Meeting of the United Nations Expert Group on International Economic and Social Classifications (UNEG) (New York, 20 – 24 June 2005) Some points drawn from the Summary of discussion on ISCO-88 revision ( June) Prepared by Peter Elias

Background The 17th Conference of Labour Statisticians (ICLS) in December 2003 mandated that ISCO-88 should be updated. Due to the lack of ILO resources, the significant time constraint imposed, and the need for continuity, the review of ISCO was to be an update only and the structure and fundamental principles underpinning it were not to be changed.

Methodology to data (September 2005) Consultant’s report (Debbie Budlender (2003), Whither ISCO-88?, Policy Integration Department Working Paper No. 9, International Labour Office, Geneva). Questionnaires ‘to obtain general guidelines as well as concrete recommendations for the creation of new occupational groups and to improve the descriptions of already existing groups’. Web forum set up to further facilitate countries’ participation in the review Technical Subgroup (TSG/ISCO) now formed to assist with the ISCO updating

Technical Subgroup (TSG/ISCO) ‘Decision-making body for ISCO’ Six countries’ national statistical organisations have been selected for the ISCO technical subgroup (Canada, UK, Republic of Korea, Australia, Botswana and Uruguay)

Technical Subgroup (TSG/ISCO) ‘The TSG/ISCO will work in collaboration with ILO to: develop proposals for the boundaries of the updating process, organize collection and review of proposals for updates of ISCO, decide on draft proposals for updates of ISCO, elaborate rulings on interpretation of the current ISCO, prepare the draft structure and discussion documents to be submitted to the UNEG on Economic and Social Classifications, the ILO Tripartite Meeting of Experts on Labour Statistics’

Process The TSG/ISCO will report to the UN Expert Group on Economic and Social Classifications (UNEG) for evaluation of their tasks and approval of their findings or decisions. At its next meeting, the UN Expert Group on Economic and Social Classifications will determine whether and how the TSG/ISCO will continue to function. The UNEG will provide advice to the ILO to assist the development of papers for the ILO Tripartite Meeting of Experts on Labour Statistics.

Timetable for work of the TSG/ISCO Prepare proposals for boundaries of revision for ratification by UNEG – September 2005 Prepare draft structure for consideration by UNEG – January 2007 Prepare discussion documents for the ILO Tripartite Meeting of Experts on Labour Statistics – July 2007

What did the UN Expert Group say about the Review of ISCO? Concerns expressed that ISCO88 very out of date – gave examples of occupational areas where new occupations had emerged (finance, media, etc). ILO replied that no strong support for this notion from consultant’s report or from country questionnaires. ILO argued that ‘main direct users of ISCO are developing countries’. Concerns expressed about the extent of the Review, the work involved and the lack of any long term strategic plan for development and maintenance of ISCO. Expert Group concluded that further and more broader discussions were required by a larger number of experts via the web forum and in particular by the TSG/ISCO.

Specific issues of relevance to ESeC discussed by the Expert Group Whether Major Groups 2 Professionals and 3 Technicians and associate professionals should be merged (China and India). Merging Minor Group 122 Production and operations department managers and Sub Major Group 13 General managers (no consensus on this issue). Supervisors It was agreed that the tasks and duties of managers and supervisors need to be further investigated, and that, if required, separate unit groups created for some supervisory occupations

Specific issues relevant to ESeC (contd.) Workers with management responsibilities and working proprietors It was agreed that the underlying principles of ISCO should not be changed in this area but that they need to be further clarified Administration professionals European countries supported the proposal for the creation of a separate Unit Group for administration professionals quite strongly, but there was little general support for this group

ISCO and ESeC: Where do we need to focus our efforts? Margaret Birch Institute for Employment Research University of Warwick

Issues for discussion the distinction between ISCO sub-major groups 12 and 13 (corporate managers and general managers/managers of small enterprises). the classification of supervisors the distinction between ‘professional’ and ‘associate professional and technical’ occupations – perhaps not just an issue for China and India? the classification of shopkeepers the classification of public service administrative professionals