |
- |
- |
- |
-1.3 |
|
Germany (West) |
90 |
88 |
81 |
77 |
81 |
- |
- |
- |
-2.2 |
|
Greece |
72 |
72 |
68 |
64 |
72 |
- |
- |
- |
0.0 |
|
Ireland |
79 |
78 |
76 |
75 |
76 |
- |
- |
- |
-0.8 |
|
Italy |
80 |
76 |
74 |
73 |
75 |
- |
- |
- |
-1.1 |
|
Japan |
74 |
86 |
83 |
71 |
68 |
78 |
84 |
88 |
2.0 |
|
Luxembourg |
90 |
86 |
91 |
88 |
85 |
- |
- |
- |
-1.1 |
|
Netherlands |
85 |
83 |
82 |
78 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
-2.4 |
|
Norway 3 |
27 |
27 |
31 |
25 |
31 |
34 |
- |
- |
1.3 |
|
Portugal |
84 |
80 |
78 |
73 |
76 |
79 |
79 |
- |
-0.8 |
|
Spain |
77 |
71 |
74 |
69 |
75 |
81 |
- |
- |
0.9 |
|
Sweden 3 |
32 |
16 |
15 |
24 |
44 |
53 |
- |
- |
4.3 |
|
Switzerland |
91 |
84 |
81 |
81 |
85 |
87 |
85 |
86 |
-0.7 |
|
Turkey |
73 |
69 |
74 |
78 |
61 |
72 |
70 |
75 |
0.3 |
|
United Kingdom |
84 |
75 |
76 |
78 |
80 |
- |
- |
- |
-1.0 |
|
Europe (EU) |
- |
81 |
79 |
76 |
79 |
- |
- |
- |
-0.8 |
|
1 Annual averages calculated from quarterly
data. 2 Average annual percentage point change.
3 Relative share of full capacity utilization (i.e.
percentage of firms operating at full capacity): Austria until 1995;
Finland until 1992. |
||||||||||
6.2. Part-time and temporary employment
Employment in part-time and temporary jobs has spread. In the EU, over the
1985-95 period, part-time employment increased from 12.5 to 16 per cent and
temporary employment from 9.1 to 11.5 per cent. The need for flexibility appears
to be the main cause for the growth in temporary employment, whereas the demand
from women employees seems to play an important role in the introduction of
part-time work.(6) Employers, however, resort
to part-time employment mainly for economic and organizational reasons. Productivity
is usually higher and sick leave less frequent in part-time work. Part-timers
are also often paid proportionately less than their full-time counterparts;
they may fall below minimum thresholds for social security contributions, and
benefits and career prospects are poor. Part-timers also frequently work unsocial
hours.(7) The Council Directive of December 1997
of the EU on part-time work therefore lays down the principle of non-discrimination
and seeks to facilitate the development of part-time work on a voluntary basis
(see box 6.2). The incidence of temporary employment has tended to develop along
similar lines for men and women in the EU;(8)
the gender difference is nowhere near as marked as for part-time employment.
Most of these jobs are to be found in low-skill occupations: 56 per cent for
the part-time work and 63 per cent for temporary employment.(9)
As a result, the supply of skilled part-time jobs is lagging behind demand.
Box
6.2 Part-time workers are defined as persons working less than normal hours, either on a weekly basis or on average over a period of up to a year. The Directive establishes the principle of non-discrimination in employment conditions and pay of part-time workers and seeks to promote the development of part-time employment on a voluntary basis. Thus, where appropriate, the principle of pro rata temporis shall be applied; moreover, refusal to transfer from full-time to part-time work, or vice versa, is not recognized as a valid reason for dismissal. Part-time workers who work on a casual basis may, however, be wholly or partly excluded from the terms of the Framework Agreement provided objective reasons justify such exclusions. Member States and the social partners are expected to take steps for the elimination of legal and administrative obstacles to part-time employment. Employers are encouraged to consider measures that facilitate access to part-time employment at all levels, including managerial positions, as well as access to training for part-time employees to enhance career opportunities and occupational mobility. The Directive came into force on 20 January 1998. Source: Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 Dec. 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (Official Journal of the European Communities, No. L 14, 21 Jan. 1998, pp. 9-14). |
Two recent developments are indicative of profound changes.(10) First, in the EU, the rate of growth of part-time employment accelerated in the nineties for both men and women (see figure 6.1). Moreover, the proportion of prime-age males (aged 24-54) in part-time employment, a group which traditionally is not associated with this form of employment, has increased in the OECD. In Canada and the United States, upward shifts during recession years have not been matched by corresponding declines during periods of recovery. In the EU, between 1991 and 1995, about 60 per cent of the growth in part-time employment among men occurred in this age group; the incidence of part-time employment in this cohort increased from 2 to 3 per cent over the period. Thus, there would appear to be a permanent shift in the composition of employment towards part-time jobs. Moreover, an increase in part-time employment seems to have a favourable effect on unemployment in general. In the EU, during recession years, most of the employment creation occurred on a part-time basis for both men and women. This remained true during the recovery year of 1995: for men, 71 per cent of new jobs were part time, and for women 85 per cent.
Second, in the EU, the growth rate of temporary employment was substantially higher than for part-time employment in the 1980s, but not in the 1990s (see figure 6.2). Moreover, the rate of increase of temporary work contracts was higher for men than women in the 1990s, but not in the 1980s. It was highest among service and production workers, although professional and clerical workers also display a high incidence of temporary employment. Overall, unlike for part-time employment, there appears to be no relationship between levels of unemployment and temporary work, although in Portugal, Denmark and the United Kingdom it is significantly pro-cyclical.
Temporary employment seems to have become the normal mode of entry into the labour market, as evidenced by the very high incidence of such work contracts among young people (three times higher than for the total working population), which is positively correlated to the rate of youth unemployment. Generally, given the relative size of the temporary job pool, a disproportionate number of unemployed find work via this route. Thus, in the EU in 1995, the main growth in temporary employment was accounted for by prime-age men and women. On average about half of previously unemployed persons moved into temporary as opposed to permanent jobs, largely because these were the only jobs they could find, thereby continuing the trend of the preceding three years.
This expansion of temporary employment might reflect in part a weaker labour market position, but it also manifests a more general shift towards flexible working systems. These developments are also echoed in metal manufacturing. As a case in point, French satellite establishments of car assembly plants, which are used as centres for organizational innovation, rely heavily and quasi-permanently upon short-term and temporary employees. They represent about 10 to 30 per cent of the permanent staff; in one establishment the proportion reached 55 per cent at times. Even when economic prospects are poor these establishments maintain some temporary staff. The law is sufficiently flexible to keep the same temporary employee several years, each time citing different grounds. They are called upon to meet variations in demand, in particular when production is stepped up to market a new model. In addition, temporary and employment training contracts are used for screening new recruits. This process may take up to two years. Temporary staff are nonetheless given the same training as permanent employees.(11)
Statistics for metal manufacturing indicate that part-time work is relatively rare in the sector (see figure 6.3 and table 6.4), in part because it employs relatively fewer women. The unweighted average of part-time employment in the sector in the EU (of 12 Members) was 4.2 per cent in 1992, the second lowest incidence of part-time employment for the nine sectors here. Between 1983 and 1992, part-time employment shares also generally increased least in that sector, second to building and civil engineering. In Denmark, this proportion has actually fallen, but nonetheless remained high compared to other countries in the region. Part of this upward trend is due to plant-level agreements, which tend to promote this type of employment, sometimes within the framework of a social plan in the form of phased retirement schemes, work-sharing or short-time working (see below). Finally, there is also some evidence of intersectoral shifts. Between 1983 and 1992, the share of part-time employment increased much more rapidly in the sector than in the economy on average in Spain, but much more slowly in the Netherlands.
