Društvene posljedice nestabilnosti tržišta rada

Javascript is disabled in your browser. Please, enable it for a better user experience.

Authors

Eszter Sándor

Gillian Bell

Abstract

U ovom se izvješću istražuju društvene skupine čija povezanost s tržištem rada može biti nestabilna i za koje je najvjerojatnije da će imati nestandardne radne aranžmane. Razmatraju se i posljedice takvih aranžmana i nesigurnosti radnih mjesta za dobrobit radnika, njihovu socijalnu isključenost, povjerenje, percepciju pravednosti i političko sudjelovanje. U izvješću se navodi da su ugovori na određeno vrijeme, neformalni rad i nesigurni poslovi povezani s negativnim rezultatima kad je riječ o socijalnoj isključenosti i povjerenju, dok se nesigurnost radnih mjesta dodatno povezuje s lošijom dobrobiti. Opisuju se nedavni primjeri politika koje se bave nestabilnošću tržišta rada, s naglaskom na dugoročnim mjerama u razdoblju nakon pandemije.

Societal implications of labour market instability PDF

English (735.89 KB - PDF)

Key findings

• Iako su u proteklom desetljeću kratkoročni ugovori o radu na određeno vrijeme postali rjeđi, i dalje su relativno rašireni u nekim državama članicama, uglavnom među mladima i stranim državljanima s niskom razinom obrazovanja koji ne mogu pronaći stalno zaposlenje, posebno u obrazovnom i zdravstvenom sektoru. Radnici na određeno vrijeme često rade prekovremeno, osjećaju se podzaposlenima i najvjerojatnije će potražiti drugi posao.

• Ugovori na određeno vrijeme i nesigurnost radnih mjesta povezuju se s manjim povjerenjem u druge osobe i slabijom percepcijom pravednosti. Radnici s ugovorima na određeno vrijeme, radnici bez formalnog ugovora, kao i radnici s nesigurnim radnim mjestom, manje su zadovoljni funkcioniranjem demokracije u svojoj zemlji.

• Manje je vjerojatno da će osobe s ugovorima na određeno vrijeme, kao i osobe s nesigurnim radnim mjestom, izaći na izbore, čak i ako se iz analize isključe strani državljani koji nemaju biračkog pravo (koji su prekomjerno zastupljeni u tim kategorijama). Također je manje vjerojatno da će te osobe sudjelovati u prosvjedima, što je simptomatično za neangažiranost.

• Obveze skrbi glavni su razlog za rad na nepuno radno vrijeme, pri čemu je vjerojatnost rada na nepuno radno vrijeme gotovo tri puta veća za žene nego za muškarce, a razlika je čak i veća između onih koji su roditelji i onih koji to nisu. Iako je nesvojevoljni rad na nepuno radno vrijeme u padu od vremena velike recesije, radnici s nepunim radnim vremenom spremniji su raditi prekovremeno te je vjerojatnije da će potražiti drugi posao nego radnici s punim radnim vremenom, što potvrđuje prethodne nalaze da se određeni dio „svojevoljnog” rada na nepuno radno vrijeme obavlja iz nužde.

• Iako nije utvrđeno da su ugovori o radu na određeno vrijeme povezani s dobrobiti, percipirana nesigurnost radnog mjesta ipak je povezana s nižom razinom životnog zadovoljstva, narušenim zdravljem i mentalnom dobrobiti te većom vjerojatnošću osjećaja isključenosti iz društva. Povezanost socijalne isključenosti i nesigurnosti radnog mjesta slična je odnosu između socijalne isključenosti i nezaposlenosti, što upućuje na to da je moguća opasnost od nezaposlenosti dovoljna da bi se radnici osjećali isključenima iz društva.

Executive summary

Author(s):

Eurofound

Društvene posljedice nestabilnosti tržišta rada

hrvatski (52.15 KB - PDF)

The report contains the following lists of tables and figures.

List of tables

Table 1: Negative feelings and risk of depression, by employment status and contract type
Table A1: Regression analysis output (multinomial logistic regression) – temporary work
Table A2: Regression analysis output (multinomial logistic regression) – part-time work
Table A3: Regression analysis output (multinomial logistic regression) – self-employment
Table A4: Correspondents who contributed to the study

