Disparities in quality of work linked to education and socioeconomic status

A recent study published by the Economic Council of the Labour Movement examines the link between educational levels and socioeconomic status on the one hand, and the quality of the working environment on the other hand. The study finds that overall risk exposure is inversely proportional to workers’ length of education and socioeconomic status. Moreover, the quality of the working environment appears to be closely related to the incidence and duration of absence from work.

In the annual overview of ‘Distribution and living conditions’ (Fordeling og Levevilkår 2009 – Øget polarisering i Danmark), the Economic Council of the Labour Movement (Arbejderbevægelsens Erhvervsråd, AE) focuses on differences in the quality of work associated with workers’ educational levels and socioeconomic status.

Large variation in working environment

Based on the results obtained by linking data from the Danish Working Environment Cohort Study (DWECS 2005) to Statistics Denmark (Danmarks Statistik) registers, the AE concludes that a large variation is evident in the quality of the working environment in the Danish labour market. Moreover, this variance appears to have a social element, as it is strongly associated with employees’ level of education and socioeconomic status.

Regarding the physical working environment, the study finds that individuals with a long-term higher education and/or in jobs requiring a higher skill level face low risk exposure. In contrast, unskilled workers are particularly exposed to physical risks at the workplace, such as loud noise, strained work postures, heavy lifting and repetitive movements. Jobs requiring basic skill levels are more likely to entail physical activity and, thus, an increased risk of physical strain. These findings regarding physical risks are also supported by the Fourth European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS 2005 – see results for International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO) groups in the Statistical annex (221Kb pdf)). Somewhat more unexpected are the study results regarding the psychosocial working environment.

Higher education linked to better working environment

According to the study, a strong connection also emerges between the length of education and risk exposure. The results in Figure 1 show that job insecurity is lower for employees with a higher education, while skills development opportunities and job decision latitude are higher for employees in this category. However, the opposite trend is evident in relation to emotional demands, with higher educated employees being significantly more exposed to such demands. Short-cycle and medium-cycle higher education are particularly associated with the risk of high emotional demands. This group contains many of the large categories of human service workers, such as teachers, nurses and social workers, whose jobs are characterised by high emotional demands (DK0701019D) and a risk of burnout (DK0606019I). Nevertheless, although different educational levels imply different occupational risks, a lower educational level may be regarded as constituting a disadvantage for workers, as the average risk exposure is inversely proportional to the length of education.

Figure 1: Education and psychosocial working environment index

Source: AE, 2009

Low socioeconomic status linked to higher job insecurity

Regarding the socioeconomic status of employees (Figure 2), the results indicate that a low socioeconomic status is associated with higher job insecurity, lower development opportunities, less decision latitude and, to some degree, less meaning in the job. Nonetheless, emotional demands remain the exception from the general trend, with lower skilled workers showing less exposure to such demands.

Self-employed workers, on the other hand, appear to have different working environment characteristics than employees. For example, they face considerably lower job insecurity, emotional demands and average risk exposure. However, some caution should be taken in interpreting the results for self-employed persons, as this category does not constitute a homogenous group.

Figure 2: Socioeconomic status and psychosocial working environment index

Note: Other/Not specified refers to a residual group involved in work that does not belong to one of the other groups – for example, those involved in cleaning, delivery services and security work; it also includes individuals whose skill levels cannot be determined due to missing information.

Source: AE, 2009

Link between absenteeism and quality of work

Grouping the respondents into four categories (see table), the AE study examines the different health outcomes of the various working environments. Supporting existing research results regarding the link between working environment risk exposure and levels of absenteeism of workers (see also DK0708019I, DK0611039I), the study finds that risk exposure is closely related to the overall level of absence.

Receipt of sickness benefit is far less likely for the 25% of employees with the best working environment, who constitute 11.1% and 11% of those receiving sickness benefit for psychosocial and physical work problems, respectively. In contrast, the corresponding proportions are higher for the 25% of employees with the poorest working environment, at 17.1% and 19.2% respectively. Moreover, a connection between the quality of the working environment and the duration of absence is established, especially in relation to the psychosocial working environment: for instance, with regard to psychosocial work problems, the 25% of employees with the poorest working environment were absent for an average of 12 weeks compared with about eight weeks for the 25% of employees with the best working environment. However, this trend is somewhat weaker regarding the impact of the physical work environment on the duration of absence.

Note: Data corrected for age; second and third quartiles refer to the two quartiles in between the 25% of persons with the best working environment and the 25% with the poorest working environment.

Source: AE, 2009

Rune Holm Christiansen and Helle Ourø Nielsen, Oxford Research