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