Table 6.4. Part-time employment by industry, 1983-96
Country |
Part-time
employment by industry, 1992 (% of industry's total employment) 1 |
Deviation |
Metal |
|||||||||||||
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Average 2 |
|||||||
Belgium |
- |
- |
3.2 |
5.1 |
3.0 |
27.1 |
4.0 |
10.0 |
22.1 |
10.6 |
-7.4 |
1.9 |
||||
Denmark |
- |
10.4 |
b |
5.7 |
18.4 |
5.3 |
33.1 |
14.7 |
19.7 |
31.0 |
17.3 |
-11.6 |
8.9 |
|||
France |
3.1 |
a |
3.5 |
2.8 |
6.1 |
2.8 |
15.3 |
8.1 |
10.3 |
21.7 |
8.2 |
-5.4 |
3.8 |
|||
Germany (West) |
4.1 |
5.3 |
5.2 |
13.5 |
5.8 |
25.5 |
11.6 |
18.2 |
24.1 |
12.6 |
-7.4 |
7.4 |
c |
|||
Greece |
- |
- |
- |
2.0 |
6.7 |
4.0 |
- |
3.8 |
4.4 |
4.2 |
- |
- |
||||
Ireland |
- |
- |
- |
4.7 |
- |
18.3 |
- |
6.0 |
14.5 |
10.9 |
- |
11.6 |
c,d |
|||
Italy |
- |
1.6 |
2.5 |
3.9 |
3.4 |
8.1 |
1.9 |
7.2 |
5.3 |
4.2 |
-1.7 |
1.2 |
||||
Luxembourg |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
12.8 |
12.8 |
- |
- |
||||
Netherlands |
12.0 |
13.7 |
7.4 |
23.7 |
9.4 |
41.4 |
22.8 |
21.8 |
46.3 |
22.1 |
1-4.7 |
5.6 |
||||
Portugal |
- |
- |
- |
2.8 |
- |
3.9 |
- |
3.5 |
7.5 |
4.4 |
- |
- |
||||
Spain |
- |
- |
1.1 |
2.7 |
0.6 |
4.8 |
1.8 |
4.0 |
11.0 |
3.7 |
-2.6 |
2.1 |
||||
United Kingdom |
- |
7.2 |
5.4 |
12.9 |
7.7 |
40.6 |
9.4 |
16.8 |
33.4 |
15.3 |
-9.9 |
4.4 |
||||
Europe (EEC-12) |
3.4 |
4.4 |
4.2 |
9.0 |
4.5 |
23.9 |
8.2 |
13.6 |
22.4 |
10.4 |
-6.2 |
- |
||||
Australia: |
Men |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
3.0 |
c |
||
Women |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
25.0 |
c |
|||
Canada |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
1.5 |
||||
Denmark |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
8.9 |
||||
Finland |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
3.0 |
||||
Sweden |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
10.0 |
||||
Switzerland 5 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
4.3 |
||||
United States |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
2.8 |
||||
Country |
Change in part-time employment shares, 1983-92 (average
annual percentage points)1,
6 |
Deviation |
||||||||||||||
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Average 2 |
|||||||
Belgium |
- |
- |
0.14 |
0.16 |
0.18 |
1.28 |
0.20 |
0.16 |
0.93 |
0.38 |
-0.24 |
|||||
Denmark |
- |
-0.67 |
-0.22 |
0.30 |
0.17 |
-0.03 |
0.04 |
-0.43 |
-0.71 |
-0.19 |
-0.03 |
|||||
France |
-0.05 |
0.17 |
0.09 |
0.10 |
0.06 |
0.42 |
0.32 |
0.16 |
0.72 |
0.22 |
-0.13 |
|||||
Germany (West) |
0.14 |
0.13 |
0.11 |
0.21 |
0.23 |
0.60 |
0.34 |
0.44 |
0.68 |
0.32 |
-0.21 |
|||||
Greece |
- |
- |
- |
-0.03 |
-0.47 |
0.07 |
0.00 |
-0.23 |
-0.22 |
-0.15 |
- |
|||||
Ireland |
- |
- |
- |
0.30 |
- |
0.89 |
- |
0.10 |
0.70 |
0.50 |
- |
|||||
Italy |
- |
0.05 |
0.18 |
0.11 |
0.12 |
0.47 |
0.08 |
0.56 |
0.11 |
0.21 |
-0.03 |
|||||
Luxembourg |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0.16 |
- |
- |
|||||
Netherlands |
0.98 |
0.90 |
0.26 |
1.21 |
0.53 |
1.99 |
1.42 |
0.88 |
1.12 |
1.03 |
-0.77 |
|||||
Portugal |
- |
- |
- |
0.02 |
-0.20 |
0.30 |
- |
-0.80 |
-0.02 |
0.14 |
- |
|||||
Spain |
- |
- |
0.04 |
-0.04 |
-0.08 |
0.14 |
0.12 |
0.08 |
-0.04 |
0.03 |
0.01 |
|||||
United Kingdom |
0.13 |
0.24 |
0.07 |
0.13 |
0.31 |
0.42 |
0.41 |
0.36 |
0.49 |
0.29 |
-0.22 |
|||||
Europe (EEC-12) |
0.16 |
0.12 |
0.10 |
0.26 |
-0.02 |
0.48 |
0.34 |
0.26 |
0.36 |
0.23 |
-0.13 |
|||||
1 Key to industries: 1 = Energy and water. 2 Unweighted average of all sectors.
3 Percentage point deviation of the metal industry
from the overall unweighted average. 4 IMF affiliates plus national statistics.
5 People working between 50 per cent and 89 per cent.
6 1983-92 or data points as close to these years as
possible. |
||||||||||||||||
Source: Elaborated from EUROSTAT: Work organization and working hours, 1983-92 (Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1995), pp. 98-100; IMF, Metalworkers and working time in the world, op. cit., p. 21. |
||||||||||||||||
Table 6.5. Temporary employment by industry, 1983-92
Country |
Temporary
employment by industry, 1992 (% of industry's total employment) 1 |
Deviation |
||||||||||||||||||
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Average2 |
|||||||||||
Belgium |
- |
3.2 |
2.8 |
2.6 |
2.7 |
b |
3.8 |
2.2 |
2.8 |
8.4 |
3.6 |
-0.8 |
||||||||
Denmark |
- |
- |
8.6 |
7.4 |
13.7 |
11.3 |
5.1 |
5.4 |
14.7 |
9.5 |
-0.9 |
|||||||||
France |
3.1 |
a |
6.8 |
6.4 |
9.0 |
10.4 |
10.2 |
5.8 |
8.1 |
13.9 |
8.2 |
-1.8 |
||||||||
Germany (West) |
4.1 |
5.5 |
6.1 |
7.1 |
7.9 |
9.5 |
5.3 |
8.5 |
12.7 |
7.4 |
-1.3 |
|||||||||
Greece |
- |
7.9 |
b |
5.8 |
7.8 |
33.3 |
11.9 |
7.2 |
6.8 |
6.8 |
10.9 |
-5.1 |
||||||||
Ireland |
- |
- |
- |
5.3 |
11.6 |
10.6 |
- |
6.9 |
11.4 |
9.2 |
- |
|||||||||
Italy |
- |
2.8 |
4.1 |
5.4 |
11.2 |
8.4 |
3.1 |
6.5 |
6.3 |
6.0 |
-1.9 |
|||||||||
Luxembourg |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
3.9 |
3.9 |
- |
|||||||||
Netherlands |
12.0 |
3.4 |
5.0 |
8.1 |
3.7 |
10.8 |
5.2 |
6.1 |
9.0 |
7.0 |
-2.0 |
|||||||||
Portugal |
- |
8.1 |
15.9 |
10.7 |
16.2 |
14.4 |
8.6 |
10.5 |
8.0 |
11.6 |
4.4 |
|||||||||
Spain |
- |
24.2 |
25.3 |
34.2 |
59.1 |
41.2 |
20.9 |
28.0 |
24.9 |
32.2 |
-6.9 |
|||||||||
United Kingdom |
4.5 |
3.5 |
3.4 |
3.1 |
6.5 |
5.0 |
2.9 |
3.9 |
7.8 |
4.5 |
-1.1 |
|||||||||
Europe (EEC-12) |
3.4 |
6.5 |
6.7 |
9.2 |
15.6 |
11.4 |
5.8 |
7.9 |
11.4 |
8.7 |
-2.0 |
|||||||||
Country |
Change
in temporary employment shares, 1983-92 (average annual percentage
points) 1, 4 |
Deviation |
||||||||||||||||||
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
Average 2 |
|||||||||||
Belgium |
- |
0.05 |
0.02 |
