Darbo rinkos nestabilumo poveikis visuomenei

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

Authors

Eszter Sándor

Gillian Bell

Abstract

Šioje ataskaitoje nagrinėjamos socialinės grupės, kurių ryšys su darbo rinka gali būti nestabilus ir kurios dažniausiai dirba pagal netipines darbo sutartis, taip pat tokių sutarčių poveikis darbuotojų gerovei, socialinei atskirčiai, pasitikėjimui, sąžiningumo suvokimui ir politiniam dalyvavimui. Ataskaitoje daroma išvada, kad nenuolatinės darbo sutartys, neoficialus darbas ir nesaugumas dėl darbo sukelia neigiamus padarinius, lemiančius socialinę atskirtį ir mažinančius pasitikėjimą, o darbo garantijų trūkumas taip pat siejamas su mažesne gerove. Taip pat pateikiami pastarojo meto politikos, kuria sprendžiama darbo rinkos nestabilumo problema, pavyzdžiai, sutelkiant dėmesį į ilgesnio laikotarpio popandemines priemones.

Societal implications of labour market instability PDF

English (735.89 KB - PDF)

Key findings

• Nors per pastarąjį dešimtmetį trumpalaikių laikinųjų sutarčių skaičius sumažėjo, kai kuriose valstybėse narėse jos vis dar gana plačiai paplitusios, daugiausiai tarp jaunimo ir menkai išsilavinusių pilietybės neturinčių asmenų, kurie negali rasti nuolatinio darbo, ypač švietimo ir sveikatos priežiūros sektoriuose. Laikinųjų darbuotojų darbo diena dažnai trunka ilgai; tokie darbuotojai jaučiasi dirbantys ne visu pajėgumu, todėl dažniausiai ieško kito darbo.

• Tiek nenuolatinės sutartys, tiek darbo garantijų trūkumas siejamas su mažesniu pasitikėjimu kitais žmonėmis ir dažnesniu manymu, kad elgiamasi nesąžiningai. Dirbantieji pagal nenuolatines darbo sutartis ir neturintieji oficialios sutarties yra mažiau patenkinti demokratijos veikimu savo šalyje, kaip ir žmonės, kurie dėl darbo jaučiasi nesaugūs.

• Asmenys, turintys nenuolatines darbo sutartis, taip pat tie, kuriems trūksta darbo garantijų, rečiau balsuoja rinkimuose. Tai nustatyta net ir į analizę neįtraukus pilietybės neturinčių asmenų, kurie neturi teisės balsuoti (šiose kategorijose jų yra per daug). Tokie asmenys taip pat rečiau dalyvauja demonstracijose, o tai rodo nesidomėjimą.

• Pagrindinė priežastis, dėl kurios žmonės dirba ne visą darbo dieną, yra būtinybė prižiūrėti kitus asmenis: moterys beveik tris kartus dažniau už vyrus dirba ne visą darbo dieną, šis skirtumas dar didesnis tarp vaikų turinčių ir neturinčių darbuotojų. Nors, palyginti su ekonominio nuosmukio metais, priverstinis darbas ne visą darbo dieną mažėja, ne visu etatu dirbantys darbuotojai labiau linkę dirbti viršvalandžius ir dažniau ieško kito darbo nei visą darbo dieną dirbantys darbuotojai, o tai patvirtina ankstesnes išvadas, kad kai kurie „savanoriškai“ ne visu etatu dirbantys darbuotojai tai daro iš būtinybės.

• Nors nenustatyta, kad terminuotos sutartys būtų susijusios su gerove, jaučiamas nesaugumas dėl darbo susijęs su mažesniu pasitenkinimu gyvenimu, prastesne sveikata ir psichine būkle bei didesne tikimybe jaustis atskirtam nuo visuomenės. Socialinės atskirties ir nesaugumo darbe sąsaja yra panaši į socialinės atskirties ir bedarbystės santykį, o tai rodo, kad nedarbo grėsmė – tai viskas, ko reikia, kad darbuotojai jaustųsi atskirti nuo visuomenės.

Executive summary

Author(s):

Eurofound

Darbo rinkos nestabilumo poveikis visuomenei

lietuvių (55.02 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.

Darbo rinkos nestabilumo poveikis visuomenei

Key findings

Darbo rinkos nestabilumo poveikis visuomenei

List of tables

List of figures

Share this page

Tell us what you think