ILO:EMP/ANALYSIS, June 2003 Points for discussion The resilience of the long term job, but some changes Tenure, employment security and job quality The paradox of tenure and perceived employment security Tenure and mobility Protected and unprotected mobility Conclusions Employment tenure, employment security and labour market policies

ILO:EMP/ANALYSIS, June 2003 Average employment tenure*, 1992 and 2002 *Ranked by year 2002 (a) Data from 1998 (b) Data from 2001 Source: Based on Eurostat

ILO:EMP/ANALYSIS, June 2003 Distribution of employment by class of tenure (%) (a) Data refer to 2001 * For the US data refer to 1991 instead of For Japan data refer to 1998 instead of 2002 ** Change from 1995 to 2002 instead of 1992 – *** Without Austria. AAC = Average Annual Change Source : Own calculations based on Eurostat and national sources

ILO:EMP/ANALYSIS, June 2003 * Data refer to 1991 Source: ILO, OECD, EU Job quality, Average tenure and Employment Security, 1996

ILO:EMP/ANALYSIS, June 2003 Job insecurity and tenure (ranking), 1996 Note: Coefficients are not significant Source: Data supplied by International Survey research, OECD, Eurostat and national sources High Low

ILO:EMP/ANALYSIS, June 2003 Job insecurity and job quality (ranking), 1996 Note: the coefficients are significant at 5% level Source: Data supplied by International Survey research OECD, Economic commission

ILO:EMP/ANALYSIS, June 2003 Job tenure and job quality (ranking), 1996 Coefficients are significant at 5% level Source: Based on Eurostat, Economic Commission

ILO:EMP/ANALYSIS, June 2003 Job insecurity and Labour Market Policies, 2000 Coefficients are significant at 5% level worried = percentage worried about the future of their company, unsure = percentage unsure of a job with their company even if they perform well Note: job insecurity is the average percentage among worried and unsure people. Source: Data supplied by International Survey research, cited from OECD High Low

ILO:EMP/ANALYSIS, June 2003 Distribution of Employment by Class of Tenure, Percent Share, 2001 AB C Based on Eurostat

ILO:EMP/ANALYSIS, June 2003 Source: Based on Eurostat Transition rates (temp to perm jobs) and Tenure, C BA

ILO:EMP/ANALYSIS, June 2003 Based on Eurostat Transition rates (low to higher quality) and Tenure, CA B

ILO:EMP/ANALYSIS, June 2003 Note: Countries are clustered by tenure distribution, therefore some with high employment rates are in group A (Swe, Port.) and one (Fin) is in group B. This would be different, if another cluster criteria would be used. Source: Based on Eurostat Different employment systems in 2001

ILO:EMP/ANALYSIS, June 2003 High social protection Low social protection High employment protection France ( EPL21 / SP08) (AT11.1 / S16) Germany, Sweden Japan (EPL25* / SP24) (AT12 / S25 ) Portugal, Greece, Italy, Spain Low employment protection Denmark (EPL08 / SP01) (AT8.3 / S02) Belgium, (Netherlands), Finland, Ireland United States (EPL01 / SP25) (AT6.6 / S21) United Kingdom Employment protection or Employability protection Rank 1: EPL strictness, 1 = less strict, 26 = most strict (*Estimation for Japan) Rank 2: SP = Expenditures for labour market policy, 1 = highest, 25 = lowest; Rang 3: S = Employment security indicator, 1 = most secure, 26 = least secure. AT= Average employment tenure (years) Source: OECD, Eurostat

ILO:EMP/ANALYSIS, June 2003 Conclusions Tenure alone seems not enough for transmitting employment security Medium tenure, combined with “protected mobility” seems to yield best perceived security, good labour market performance and also good job quality Tenure and productivity What are the policy implications? Caveats: analysis has to be refined and does not imply strong causal relationships Difficulties of transposing national employment models: shaped by national policies, culture and institutions stability and flexibility instead of flexibility alone Trade-off between EP and LMP: enlarged bargaining agenda and changed legal rules? More and/or better LMP for flexibility and security Employment tenure, employment security and labour market policies