-0.03 |
-0.08 |
-0.34 |
-0.06 |
-0.13 |
-0.06 |
-0.08 |
0.10 |
|||||||||
Denmark |
- |
- |
-0.23 |
-0.18 |
-0.33 |
-0.50 |
-0.34 |
-0.16 |
0.06 |
-0.24 |
0.01 |
|||||||||
France |
-0.05 |
0.52 |
0.38 |
0.51 |
0.58 |
0.47 |
0.52 |
0.48 |
1.34 |
0.53 |
-0.15 |
|||||||||
Germany (West) |
0.14 |
-0.01 |
-0.16 |
-0.24 |
-0.26 |
-0.36 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
-0.01 |
-0.10 |
-0.06 |
|||||||||
Greece |
- |
-0.20 |
-0.41 |
-0.59 |
-1.61 |
-0.81 |
-0.33 |
-0.38 |
-0.12 |
-0.56 |
0.15 |
|||||||||
Ireland |
- |
- |
- |
0.15 |
0.40 |
0.38 |
- |
0.03 |
0.37 |
0.27 |
- |
|||||||||
Italy |
- |
0.16 |
0.34 |
0.27 |
0.08 |
0.16 |
0.18 |
0.51 |
0.16 |
0.21 |
0.13 |
|||||||||
Luxembourg |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
-0.06 |
- |
- |
|||||||||
Netherlands |
0.98 |
-0.29 |
0.29 |
0.50 |
0.02 |
0.66 |
0.18 |
0.28 |
0.01 |
0.29 |
0.00 |
|||||||||
Portugal |
- |
-0.52 |
1.13 |
-1.05 |
-1.55 |
-0.37 |
0.63 |
0.70 |
-0.42 |
-0.18 |
1.31 |
|||||||||
Spain |
- |
3.20 |
3.50 |
3.78 |
5.96 |
4.60 |
2.62 |
3.90 |
2.64 |
3.78 |
-0.28 |
|||||||||
United Kingdom |
0.13 |
0.13 |
0.11 |
0.02 |
-0.04 |
-0.44 |
0.08 |
0.02 |
0.10 |
0.01 |
0.10 |
|||||||||
Europe (EEC-12) |
0.16 |
0.30 |
0.22 |
0.28 |
0.62 |
0.16 |
0.30 |
0.22 |
0.28 |
0.28 |
-0.06 |
|||||||||
1 Key to industries: 1 = Energy and water. 2 Unweighted average of all
sectors. 3 Percentage point deviation of the metal
industry from the overall unweighted average. 4 1983-92,
or data points as close to these years as possible. |
||||||||||||||||||||
Source: Elaborated from EUROSTAT, op. cit., pp. 103-105. |
||||||||||||||||||||
The incidence of temporary employment in metal manufacturing is also relatively low (see figure 6.3 and table 6.5), but still higher than that of part-time employment, in contrast to the pattern observed in the economy as a whole. In the EU (of 12 Members), in 1992, on average 6.7 per cent of employees in the sector had a contract of limited duration. This rate was the fourth lowest of the nine sectors. Temporary employment was most widespread in metal manufacturing in Spain (25.3 per cent of employees) and Portugal (15.9 per cent): in the latter country, this was the highest rate after building and civil engineering -- much higher than the unweighted average for all sectors. The rate of increase between 1983 and 1992 was also the fourth lowest in metal manufacturing for the EU as a whole. The share of temporary employment in the sector declined in Denmark, Germany and Greece. The growth rate was highest for Spain and Portugal; more recently it declined in Portugal in general but remained high in Spain. The liberalization of regulations on temporary contracts and the stricter regulation of permanent contracts have been the dominant factors in Spain. In this country, temporary employment is also a very poor stepping stone to permanent employment.(12) Again, intersectoral shifts are apparent. Between 1983 and 1992, the growth rate of temporary employment was lower in this sector than in the economy on average in France, Germany and Spain, while it was much higher in Portugal.
In Japan, as in the EU, part-time employment is most widespread among women; in 1995, in the machinery industry, women accounted for 90.5 per cent of part-time workers. They are also more prone to holding contracts of limited duration: in 1996, they accounted for 80 per cent of temporary employees in machinery and precision instruments, and 56 per cent in electrical machinery. Temporary employment is less prevalent in the sector than part-time employment, unlike the pattern observed in the EU; the share of part-time employment in the sector is about twice as high in Japan as in the EU on average. In the 1990s, part-time employment increased in Japan. Thus, in 1995 in general machinery, 7.6 per cent of employees worked part time and in 1996, the proportion of temporary employees was 7.0 per cent in electrical machinery and 3.3 per cent in general machinery and precision instruments (see table 6.6).
Table 6.6. Temporary and part-time employment in Japan, 1987-96
percentage share in total employment of each sector)
Part-time
employment 1 |
Temporary
employment |
||||||||
1987 |
1995 |
1996 |
|||||||
Manufacturing |
Total |
8.4 |
10.1 |
Manufacturing |
Total |
5.8 |
|||
General machinery |
Total |
4.6 |
7.6 |
a |
General machinery and precision instruments |
Total |
3.3 |
||
Precision instruments |
Total |
10.0 |
- |
||||||
Electrical machinery |
Total |
11.5 |
- |
Electrical machinery |
Total |
7.0 |
|||
1 The definition of part-time employment is
not identical in 1987 and 1995. a General and electrical machinery, precision
instruments and transport equipment. |
|||||||||
In contrast to the pattern usually observed for (less-skilled) temporary
workers, the example of Silicon Valley, California, illustrates how these work
arrangements, in a spirit of entrepreneurship, can hold bright career prospects
for highly skilled people (see box 6.3). However, a case-study of three electronics
plants of United States firms in Ireland highlights the disadvantages of relying
too extensively upon temporary staff.(13) One
of the firms hired up to 70 per cent of production workers on a temporary basis,
compared to less than 10 per cent for the other two firms. Cost savings were
only marginal in the former, since labour costs represented 15-20 per cent of
net sales. It was a crude way of coaxing overtime and, indirectly, of controlling
the permanent staff. But it also posed serious problems: it required more extensive
training and there were difficulties in maintaining the commitment of the core
workforce.
