facilitating flexibility ánd security for older workers: hrm-arangements in 4 european countries...

Post on 13-Dec-2015

218 Views

Category:

Documents

0 Downloads

Preview:

Click to see full reader

TRANSCRIPT

Facilitating flexibility ánd security for older workers: HRM-arangements in 4

European countries

CEDEFOP (Thessaloniki, 30 sept. 2008)

Frank Tros

Hugo Sinzheimer InstituutUniversity of Amsterdam

F.H.Tros@uva.nl

Agenda

1. Flexicurity-concept and older workers

2. Comparative survey on 50+ workers in workplaces in the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Belgium.

3. Problem & questions: Do reflect workplaces European and national policy (-

shifts)? Are there ‘flexicurity’-approaches? Is there cross-national (sectoral) variances in degree/

forms of HRM-activities that facilitate (different forms of) flexibility and security for the older workers?

Why flexicurity?

Basics flexicurity-debate: 1. flexibility and security are mutually supportive

/complementary2. Flexibility not monopoly of employers; security not

monopoly of workers3. Focus on new forms of security (activating)

Older workers good test case for this concept: Modernizing old fashioned passive HRM-practises Need for new combinations for flexibility ánd security Can broaden bargaining on early retirement issues

Security:

Flexibility:

Income Job Employ-ment

Combination (Work-life balance)

External numerical

Internal numerical

Internal functional

Wage

Income security

Job security Employment security

Combination security

External numerical flex

Early retirement benefits

Outplacement;

Selfemploy-ment

Recruitment

Internal

numerical flex

Part time retirement

Reduced working hours

Variable working hours

Part time retirement

Flexible working hours

Internal

functional flex

Relieve work load;

Retraining

Task roulation

In/external jobmobility;

Education;

Senior jobs

Wage flex Flexible pay Demotion

Employment rates 55-64 yrs

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Netherlands

Germany

Belgium

Denmark

EU 15

Institutional variety

• In all 4 countries policy shifts on older workers

• But different (initiating) role of the several actors in IR-systems

• How reflects policies and regulations on national/sectoral level the activities on workplace level?

Stratified samples (n=3085 workplaces)

Metal-electro industry

Trans-

port

Edu-cation

Public admini-stration

Total

Nether-lands

200 200 150 200 750

Germany 174 177 179 186 716

Denmark 201 163 168 198 730

Belgium 194 114 274 307 889

Total 769 654 771 891 3085

Arrangements facilitating working time flexibility for 50+ (% workplaces, weighted)

Nether-lands

Denmark Belgium Germany Total

Part time retirement 68 78 57 33 59

Part-time contracts 55 83 67 46 63

Reduced working hours 72 68 69 29 60

Dispensation from inconvenient working hours

48 45 15 26 33

Arrangements facilitating functional flexibility for 50+ by (% workplaces, weighted)

Nether-land

Denmark Belgium Germany Total

Job-rotation and horizontal career movements

44 84 25 39 47

Adaptation tasks to relieve workload

64 34 26 30 38

Plans/programmes for Education

41 48 29 26 36

‘Senior-jobs’ 19 15 10 7 13

Demotion towards less paid jobs

22 2 4 1 7

Arrangements facilitating external numerical flexibility for 50+ (% workplaces, weighted)

Netherland

Denmark Belgium Germany Total

Mediation/support outplacement to other employers

27 4 11 4 12

Support for self-employment 9 3 2 4 4

Number of flex arrangements

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Metal-electronicindustry

Transport Education PublicAdministration

Total

Netherlands

Germany

Belgium

Denmark

Inititiators in most facilities for 50+ (n=3085 workplaces)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Netherlands Germany Denmark Belgium

Legislation/government

Collective agreement

Employer/HRM-dpt

Works council

Workers

Multiple regression analysis ‘number of arrangements’

Standardised coefficient Beta

Adj R square .245

Netherlands

Germany

Denmark

Metalektro

Transport

Education

Size (4 cat)

Collective bargaining

HRM-department

Share 50+ (4 cat)

Recruitment 50+

Workscouncil

+.251 **

-.083 **

+.287 **

-.042

-.091 **

+.052 *

+.103 **

+.073 **

+.105 **

+.040 *

+.040 *

+.057 **

** stat. Sign. 0.01 level

* stat. Sign. 0.05 level

Adj. R Square:

NL

.216

Ger

.026

Den

.109

Bel

.123

Metalectro sectorTransport sectorEducation sectorSize organ. (4 cat)CLAWorkscouncilHRM departm.Share 50+ (4 cat)Share female 50+Edu-level 50+ (3 cat)

Recruitment 50+

- .224- .324 .091 .144 -.099 -.093 --.192

---.117-----.097--

-.146-.157-----.233-.097--

---.097.162.124-.090.148---

Intensity of activity/use of arrangements

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Metal-electronicindustry

Transport Education PublicAdministration

Total

Netherlands

Germany

Belgium

Denmark

Intensity of use among 50+ (total 4 contries, in case of availability)

• Early retirement ++• Flexible reirement age +• Part-time retirments -• Part-time contracts -• Reduction working hours +• Relieve inconvenient working hours +/-• Training/education programmes +• Internal job mobility --• Reservation senior jobs -• Relieve workload -• Outplacement/external job mobility --• Support self employment --• Demotion towards less paid jobs --• Flexible pay ++

• ++ > 50% often used; + 40- 50% often used; +/- 30-40% often used; - 20-30% often used; --< 10% often used.

Overall picture 4 countries

Hierarchy of flex-forms in HRM-practises:1. Working hours flex2. Internal funtional flex3. External/wage need for more external flex - job-job mobility and

education - in relation to employment security (?)

The intensity in which some arrangements are used is low.

Large cross-country variances

Dutch and Danish workplaces have more arrangements for flexibility and preventing/activating security for 50+, compared to German/Belgian workplaces.

Especially Netherlands have more intense use of these arrangements.

Different focus and initiating actors in the countries.

HRM in the countries reflect working of national IR-institutions.

Approach Background variables

Netherlands

Relief(in greater range of HRM-instruments)

Sectoral variance;

CLA initiative

Denmark Development(in greater range of HRM-instruments)

Initiatiative workplaces/HRM dept.;

Belgium Focus on working hours(in small range of arrangements)

Legislative intitiative;

Local variances

Germany Low activity in all

?

Further work to do

• More evaluation needed on micro level for effects of arrangement and HRM-practises for flexibility and security in job/labour market in the long run.

• Do and how do flexible arrangements lead also to (sustainable) security? How secure is flexicurity?

• Further statistic analyses for explaining cross-country, and inside country variances.

top related