2nd Task Force Meeting, May CES Bureau meeting: Australian and USA comments on TF work A brief review by Vitalija Gaucaite Wittich (UNECE)

2nd Task Force Meeting, May Australian comments:  The overall direction  The framework  The proposed measures “…not convinced that there is a compelling need for quality of employment framework per se” “…the draft framework and proposed measures fall somewhat short of the mark in terms of informing on whether quality of employment has improved.”

2nd Task Force Meeting, May Australian comments: overall direction  Challenge for statistical objectivity  A single framework may serve little purpose without a particular policy context  Coordination/harmonization with the ILO Decent Work Indicators initiative

2nd Task Force Meeting, May Australian comments: the framework  The dimensions components are quite comprehensive (+)  The biggest concern: the dimensions are presented as if they are independent (?)  Workers have different preferences in terms of the combination of factors that determine the quality of work. This may confound attempts to assess whether quality of employment has improved

2nd Task Force Meeting, May Australian comments: the indicators  Some of the chosen indicator(s) are an inadequate representation of the dimension to which they relate  Issue of consistency: the qualitative measures intermixed with quantitative indicators  Not always a change in the indicator can be interpreted as a measure of change in the quality of employment  Issue of comparability across countries  There are a number of value judgments inherent in the indicators chosen

2nd Task Force Meeting, May Australian suggestions:  As an alternative to an international standard, the work might lead to a 'best practice' guide to countries that wished to consider producing quality of work indicators, without imposing on countries any obligation  Explore the interaction between the dimensions  And a number of proposals regarding indicators

2nd Task Force Meeting, May BLS (USA) comments:  Is this an attempt to produce « own measures» according to the « own framework »?  A novel and interesting approach (based on evolving needs)  Agree on excluding « access to employment »

2nd Task Force Meeting, May BLS (USA) comments & suggestions:  On comparability: depends on data sources; response burden should be taken into account if any adjustments are requested  On feasibility: sporadic availability of some indicators would hinder analysis of trends  On composite indicators: need to resist of inventing one

2nd Task Force Meeting, May BLS (USA) comments & suggestions  For the most part proposed indicators are consistent with the measurement goals  Two exceptions: Fatal and non-fatal injury rates – industry detail is important (structural differences accross countries) Use share of workers below an absolute wage level (COL) instead of below ½ median hourly earnings.

2nd Task Force Meeting, May CES Bureau meeting, Feb  There is a (growing) demand for statistics on quality of employment from the political system and from the public in general, and as representatives of official statistics we need to reply to this demand  Keep in line with the statistical objectivity/impartiality while choosing and presenting indicators for the measurement of quality of employment