Box
6.3 Silicon Valley and its high-tech companies are trendsetters. Globalized markets have pushed companies to place a premium on flexibility. Non-standard contracts tend to make workers more vulnerable to economic fluctuations, and may mean not only greater employment insecurity but also lower wages. However, in Silicon Valley a significant, though still small, minority of people thrive under such non-traditional contracts. For this minority, flexibility represents a new form of entrepreneurship, marketing their capital portfolio of skills among various buyers. Also, in a market where skills quickly become obsolete, it may lower risks by taking training out of the hands of employers. Thus, in Santa Clara County, various forms of flexible employment increased between 1984 and 1995. As a result, estimates for various forms of flexible employment range between 40 and 27 per cent of total employment in 1995. In any case, it has been rising between five and two-and-a-half times as fast as total employment. Employing temporary help has become a permanent strategy for some firms. There has been a rapid expansion in the provision of technical and professional staff, away from the original focus on clerical and light industrial work. In 1989, technical and related occupations represented 13 per cent of the temporary workforce, nearly triple the rate for the national workforce, and professional specialty occupations 6 per cent, which is double the national average. As a result, in high-tech companies, labour turnover rates are quite high -- 15-25 per cent annually, especially among highly skilled workers. Start-up companies offer good opportunities for creative employees. Temporary employment leads to permanent contracts in 20-40 per cent of cases, but less so for highly skilled workers, who are often hired on a project basis and may prefer this kind of flexibility. Managers are therefore designing strategies to make this segment of the workforce less flexible; but they also face less of a schism between the two ends of the hierarchy than would otherwise be the case with just-in-time production. This "culture of temporariness" also generates much anxiety, however. One company reported that 10 per cent of its staff had used in-house counselling services to help them cope. It may well be, therefore, that middle and lower-end labour would prefer more job security, and highly skilled workers less. For less-skilled workers, this high degree of temporariness benefits firms much more than it does workers; janitors offer a case in point. Conversely, highly skilled persons with good personal networks face bright career prospects; they use inter-firm mobility to gain experience and obtain higher salaries. Source: M. Carnoy, M. Castells and C. Benner: "Labour markets and employment practices in the age of flexibility: A case study of Silicon Valley", in International Labour Review, 136(1), Spring 1997, pp. 27-48. |
Flexible employment patterns and more extensive use of temporary staff raise the question of increases in labour turnover. An OECD study of job insecurity found that tenure with the same employer is relatively high in manufacturing in general -- the OECD unweighted average was 10.5 years in 1995 -- probably reflecting longer spells among men compared to women (8.4 years on average for the latter and 10.4 for the former) (see table S, The industry in numbers). Tenure for plant and machine operators and for assemblers is also fairly high compared to other occupations; it was highest in Luxembourg (13.3 years) and lowest in the Republic of Korea (4.6 years). Reliance on external flexibility varies across countries. When controlling for differences in the distribution of employment by age, gender and broad occupational categories, tenure is shortest in the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom, followed by Canada and Denmark. It is longest in Italy, followed by Belgium, Portugal and France.(14) However, no general downward trend in tenure with the same employer could be observed. The only consistent development across countries is a low and declining tenure and retention rate among less-educated and less-skilled workers, which is consistent with a shift to flexible, high-performance and more skill-intensive working systems.
However, this must be set against fairly high short-term job instability among those who are trying to (re)establish an employment match. This type of instability is not captured by broad retention rates and average tenure of those already in employment. In 1995, separation rates prior to completion of the second year of employment, among those who had joined a firm within less than a year, range between 20 per cent in Luxembourg and 85 per cent in Spain, with an average of 43 per cent for OECD countries. Between 1985 and 1995, short-term turnover rose considerably in Spain, somewhat in Australia, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States, remained stable in Finland and declined somewhat in Canada (see table 6.7). But these data are very sensitive to economic cycles and the number of observations are too few to correct for this effect.
Greater reliance on external flexibility has also been found to result in a closer alignment of unemployment and business cycles in many OECD countries in recent years.(15) Furthermore, it can be expected to reduce the variability of labour productivity, as has been observed in the United Kingdom, for instance.(16) A British study found that more flexible firms showed greater responsiveness to demand shocks in adjusting labour inputs (employment and hours), while manufacturing firms in general were more likely to increase hours or capacity utilization.(17)
Traditionally, the machinery industry employs relatively few women. Women's share in the labour force is generally lower in non-electrical machinery than in electrical and electronics industries (see tables 6.8 and 6.9). In non-electrical machinery, women's presence is highest in Malaysia (36 per cent), followed by Taiwan, China (34 per cent), and Puerto Rico (32 per cent). In most countries and areas, this proportion increased or remained stable, except in Austria, Hungary, Puerto Rico and the Czech Republic, where it declined. The increment was especially rapid in Thailand, Macau, Malaysia and Taiwan, China. Conversely, in the more "feminized" electrical machinery industries, retrenchments in women's involvement were much more frequent. Increases were most rapid in Macau, Turkey and New Zealand; in Macau the share of women employees reached an industry high of 74 per cent, followed by Malaysia (71 per cent) and New Zealand (57 per cent). Thus, the gender composition of subsectors in the machinery industry appears to be converging.
Table 6.7. Short-term employment tenure and turnover, 1980-95
Country |
Tenure of
less than one year |
Average
tenure |
Separation
rate between the first and second year employment (% of estimated
hiring) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1980 |
1985 |
1990 |
1995 |
1980 |
1985 |
1990 |
1995 |
1980 |
1985 |
1990 |
1995 |
|||||||||||||||
Australia |
22.3 |
a,f |
26.6 |
j |
22.7 |
m |
25.2 |
o |
6.6 |
a,f |
5.5 |
j |
6.3 |
m |
6.4 |
o |
- |
46.9 |
j |
38.9 |
m |
49.7 |
o |
|||
Canada |
26.4 |
25.7 |
26.0 |
22.7 |
7.0 |
7.4 |
7.2 |
7.9 |
52.1 |
58.2 |
52.0 |
53.0 |
||||||||||||||
Finland |
17.9 |
18.5 |
18.7 |
18.0 |
7.9 |
8.4 |
8.4 |
9.2 |
44.9 |
b |
46.2 |
b |
31.5 |
b |
45.1 |
b |
||||||||||
France |
13.8 |
g |
12.2 |
g |
16.7 |
14.4 |
9.5 |
g |
10.1 |
9.7 |
10.4 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|||||||||||
Germany |
- |
11.3 |
i |
11.2 |
l |
9.8 |
n |
- |
9.8 |
i |
10.2 |
l |
10.8 |
n |
- |
25.0 |
i |
24.0 |
l |
27.2 |
n |
|||||
Japan |
10.4 |
9.4 |
9.8 |
7.6 |
9.3 |
10.3 |
10.9 |
11.3 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
||||||||||||||
Netherlands |
- |
11.6 |
20.3 |
13.1 |
n |
- |
9.4 |
8.2 |
9.6 |
n |
- |
- |
- |
- |
||||||||||||
Spain |
- |
15.2 |
a,k |
24.6 |
24.8 |
- |
11.5 |
a,k |
9.1 |
9.1 |
- |
15.6 |
k |
62.4 |
85.0 |
|||||||||||
United Kingdom |
- |
17.7 |
21.2 |
18.6 |
- |
8.3 |
7.8 |
8.3 |
- |
40.5 |
43.3 |
42.9 |
||||||||||||||
United States1 |
28.2 |
e |
27.3 |
h |
28.8 |
m |
26.0 |
o |
7.1 |
e |
7.5 |
h |
7.2 |
m |
7.4 |
o |
58.9 |
h |
60.5 |
k |
63.4 |
c,m |
65.9 |
d,o |
||
1 Data for 1991 and 1996 are for wage and
salary workers only, while date for 1978, 1983 and 1987, as well
as for those with tenure of less than a year in 1991, are for all
employed persons. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Source: OECD: Employment Outlook, 1997 (Paris, 1997), pp. 140 and 145. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
One of the few studies which examined the gender dimension of working hour systems found that the trend towards greater flexibility in working time patterns reflected distinct gender differences.(18) Women tended to provide for flexibility mainly through part-time and casual work, while men changed levels of overtime and shift patterns. There were also gender and sectoral differences in the way in which flexibility had been implemented. For women workers, it mainly meant more of the same, that is, the extension of part-time and casual work; for men, it was more likely to involve new contractual arrangements and working time patterns, such as the introduction of novel shift systems. Yet few cases were found of gender substitution to match working time requirements, for example recruiting women to undertake tasks that can best be done on a part-time basis or hiring men in traditionally women's jobs to work unsocial hours. Other systems were used instead.
