ISCO-08 Problematic areas

2 Introduction We have sent all Member States a mail requesting to inform us on the problematic aspects of the implementation of ISCO- 08. Among the different answers we have identified some common areas of interest There were equally some problems which were very specific and linked with the national structure of the occupations. We do not expect to solve all the problems in this workshop but we expect at least to identify areas which need further work and to present a first round of proposals from the Member States of going towards a coordinated and consistent implementation of ISCO-08 at EU level.

3 Major group 1: Managers Managers have imprecise boundaries with other categories mainly when the managing functions are cumulated with other functions and the part and nature of the managing tasks is not clear. It is also difficult the classification according to the different types of managers. Degree of responsibility and size of the employer organization (enterprise/farm) seem to be a criteria, nevertheless those 2 aspects are not clearly quantified to make the process of decision transparent. The Netherlands have developed a set of questions to ask respondents of the labour force survey that enable to distinguish between the different types of managers.

4 Major group 1: Managers France has also thought about the extra necessary information needed and proposed some new variables which can be used: –An organisation-size variable –A variable identifying supervisory status –A skill-specialisation variable –A variable for job-specific skills Bulgaria also proposed to use number of employees, status in employment and priority of the tasks and duties as ancillary information for the coding.

5 Major Group 2: Professionals What to do with ISCO-88 (COM) group 2470 “Public service administration professionals”? –ISCO-88 (COM) had a special group (not existing in ISCO-88) called This minor group has been designed explicitly for the classification of occupations in which the primary tasks consist of general administrative functions within the public service and for which national education and training requirements stipulate a university education or equivalent. –Occupations classified to this category exclude the most senior general administrative grades within the public service (classified to minor group 111 Legislators and senior government officials). –This group was created in the ISCO-88 (COM) due to the non- homogeneous nature of public service occupational categories in national occupational classifications and the use of bureaucratic titles/grading systems to denote rank, pay, seniority, qualification which means different occupations in the different countries. –Where to classify persons previously classified in this group when using ISCO-08? –Sub-major group 24? More precisely 2422?

6 Major Group 2: Professionals How to classify different types of teachers? –Should distinction between group 2320 (Vocational education teachers) and 2330 (Secondary education teachers) be made according to the kind of school in which the person is teaching, or according to the kind of subject the teacher is teaching. To give an example: a mathematics teacher teaching in a vocational school should be classified in code 2320 (he/she teaches in a vocational school) or in code 2330 (he/she teaches a more general subject)? –In the unit groups 2354 and 2355 of ISCO-08 are defined Guitar teacher, Piano teacher; Singing teacher; Violin teacher; Dance teacher; Drama teacher; Painting teacher; Sculpture teacher. Do we have to classify in 2320 art teaching teachers if they are in teaching in secondary schools?

7 Major Group 2: Professionals How to collect information on detailed ICT occupations? –ICT occupations under sub-major group 25 have many detailed occupations and this level of detail is not always possible to collect in surveys. Concretely it can be difficult to distinguish between the occupations or even –Any solutions/guidelines for the coding under these groups?

8