List of figures

Figure 1: Proportion of employees in temporary work in the EU, by duration of contract (%)
Figure 2: Temporary work as a proportion of total employment, by reason, EU27, 2013–2021 (%)
Figure 3: Temporary work as a proportion of total employment, by duration of contract, EU27, 2021 (%)
Figure 4: Probability of engaging in temporary work, by relationship status and age (average marginal effect)
Figure 5: Probability of engaging in temporary work, by education and citizenship (average marginal effect)
Figure 6: Probability of engaging in temporary work, by economic activity (NACE Rev. 2) (average marginal effect)
Figure 7: Part-time work as a proportion of total employment, by reason (%)
Figure 8: Part-time work as a proportion of total employment, by sex, EU27, 2013–2021 (%)
Figure 9: Short-time work as a proportion of total employment, by age, EU27, 2013–2021 (%)
Figure 10: Probability of engaging in part-time work, by age and citizenship (average marginal effect)
Figure 11: Probability of engaging in part-time work, by education, sex and presence of children (average marginal effect)
Figure 12: Probability of engaging in part-time work, by economic activity (Nomenclature of Economic Activities Rev. 2) (average marginal effect)
Figure 13: Self-employment without employees as a proportion of total employment, by occupation (%)
Figure 14: Types of employment as a proportion of total employment, EU27, 2013–2021 (%)
Figure 15: Probability of being self-employed, by year and degree of urbanisation (average marginal effect)
Figure 16: Levels of labour market instability across EU Member States
Figure 17: Perceived job insecurity, by working arrangement (%)
Figure 18: Perceived health, by perceived likelihood of losing one’s job in the next six months (%)
Figure 19: Logistic regression model of average marginal effect of selected factors on perceiving health as ‘bad’ or ‘very bad’
Figure 20: Negative feelings and risk of depression, by perceived likelihood of losing one’s job in the next six months (%)
Figure 21: Linear regression model of determinants of mental well-being (on a scale of 0–10)
Figure 22: Logistic regression model of average marginal effect of selected factors on risk of depression
Figure 23: Life satisfaction (on a scale of 1–10), by main activity, 2018
Figure 24: Life satisfaction (on a scale of 1–10), by contract type, 2018
Figure 25: Life satisfaction (on a scale of 1–10), by perceived likelihood of losing one’s job in the next six months
Figure 26: Life satisfaction (on a scale of 1–10), by contract type and employment status
Figure 27: Linear regression model of determinants of life satisfaction (on a scale of 1–10)
Figure 28: Perceived social exclusion, by employment status and perceived likelihood of losing one’s job in the next six months (%)
Figure 29: Logistic regression model of average marginal effect of selected factors on perceived social exclusion
Figure 30: Trust in people (on a scale of 1–10), by main activity, 2018
Figure 31: Trust in people (on a scale of 1–10), by work contract, 2018
Figure 32: Linear regression analysis of determinants of trust in people among those in employment, 2018
Figure 33: Linear regression analysis of determinants of trust in people among those not in employment, 2018
Figure 34: Perception of fairness (on a scale of 0–10), by main activity, 2004–2018
Figure 35: Perception of fairness (on a scale of 0–10), by contract type, 2018
Figure 36: Linear regression analysis of determinants of perception of fairness among those in employment, 2018
Figure 37: Linear regression model of determinants of trust in people, 2022
Figure 38: Satisfaction with the government (on a scale of 0–10), by activity status, 2018
Figure 39: Satisfaction with the government (on a scale of 0–10), by contract type, 2018
Figure 40: Linear regression model of determinants of satisfaction with the government among those outside paid employment, 2018
Figure 41: Linear regression model of determinants of satisfaction with the government among those in employment, 2018
Figure 42: Linear regression model of determinants of trust in the government, 2022
Figure 43: Satisfaction with the functioning of democracy, by activity status, 2018
Figure 44: Satisfaction with the functioning of democracy, by contract type, 2018
Figure 45: Linear regression model of determinants of satisfaction with democracy among those outside employment, 2018
Figure 46: Linear regression model of determinants of satisfaction with democracy among those in employment, 2018
Figure 47: Linear regression model of determinants of satisfaction with the functioning of democracy, 2022
Figure 48: Proportion of people who voted in the last election, by work contract type (%)
Figure 49: Proportion of people who voted in the last election, by activity status, 2018
Figure 50: Proportion of workers who voted in the last election, by contract type, 2018
Figure 51: Logistic regression model of average marginal effect of selected factors on voting in the last election
Figure 52: Proportion of workers who participated in public demonstrations, by activity status (%)
Figure 53: Logistic regression model of the average marginal effect of selected factors on participation in demonstrations
Figure 54: Target groups of policy measures addressing labour market instability (%)

Figure A1: Temporary work, by occupation in the International Standard Classification of Occupations 2008 (average marginal effect)
Figure A2: Part-time work, by occupation in the International Standard Classification of Occupations 2008 (average marginal effect)

Number of pages: 82

Reference nº: EF23011

ISBN: 978-92-897-2341-1

Catalogue nº: TJ-04-23-771-EN-N

DOI: 10.2806/570695

Permalink: eurofound.link/ef23011

Cite this publication
Eurofound (2023), Societal implications of labour market instability, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

Društvene posljedice nestabilnosti tržišta rada

Key findings

Društvene posljedice nestabilnosti tržišta rada

List of tables

List of figures

Share this page

Tell us what you think