Table 6.8. Women employees as a percentage of total employment
in the manufacture of machinery, except electrical
(ISIC 382, Rev.2), 1985-96
Country or area |
1985 |
1986 |
1987 |
1988 |
1989 |
1990 |
1991 |
1992 |
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
^% |
High-income OECD |
|||||||||||||
Australia |
15.2 |
- |
18.7 |
17.8 |
18.5 |
18.6 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0.68 |
Austria |
13.9 |
13.6 |
13.3 |
13.1 |
12.7 |
12.7 |
12.2 |
12.9 |
12.9 |
12.8 |
- |
- |
-0.12 |
Belgium |
9.5 |
9.2 |
9.1 |
9.3 |
9.1 |
9.4 |
9.8 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0.05 |
Canada |
15.5 |
15.6 |
16.3 |
15.4 |
15.9 |
15.5 |
15.9 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0.07 |
Denmark |
18.4 |
18.8 |
19.8 |
- |
- |
20.8 |
20.7 |
21.0 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0.38 |
Finland |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Germany (West) |
16.7 |
16.6 |
16.3 |
16.4 |
16.9 |
16.7 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0.01 |
Ireland |
- |
- |
- |
28.9 |
27.6 |
28.3 |
28.8 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
-0.01 |
Korea, Republic of |
16.7 |
18.3 |
16.3 |
17.4 |
16.2 |
16.0 |
18.9 |
17.4 |
18.4 |
18.4 |
- |
- |
0.18 |
Luxembourg |
7.1 |
7.5 |
7.4 |
8.0 |
7.5 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0.12 |
Netherlands |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
10.8 |
12.4 |
11.0 |
10.1 |
9.5 |
- |
- |
-0.32 |
New Zealand |
- |
- |
- |
12.3 |
11.4 |
12.8 |
13.3 |
13.3 |
12.4 |
- |
- |
- |
0.02 |
Portugal |
12.1 |
13.6 |
12.7 |
- |
- |
16.0 |
17.1 |
17.5 |
18.4 |
19.0 |
- |
- |
0.76 |
Spain |
6.8 |
5.8 |
8.4 |
10.3 |
12.3 |
8.8 |
8.9 |
10.0 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0.45 |
Sweden |
16.9 |
17.1 |
16.8 |
17.9 |
17.9 |
17.7 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0.15 |
United Kingdom |
16.7 |
16.5 |
16.8 |
16.9 |
16.9 |
16.9 |
- |
16.8 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0.01 |
United States |
22.1 |
22.1 |
22.4 |
21.9 |
21.9 |
21.7 |
21.8 |
21.8 |
21.8 |
21.7 |
21.6 |
21.6 |
-0.04 |
High-income non-OECD |
|||||||||||||
Bermuda |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Cyprus |
7.0 |
7.0 |
9.2 |
9.5 |
12.3 |
13.4 |
12.3 |
14.8 |
13.5 |
14.2 |
- |
- |
0.80 |
Hong Kong 2,* |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
79.4 |
75.7 |
72.3 |
70.6 |
74.6 |
79.1 |
-0.08 |
Macau |
- |
- |
- |
5.3 |
4.6 |
5.8 |
11.7 |
18.6 |
13.1 |
20.0 |
- |
- |
2.44 |
Singapore |
20.8 |
20.4 |
22.5 |
22.8 |
24.5 |
24.8 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0.78 |
Taiwan, China |
18.0 |
20.0 |
23.0 |
26.2 |
30.3 |
33.2 |
33.5 |
33.5 |
34.1 |
- |
- |
- |
2.01 |
Middle income (upper) |
|||||||||||||
Chile |
1.7 |
2.4 |
- |
- |
5.1 |
5.6 |
4.5 |
4.6 |
3.4 |
- |
- |
- |
0.22 |
Croatia |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
15.2 |
14.8 |
14.5 |
14.8 |
14.9 |
- |
- |
-0.09 |
Czech Republic 3 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
31.1 |
31.8 |
31.1 |
26.2 |
26.3 |
- |
- |
- |
-1.20 |
Hungary |
26.4 |
26.0 |
26.4 |
25.2 |
23.8 |
22.8 |
- |
18.5 |
18.6 |
- |
- |
- |
-0.97 |
Malaysia |
17.3 |
16.7 |
17.6 |
19.6 |
19.2 |
25.2 |
33.7 |
34.2 |
35.8 |
- |
- |
- |
2.32 |
Malta |
2.6 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
2.8 |
2.9 |
5.3 |
5.2 |
- |
- |
- |
0.33 |
Mauritius |
4.0 |
4.4 |
4.3 |
3.7 |
3.9 |
5.6 |
5.6 |
4.5 |
4.8 |
5.7 |
5.6 |
5.6 |
0.14 |
Puerto Rico |
- |
- |
- |
40.6 |
26.9 |
38.7 |
36.1 |
34.2 |
31.7 |
31.5 |
- |
- |
-1.52 |
Slovenia 4 |
14.0 |
14.0 |
14.1 |
14.2 |
15.2 |
15.9 |
15.2 |
9.7 |
14.4 |
- |
- |
- |
0.04 |
Middle income (lower) |
|||||||||||||
Colombia |
- |
- |
13.5 |
13.9 |
14.0 |
- |
14.1 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0.14 |
Cuba 5 |
25.6 |
26.9 |
27.3 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0.85 |
Czechoslovakia (former) 3 |
15.7 |
16.6 |
15.9 |
15.5 |
15.5 |
15.1 |
15.9 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0.03 |
Fiji |
3.9 |
5.9 |
6.3 |
6.7 |
7.8 |
7.7 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0.75 |
Iran, Islamic Republic of |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
2.4 |
2.9 |
2.8 |
- |
- |
- |
0.18 |
Jordan |
1.0 |
2.1 |
2.3 |
3.6 |
4.6 |
4.3 |
3.5 |
3.0 |
2.8 |
4.7 |
- |
- |
0.41 |
Macedonia, The former Yugoslav Republic of |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Panama |
8.4 |
- |
- |
- |
9.3 |
10.1 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0.34 |
Philippines |
- |
- |
- |
9.6 |
12.0 |
12.4 |
14.1 |
13.4 |
15.1 |
- |
- |
- |
1.10 |
Thailand |
- |
17.0 |
- |
22.7 |
10.6 |
16.0 |
29.9 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
2.58 |
Turkey |
2.5 |
5.2 |
5.3 |
6.4 |
5.2 |
5.7 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0.65 |
Low income |
|||||||||||||
China |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
35.9 |
37.3 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
1.40 |
Bangladesh |
0.9 |
0.2 |
0.7 |
0.6 |
0.9 |
2.0 |
1.4 |
1.0 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0.03 |
Ethiopia and Eritrea |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
India |
2.3 |
1.9 |
2.1 |
2.1 |
2.3 |
2.3 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0.00 |
Kenya |
- |
- |
0.4 |
- |
2.2 |
2.2 |
1.9 |
2.0 |
1.9 |
- |
- |
- |
0.25 |
Nepal |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Sri Lanka |
6.9 |
7.3 |
- |
7.1 |
16.4 |
8.2 |
19.4 |
- |
4.8 |
13.2 |
11.8 |
- |
0.49 |
Zimbabwe 6 |
3.5 |
3.2 |
3.2 |
3.6 |
3.7 |
3.5 |
3.6 |
3.8 |
4.4 |
6.3 |
- |
- |
0.31 |
1 Average annual percentage point change. 2 ISIC 382-383. 3 In 1993, the former Czechoslovakia was divided into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. 4 In 1992, the former Yugoslavia was divided into Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Slovenia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. 5 ISIC 382, 384-385. 6 ISIC 381-382. *Prior to 1 July 1997. |
|||||||||||||
Source: Elaborated from the UNIDO database Industrial Statistics, 1997; and ILO: Year Book of Labour Statistics (Geneva), various volumes. |
|||||||||||||
Table 6.9. Women employees as a percentage of total employment
in the manufacture of electrical machinery
(ISIC 383, Rev.2), 1985-96
Country of area |
1985 |
1986 |
1987 |
1988 |
1989 |
1990 |
1991 |
1992 |
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
^% |
High-income OECD |
|||||||||||||
Australia |
35.1 |
- |
30.6 |
31.3 |
32.3 |
