LAMAS Working Group 7-8 December 2015 Agenda Item 2.4 Final report from the task force on the measurement of absences and working time Havard.LIEN@ec.europa.eu 30 min in total. 15 min presentation

The new model questionnaire: Absences Directly targeted at absences of less than one week Delete HOURREAS and replace parts of it with ABSHOLID, ABSILLIN, and ABSOTHER Three purposes: reminders for HWACTUAL for those who had absences of less than a week correct and re-route those who answered wrongly to WSTATOR (who really were absent for the entire week) better data in itself for absences Dear colleagues, For this presentation I will try something new. I have dropped the general introduction, and the sum-up, and I will use most of my time to answer the questions you raised in the exchange of views. So, I will only start with one slide showing how the model questionnaire deals with absences, and one slide for how it treats all other elements Since improved measurement of absences is the most important part of the work of the task force, and constitute 3 of the 5 new of the variables, I will start with that. As you see, the task force has only directly worked on improving the measurement of absences of less than the full reference week, on the theory that if we improve the measurement of shorter absences, improvements in the measurement of the longer absences will follow. The model questionnaire tests show that many respondents simply do not remember the details of the reference week, but when we add reminders of public holidays and bank holidays, the reported number of hours actually worked drops markedly. (as an example, we found a 20 percentage point increase in the number of respondents who reported absences, in the field test in Denmark, when they were given reminders, compared to the control group who were not given reminders, and this is a country where the reported levels of absences already were plausible). In addition to reminders about possible public holidays, we also observe a reminder effect from asking individual questions on absences for holidays / leave, and for illness / injury, (and with the rest category of absences for other reasons this gives us the full sum of short absences). Just bringing up the topic helps the respondent to think about what we want information on. In short, restructuring the variables on absences serves three purposes: Implicit reminders for how many hours should be reported for hwactual Find and correct wrong answers to if one has been absent the whole week Better and more detailed data in itself for the absences (the old Hourreas only gives one main reason, and no number of hours or days). Easier entry filter for the new absences variables than for hourreas, as no calculation during the interview is needed (current requirement of hwactual > hwusual)

The new model questionnaire: Other elements Adding HWCONTRA to differentiate it from HWUSUAL Replace HWOVERP, HWOVERPU, and parts of HOURREAS with HWEXTRA, as types of additional hours worked cannot realistically be split from each other HWUSUAL and HWACTUAL remain unchanged The other new elements of the model questionnaire cover contractual hours and all types of additional hours worked. Many respondents have problems understanding the differences between usual hours and contractual hours. This means that when we, as is the current practice, only ask for usual hours without any further explanation or follow-up, we get answers for contractual hours instead of usual hours in many cases. By explicitly asking for both contractual and usual hours, and explaining the difference between them, we will get a better measurement of usual hours, and we will in addition also get information on the number of contractual hours. This new variable also allows for collecting data on employees who do not have contracts, and on persons with contracts which do not specify the number of hours The model questionnaire tests have also shown that respondents find it very difficult to differentiate the current types we have of overtime (paid and unpaid), and to know the difference between overtime and other types of hours worked in excess of the usual or contractual hours. Here we have come to the opposite conclusion of what we did for usual/contractual hours, that is, since no one really manages to differentiate, there is no point in having several variables. We therefore recommend to just collect the sum of all additional/extra hours worked.

Exchange of views – vote result and general survey issues 3 against, 19 for, the rest blank / don’t know Legal status of model questionnaire: not mandatory Series break: yes, but gaining comparable data Not suitable for proxies: yes, but neither is the current version Longer interviews: for working time yes, but overall no, and lower than the agreed limit for variables Vote result: among those who have decided, we have 19-3 for, so even if all who are undecided end up being against, we have a marked majority for the proposed solution. For the countries who are against, we will be happy to offer you bilateral meetings for further discussion and clarifications, if you should want it I have grouped your comments under three headers, starting with the very general, and going to the level of question wordings First the more general (and recurring) issues, which have been raised by several of you Regarding the legal status of the model questionnaire, you will find in the document from agenda point 2.1, in article 5, paragraph 1 f, that implementing acts will only be for employment and unemployment data, which means, not for working time and absences Series break: yes, but this will basically be for the entire LFS when the revised core is implemented Proxies: yes, but the problem is not isolated to this model questionnaire, and we can live with this issue for other variables (and it is no different from the current problems we have on working time) Longer interviews: yes, but this has been apparent the whole time, and the model questionnaire has fewer variables than the upper limit (of 6 new variables) set by the LAMAS

Exchange of views – core LFS issues Second jobs are not considered Change the reference period for absences due to illness Change the explanatory notes for HWUSUAL and HWACTUAL To be dealt by the TFs on LFS implementing act Somewhat more detailed objections, relating to the whole core LFS, but on a more concrete level. The most serious objection you have given us is that the proposed solution does not take second jobs into account. Initially, for the first round of model questionnaire tests, the task force did include this element, but the test results were not encouraging, so for the rest of the work we simply took this out. If you want it considered further, we would say that this is a topic for the coming 'task force 2', which will work on working time and on the regular modules. Then we have three comments which basically say that we should re-define the reference period, and re-define what "work" means. This is clearly outside the mandate of the task force, but could be addressed in the coming "task force 3", if there is a wish for it.

Exchange of views – model questionnaire issues Drop contractual hours: LAMAS agreement to keep Ask the questions on reasons for absences also of those respondents who were absent the entire week: Possible, but increases burden Reformulate questions on contractual hours: Current version covers all possibilities Keep separate variables for types of extra hours: Low quality now, tests show big problems with this Add plausibility controls for absences: ok Hours, half days, or days as measurement units: Half-days as the middle of the road solution And finally, we have some comments directly on the details of the model questionnaire itself. Drop contractual hours. this has been discussed before and the LAMAS has agreed to include this variable, with the easier routing (now in the model questionnaire) accepted as a compromise solution. Asking contractual hours will also increase the quality of usual hours, which now most likely is a mix between usual and contractual, because the respondents often don’t understand the difference. Respondents with Wstator=2 (in employment but was absent the whole reference week) should also be asked about absences, to get the full distribution per day of reasons for absence. In itself true, unless you assume that for those away for the whole week that it normally is the same absence reason for the whole week. It would increase accuracy of the reasons for absence variables, but it would also increase response burden The questions on contractual hours should be not on if there is a contract, but on if there is a contract on working hours: now the variable covers both if there is a contract, and if it specifies number of hours (EL). No need to ask about existence of contract (PT). It is better to keep the answer options open for all possibilities than to presume that we know the situation of the respondents. now we will know who don’t have contracts, who have contracts without hours, and who has contracts with hours, and if so, how many hours it is. Paid overtime is needed as a separate variable. As it is now, it is a low quality variable, as explained in the document, but if you want to collect it nationally that is no problem for us Plausibility controls for absences. We discussed this in the task force, and in general we don’t have a problem with this, but where do you set the limit? And is it useful to set it at maximum 7 days? How many errors would this catch? Finally, for the measurement units. Some of you want to have only days, some of you want only hours. The reasoning behind selecting half days is that we want to markedly improve the reporting of absences, which means that we want to catch also the shorter absences. However, we cannot realistically ask respondents to give their holidays in hours. so, we ended up on the compromise of half-days.

LAMAS is invited to: take note of the elements tested by the TF approve the changes in variables approve the model questionnaire Invite the task force members to comment first And then the LAMAS in general to approve the proposed change in variables and the model questionnaire Comment on tested elements of the model questionnaire, if you wish