30.8 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
-0.86 |
Austria |
36.1 |
36.1 |
35.5 |
35.3 |
35.7 |
35.7 |
34.6 |
32.5 |
31.9 |
31.5 |
- |
- |
-0.51 |
Belgium |
30.4 |
31.7 |
30.3 |
29.9 |
30.2 |
29.6 |
28.5 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
-0.31 |
Canada |
36.8 |
36.0 |
36.1 |
37.2 |
35.7 |
36.6 |
35.1 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
-0.29 |
Denmark |
38.0 |
38.0 |
38.6 |
- |
- |
39.1 |
38.3 |
37.9 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
-0.01 |
Finland |
41.1 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
Germany (West) |
38.3 |
38.0 |
37.6 |
37.7 |
37.5 |
37.7 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
-0.13 |
Ireland |
- |
- |
- |
53.4 |
53.5 |
52.5 |
51.4 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
-0.70 |
Korea, Republic of |
50.9 |
56.3 |
54.2 |
50.0 |
47.9 |
49.1 |
46.4 |
45.3 |
44.6 |
45.4 |
- |
- |
-0.61 |
Luxembourg 2 |
39.3 |
38.5 |
38.9 |
40.8 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0.50 |
Netherlands |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
17.3 |
15.6 |
18.4 |
17.3 |
20.0 |
- |
- |
0.68 |
New Zealand |
- |
- |
- |
28.2 |
36.8 |
33.5 |
33.6 |
33.0 |
34.3 |
- |
- |
- |
1.22 |
Portugal |
46.7 |
45.8 |
46.3 |
- |
- |
44.6 |
49.8 |
52.3 |
54.1 |
57.2 |
- |
- |
1.17 |
Spain |
21.3 |
20.6 |
22.5 |
20.4 |
21.9 |
23.9 |
22.3 |
21.3 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
-0.01 |
Sweden |
33.8 |
33.8 |
34.1 |
34.5 |
36.1 |
34.5 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0.16 |
United Kingdom |
29.6 |
29.8 |
30.0 |
30.0 |
30.0 |
29.9 |
- |
31.9 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0.32 |
United States |
41.9 |
41.7 |
41.7 |
42.8 |
42.9 |
42.7 |
42.4 |
42.4 |
42.3 |
42.1 |
41.8 |
41.4 |
-0.04 |
High-income non-OECD |
|||||||||||||
Bermuda |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
33.3 |
33.3 |
21.1 |
25.0 |
23.5 |
- |
- |
-2.45 |
Cyprus |
43.1 |
41.6 |
42.3 |
40.7 |
32.6 |
34.4 |
34.7 |
35.8 |
37.6 |
34.8 |
- |
- |
-0.92 |
Hong Kong 3,* |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
79.4 |
75.7 |
72.3 |
70.6 |
74.6 |
79.1 |
-0.08 |
Macau |
43.4 |
- |
- |
66.1 |
65.1 |
66.8 |
73.5 |
71.7 |
75.2 |
74.2 |
- |
- |
3.42 |
Singapore |
72.3 |
73.6 |
73.9 |
72.4 |
72.1 |
71.0 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
-0.26 |
Taiwan, China |
58.9 |
59.4 |
58.2 |
57.6 |
56.7 |
55.8 |
55.4 |
54.4 |
54.2 |
- |
- |
- |
-0.59 |
Middle income (upper) |
|||||||||||||
Chile |
13.0 |
12.3 |
- |
- |
13.3 |
12.1 |
12.2 |
13.5 |
13.2 |
- |
- |
- |
-0.03 |
Croatia |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
39.0 |
39.5 |
39.5 |
39.1 |
39.3 |
- |
- |
-0.09 |
Czech Republic 4 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
50.0 |
48.0 |
49.5 |
44.6 |
44.6 |
- |
- |
- |
-1.35 |
Hungary |
47.4 |
47.4 |
47.3 |
47.6 |
46.3 |
45.0 |
- |
44.3 |
45.8 |
- |
- |
- |
-0.20 |
Malaysia |
73.7 |
75.9 |
76.6 |
78.0 |
77.2 |
75.4 |
72.7 |
73.3 |
71.3 |
- |
- |
- |
-0.30 |
Malta |
38.5 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
36.2 |
36.2 |
44.9 |
43.1 |
- |
- |
- |
0.58 |
Mauritius |
26.1 |
21.4 |
21.0 |
21.8 |
21.1 |
25.5 |
26.0 |
16.1 |
18.5 |
19.5 |
21.6 |
25.4 |
-0.07 |
Puerto Rico |
- |
- |
- |
51.5 |
60.9 |
61.0 |
58.9 |
58.9 |
57.7 |
54.4 |
- |
- |
0.49 |
Slovenia 5 |
53.0 |
52.5 |
51.6 |
51.5 |
51.4 |
50.8 |
50.4 |
49.2 |
48.4 |
- |
- |
- |
-0.57 |
Middle income (lower) |
|||||||||||||
Colombia |
- |
- |
30.6 |
30.8 |
32.8 |
- |
30.6 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
-0.01 |
Cuba 5 |
55.3 |
55.1 |
57.8 |
58.2 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0.97 |
Czechoslovakia (former) 4 |
34.3 |
35.3 |
33.9 |
33.8 |
33.4 |
32.1 |
33.4 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
-0.15 |
Fiji |
3.5 |
4.3 |
5.4 |
6.3 |
4.4 |
7.2 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0.75 |
Iran, Islamic Republic of |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
Jordan |
21.0 |
22.3 |
12.6 |
11.8 |
25.1 |
12.0 |
12.0 |
9.6 |
8.2 |
16.0 |
- |
- |
-0.56 |
Macedonia, The former Yugoslav Republic of |
30.0 |
27.3 |
27.3 |
27.3 |
27.3 |
27.3 |
27.3 |
30.0 |
30.0 |
33.3 |
22.2 |
28.6 |
-0.13 |
Panama |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
Philippines |
- |
- |
- |
63.8 |
66.0 |
64.8 |
69.4 |
72.7 |
66.5 |
- |
- |
- |
0.54 |
Thailand |
- |
51.9 |
- |
43.1 |
58.4 |
40.6 |
46.4 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
-1.09 |
Turkey |
11.9 |
20.6 |
21.2 |
19.5 |
22.4 |
22.8 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
2.19 |
Low-income |
|||||||||||||
China |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
47.2 |
47.8 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0.64 |
Bangladesh |
1.9 |
2.7 |
2.1 |
2.1 |
3.2 |
2.9 |
2.1 |
2.7 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0.11 |
Ethiopia and Eritrea |
14.6 |
16.7 |
18.2 |
18.3 |
16.1 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0.37 |
India |
8.2 |
8.4 |
8.2 |
8.8 |
6.5 |
9.4 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
0.24 |
Kenya |
- |
- |
3.5 |
13.0 |
8.2 |
7.0 |
6.7 |
6.8 |
6.8 |
- |
- |
- |
0.55 |
Nepal |
- |
2.3 |
1.1 |
7.8 |
9.1 |
2.7 |
6.6 |
- |
3.0 |
- |
- |
- |
0.09 |
Sri Lanka |
21.7 |
24.2 |
- |
31.4 |
39.1 |
41.3 |
49.1 |
- |
70.7 |
67.8 |
69.2 |
- |
4.75 |
Zimbabwe |
5.3 |
6.7 |
6.5 |
7.9 |
7.6 |
7.1 |
8.3 |
7.1 |
7.2 |
6.8 |
- |
- |
0.18 |
1 Average annual percentage point change. 2 ISIC 383, 385. 3 ISIC 382-383. 4 In 1993, the former Czechoslovakia was divided into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. 5 In 1992, the former Yugoslavia was divided into Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Slovenia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. *Prior to 1 July 1997. |
|||||||||||||
Source: ibid. |
|||||||||||||
As a result, in manufacturing in general, overtime and changes in shift systems were the most frequently used methods of meeting seasonal or cyclical changes in demand, because of the gender composition of the sector. Gender patterns in turn were in most cases primarily determined by the system of occupational segregation. In male-dominated establishments and occupations firms were much more constrained by notions of standard working weeks and by expectations of high and regular levels of overtime. Hence, women were underrepresented in unsocial working hours systems in manufacturing in general, in contrast to the pattern found in other sectors, such as services.
These findings raise questions concerning the potential inhibiting effect of established working time patterns on occupational desegregation. For instance, if men provide flexibility through overtime, annualized hours or shift work, this might discourage women from applying for these jobs because inconvenient, variable and long hours are more difficult to mesh with domestic responsibilities. Conversely, such working time patterns for men might reduce opportunities for a new gender contract at home, even if total hours of work are reduced.(19)
The study was also revealing in terms of the differences it did not find. For instance, there was little evidence that working time for women is arranged to fit in with their preferences or domestic constraints, except with respect to total hours worked. In other words, workers' preferences appear mainly to influence their choice between different jobs, rather than determining working time arrangements within specific jobs; once the choice of a job or firm had been made, there would be little opportunity for them to renegotiate working hours even when their domestic circumstances had changed. Therefore, women with child care responsibilities had to make continual adjustments in their domestic arrangements to fit working-time patterns, rather than the other way around. In fact, employers very rarely tailored working hours to individual needs or preferences, for either women or men. They were much more likely to arrange working hours with reference to norms (or expected norms) for each gender.
Prior to the growth in unemployment at the end of the 1980s, and with fewer young people entering the labour market as a result of demographic changes, firms were introducing new working time arrangements to attract women (career breaks, part-time schedules and flexitime). But in the current labour market conditions, the driving force is rather employers' search for greater flexibility and lower production costs.(20)
6.5. Early and phased retirement
In the 1980s, the labour force participation in the EU of men over the age of 55 fell significantly with the spread of early retirement. For management, it constitutes the least controversial method of shedding labour whose continued employment would be too cost-intensive relative to new and younger recruits, and it increases its room for manoeuvre with the so-called "block on innovation caused by old age".(21) In some countries, plant-level agreements tend to encourage early retirement, sometimes within the framework of a social plan, as a means of reducing unemployment.
However, the scope for early retirement is limited if firms failed to invest sufficiently in training. In the United States machine tool industry, for instance, the average age of machinists appears to be 62 years! Moreover, the industry is facing a severe skill shortage because of lack of investment in training, in sharp contrast with its German and Japanese competitors. Firms terminated their apprenticeship programmes one after the other, in part in response to the cyclical nature of business, which was handled by means of large lay-offs and recalls, and because of the notion that high-tech tools could serve as substitutes for skilled machinists. Skills, and by implication the historical knowledge of the manufacturing process, became expendable. As a result, the United States is training four times fewer skilled machinists, calculated as a percentage of the population, than Germany with its industry-based apprenticeship system.(22)
Partial pension schemes offer an alternative, sometimes linked with the obligation of hiring an unemployed person or a trainee. But more recently, policy has shifted away from subsidized early retirement to open up jobs to the young and unemployed because of the escalating cost of these measures. Outflow from the labour force has nonetheless continued in the EU and has affected a younger cohort. Thus, in 1995, only just over half of men aged 55 or more were still economically active in the EU, in marked contrast with the United States, where two-thirds are still in the labour force, and Japan, where the proportion reaches 85 per cent. Also, a disproportionate number of those withdrawing early from the labour force have relatively low educational attainment levels. Conversely, for women in the EU aged 55 or more, the trend towards early retirement has tended to be offset by the increase in their overall participation rate, even during the recession years of the early 1990s. But the average participation rate for the EU of 27 per cent in 1995 was still much lower than in the United States and Japan, where it reached about 49 per cent.(23)
6.6. Reducing unemployment
With the growth of unemployment, arguments have focused more on employment preservation and creation as a means of reducing working hours and working life while increasing flexibility, as well as for welfare reasons. For instance, shortening average working time in Switzerland from 42 to 40 hours a week could create 83,000 jobs, which corresponds to about half of the registered unemployed in the country. In Australia, overtime hours amount to 500,000 full-time jobs. In Germany, IG Metall argues that the elimination of overtime would have created 120,000 jobs in 1996, while the United Auto Workers Union (UAW) estimates that 130,000 jobs could have been created in 1994 with strict adherence to a 40-hour week in United States motor vehicle and equipment plants.(24) In France, the general reduction from 40 to 39 hours in the early 1980s seems to have created between 15,000 and 70,000 jobs -- far fewer than had been hoped for.(25)
The reason is that the arithmetical possible employment effect (obtained by summing overtime and hours "freed" with shorter working hours) overstates the actual employment potential of such measures. Part of this potential is absorbed by productivity gains that can be achieved with a shorter working week and with more flexible working time systems; the latter reduce the incidence of idle time and thus raise work intensity. But the problem remains of matching vacancies with labour supply. In small businesses, the hours freed might not be sufficient to justify new recruitment. Thus, in Denmark, where the industry largely consists of small and medium-sized enterprises, reductions in working time have not had any recognizable employment effect.(26) Furthermore, unemployed workers may not have the requisite skills. This mismatch might be aggravated by structural factors, such as lack of geographical mobility or employers' reluctance to hire unemployed persons (see box 6.4).Finally, employers might be reluctant to hire additional staff in uncertain economic conditions. However, the indirect employment creation effect must also be taken into consideration. Higher productivity may spur growth and thus create new jobs.
Several studies have estimated the employment potential of cuts in weekly
working time in Germany;(27) all of them found
a positive employment effect, including a study by the engineering employers'
federation (Gesamtmetall), but their results vary considerably owing to differences
in methodologies and their sectoral, geographic and demographic coverage. One
of the main reasons for this variety of results is the differences in productivity
gains that can be achieved in various sectors and occupations with new working
time systems.
Box
6.4 A detailed study of satellite establishments in the French automobile industry reports how "persons in difficult circumstances" or coming from a neighbourhood with a strong union presence are systematically screened out. State-sponsored and subsidized arrangements to facilitate reintegration of unemployed and young persons are rarely used. Moreover, when firms set up some of their former operations as independent satellite establishments, it often provides an opportunity to hire a new, younger and non-unionized staff. It is easier to introduce new and flexible work organization with employees who are not accustomed to Taylorism and have not been involved in past social struggles. Thus, these firms rarely transfer personnel from the parent establishments, except for managers and trainers, even within the framework of a social plan. They favour new implantations in greenfields or declining industrial districts and do not welcome unionization. These new work practices raise some fundamental disagreements with unions, for instance with respect to collective wage premiums. Moreover, job classification systems and remuneration constantly change because satellite establishments tend to experiment with new forms of work organization. Most of these firms rely mainly on extensive internal training and therefore do not require professional experience or recognized diplomas from new recruits. Competence (in a broad non-technical sense) and attitudinal characteristics play an important role; psychological tests may also be used. Above all, candidates must be flexible, polyvalent and able to work in teams. But these competencies are not reflected in remuneration because they do not constitute recognized qualifications. Relatively flat qualification and wage structures result in poor career prospects. In fact, these plants have no long-term perspectives and do not even give consideration to the ageing of the workforce. Source: A. Gorgeu and R. Mathieu: Recrutement et production au plus juste: les nouvelles usines d'équipement automobile en France, Centre d'Etudes de l'Emploi, Dossier 7 (Gap, France, Louis-Jean, 1995), passim. |
A study of French industries concluded that adoption of the flexible model, in itself, had a small disemployment effect, but was usually associated with technological change, which was found to have an overall positive impact on employment because of its expansionary effect on market shares. Thus, the final impact on the level of employment was the same as for other firms. The model of the flexible firm mainly affected the structure of employment. Managers' share in employment was smaller. Surprisingly, this category was also less affected by downscaling than other employees, although some hierarchical levels had been eliminated and responsibilities of operatives had increased.(28)
A study of the United Kingdom finds rather different results. In most cases, technological and organizational change had no discernible effect overall in either direction; these were very small when compared to changes in the industry and the region as a whole as a result of variations in demand and competitive pressures. But when changes did occur, both job gains and losses were registered, with marked differences across industries. In metal industries, technical change had a larger employment impact than organizational change; in engineering, job gains were mostly due to technical change, whereas job losses were associated for the most part with organizational change. In general, organizational change had a significantly greater impact on employment than technological change in all sizes of establishment; its effect on job gains was greatest in small and medium-sized establishments, while it accounted for the most job losses in large establishments.(29)
In Sweden, preliminary estimates suggest that flexible organization raises productivity by 20 per cent, sets a premium on more educated staff and reduces employee turnover. A Danish study found that growth in productivity and employment was most strongly associated with changes in management structure, but the highest growth was registered by firms which combined changes in management and/or work organization with the adoption of advanced manufacturing technologies. Thus, there appear to be few direct links between organization, simple characteristics of productivity and employment. The final impact depends on the combined use of various work practices and organizational structures.(30)
Finally, the impact of flexible work organization on employment becomes more difficult to assess in the aggregate when downsizing is combined with outsourcing. In the OECD, the process of job destruction and relocation appears to be dominated by intra-industry shifts; this is consistent with organizational change that involves rationalization and concentration on core activities in the parent company, combined with outsourcing of peripheral activities.(31)
Nevertheless, working time reductions, often in conjunction with greater flexibility, have been used successfully to avoid redundancies. Smoothing the adjustment process helps maintain social peace and reduce transactional costs; but job preservation, unlike job creation, is primarily a short-term expedient which may only postpone "adjustment pains". For instance, in Germany, state-subsidized short-time working to save jobs initially increased, but declined considerably after 1992 when firms began reducing not only hours but also staffing levels.(32) The money saved by the State provides a strong argument for the payment of subsidies to avoid redundancies and help retrain and redeploy workers (as is done with short-time working but not with work-sharing). Thus, the Volkswagen agreement, which is probably the best known example of work-sharing for safeguarding jobs (about 30,000), has been estimated to have saved a net amount of DM367 million for the State; this figure represents one year of unemployment benefits and takes into account reduced tax receipts and social contributions as a result of lower levels of income. Work-sharing schemes, however, are easier to implement in conjunction with training programmes and when lower income groups receive partial wage compensations; one argument frequently held against such schemes is the observed skill bottlenecks in the labour market.(33)
Flexible labour market arrangements offer yet other possibilities for reducing unemployment. Denmark has been a testing ground since mid-1992 for various models of special leave and rotation schemes, sometimes in combination with the creation of short-term employment for unemployed people.(34) Moreover, recent years have seen a partial deregulation of dismissal protection in a number of European countries, but with virtually no impact on firms' recruiting behaviour. One reason is that new work arrangements have also raised skill requirements, thus increasing recruitment costs. Flexibility in hours appears to be needed more than flexibility in employment -- hence the part-time initiative launched by the German Government in 1994. Changes in dismissal costs tended to influence adjustment behaviour during the structural crises of the early 1980s and 1990s; employment has become noticeably more volatile, reacting more sensitively to cyclical fluctuations, which raises the risk of insufficient investment in human capital.(35)
1. International Metalworkers' Federation (IMF): Metalworkers and working time in the world, Report for a conference held in Tokyo, Japan, 15-16 Oct. 1997 (Geneva, IMF, 1997), pp. 6-7.
2. W.K. Roche, B. Fynes and T. Morrissey: "Working time and employment: A review of international evidence", in International Labour Review, 135(2), 1996, p. 140; and G. Bosch: Flexibility and work organization, Social Europe, Supplement 1/95 (Luxembourg, Office of Official Publications of the European Communities, 1995, p. 18).
3. K. Zühlke-Robinet and S. Lehndorff: Company policies with regard to the reduction of working time: Germany, Working Paper No. WP/97/51/EN (Dublin, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 1997), p. 53.
4. P. Blyton: The development of annual working hours in the United Kingdom, Working Paper (Geneva, ILO, 1995).
5. Zühlke-Robinet and Lehndorff, op. cit., pp. 13-17.
6. A. De Grip, J. Hoevenberg and E. Willems: "Atypical employment in the European Union", in International Labour Review, 136(1), Spring 1997, p. 52.
7. Zühlke-Robinet and Lehndorff, op. cit, p. 43; and Bosche, op. cit., p. 14, note 3.
8. OECD: Employment Outlook, 1996 (Paris), p. 6.
9. De Grip et al., op. cit.
10. For detailed analyses, see De Grip et al., op. cit., pp. 49-71; OECD, Technology, productivity and job creation, Vol. 2, Analytical Report (Paris, 1996), pp. 158-160, 166; European Commission, Employment and Social Affairs, Employment in Europe, 1996 (Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities) pp. 53-61; and OECD, Employment Outlook, 1996, op. cit., pp. 5-20.
11. A. Gorgeu and R. Mathieu: Recrutement et production au plus juste: les nouvelles usines d'équipement automobile en France, Centre d'Etudes de l'Emploi, Dossier 7 (Gap, France, Louis-Jean, 1995), pp. 72-75.
12. OECD: Employment Outlook, op. cit., pp. 10, 12, 19.
13. J.F. Geary: "Employment flexibility and human resource management: The case of three American electronics plants", in Work, Employment and Society, 6(2), 1992, pp. 251-270.
14. OECD: Employment Outlook, 1997 (Paris, 1997), pp. 129-160.
15. G. Bertola and A. Ichino: "Crossing the river: A comparative perspective on Italian employment dynamics", in Economic Policy, 21 (1995), pp. 359-420.
16. M. Beatson: "Labour market flexibility", Research Series No. 48 (Sheffield, Employment Department, 1995).
17. J. Haskel, B. Kersley and C. Martin: "Labour market flexibility and employment adjustment: Micro evidence from UK establishments", Oxford Economic Papers, Vol. 49(3) (1997), pp. 362-379.
18. The study surveyed 29 representative establishments in 1988-89, in five areas in Britain and in all industries where there was a high level of demand for unsocial or variable working hours. S. Horrel and J. Rubery: "Gender and working time: An analysis of employers' working-time policies", in Cambridge Journal of Economics (15), 1991, pp. 373-391.
19. F. Bettio, J. Rubery and M. Smith: European Seminar: Women and Work in Europe (Turin, International Training Centre of the ILO), 18-19 Apr. 1996, pp. 12-15.
20. OECD: Flexible working time: Collective bargaining and government intervention (Paris, 1995), pp. 98-99.
21. Zühlke-Robinet and Lehndorff, op. cit., p. 35.
22. R. Forrant: "Grinding down the cutting edge: The organizational failure of the US machine tool industry in the face of globalization", Paper presented at the Conference on the Machinery Industry: Globalization, Employment and New Enterprise Strategies, IMF and ILO, Geneva, 26-28 Nov. 1997, pp. 20-21.
23. European Commission: Employment in Europe, 1996 (Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities), pp. 49-52.
24. IMF, op. cit., p. 58.
25. "Perspectives", in International Labour Review, 134(2), 1995, p. 271.
26. IMF, op. cit., p. 73.
27. For a summary, see Zühlke-Robinet, op. cit., pp. 22-27.
28. N. Greenan: "Progrès technique et changements organisationnels: leur impact sur l'emploi et les qualifications", in Economie et statistique, 8(298), 1996, pp. 35-44.
29. M. Campbell: "The employment effects of new technology and organizational change: An empirical study", in New Technology, Work and Employment, 8(2), Sep. 1993, pp. 134-140.
30. OECD: Technology, op. cit., p. 140.
31. ibid., pp. 155-156.
32. Zühlke-Robinet, op. cit., p. 59.
33. Bosche, op. cit., pp. 18-19. The figure of DM367 million has been estimated by V. Meinhardt, F. Stille and R. Zweiner: "Weitere Arbeitszeitverkürzungen erforderlich: Zum Stellenwert des VW-Modells", in Wirtschaftsdienst, 12 (1993), pp. 639-644.
34. Bosch, op. cit., p. 23.
35. ibid., pp. 27-29; and European Industrial Relations Review, No. 247, Aug. 1994, pp. 21-22.
SECTORS | ACTIVITIES | MEETINGS | PUBLICATIONS
For further information, please contact the Sectoral
Activities Department (SECTOR) at Tel: +41.22.799.7513, Fax: +41.22.799.7296
or email: sector@ilo.org
Disclaimer | webinfo@ilo.org
This page was created by BR/HK. It was approved
by LW/BKN. It was last updated on 28 June 1999.