Darba tirgus nestabilitātes ietekme uz sabiedrību

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

Authors

Eszter Sándor

Gillian Bell

Abstract

Šajā ziņojumā pētītas sociālās grupas, kuru piesaiste darba tirgum var būt nestabila un kurām visbiežāk ir nestandarta darba kārtība, kā arī šādas kārtības un darba nedrošības ietekme uz darba ņēmēju labklājību, sociālo atstumtību, uzticēšanos, taisnīguma uztveri un politisko līdzdalību. Ziņojumā secināts, ka pastāvīgie līgumi, neoficiālais darbs un nestabilas darbvietas ir saistīti ar negatīviem rezultātiem attiecībā uz sociālo atstumtību un uzticēšanos, savukārt nodarbinātības nedrošība ir saistīta arī ar sliktāku labklājību. Tiek sniegti arī neseni piemēri par politikas pasākumiem, kas vērsti uz darba tirgus nestabilitātes novēršanu, pievēršot uzmanību ilgtermiņa pasākumiem pēcpandēmijas periodā.

Societal implications of labour market instability PDF

English (735.89 KB - PDF)

Key findings

• Lai gan īstermiņa pagaidu darba līgumi pēdējo desmit gadu laikā ir kļuvuši mazāk izplatīti darba ņēmēju vidū, dažās dalībvalstīs tie joprojām ir salīdzinoši plaši izplatīti, galvenokārt jauniešu un citu valstu valstspiederīgo vidū, kuriem ir zems izglītības līmenis un kuri nevar atrast pastāvīgu darbu, jo īpaši izglītības un veselības aprūpes nozarē. Pagaidu darbinieki bieži strādā garas stundas, jūtas nepietiekami nodarbināti un, visticamāk, meklē citu darbu.

• Gan pagaidu līgumi, gan nodarbinātības nedrošība ir saistīta ar mazāku uzticēšanos citiem cilvēkiem un mazāku izpratni par taisnīgumu. Strādājošie, kuriem nav pastāvīga darba līguma, un strādājošie bez oficiāla darba līguma ir mazāk apmierināti ar demokrātijas funkcionēšanu savā valstī, tāpat kā cilvēki, kuri saskaras ar darba nedrošību.

• Cilvēki, kuriem ir pagaidu darba līgumi, kā arī cilvēki, kuriem ir nestabila nodarbinātība, retāk balsos vēlēšanās, pat ja no analīzes tiek izslēgti cilvēki, kuriem nav tiesību balsot (kuri ir pārāk pārstāvēti šajās kategorijās). Viņi arī retāk piedalās demonstrācijās, kas liecina par atsvešinātību.

• Aprūpes pienākumi ir galvenais iemesls nepilnas slodzes darbam, jo sievietes gandrīz trīs reizes biežāk nekā vīrieši strādā nepilnu slodzi, un atšķirība ir vēl lielāka starp tām sievietēm, kuras ir mātes, un tām, kuras nav mātes. Lai gan kopš Lielajiem recesijas gadiem piespiedu nepilna darba laika darbs ir samazinājies, nepilna darba laika darba ņēmēji ir vairāk gatavi strādāt papildu stundas un, visticamāk, meklēs citu darbu nekā pilna laika darba ņēmēji, pastiprinot iepriekšējos konstatējumus, ka daži “brīvprātīgi” nepilna darba laika darbi tiek veikti bez vajadzības.

• Lai gan netika konstatēts, ka darba līgumi uz noteiktu laiku būtu saistīti ar labklājību, tomēr darba nedrošības sajūta ir saistīta ar mazāku apmierinātību ar dzīvi, sliktāku veselību un garīgo labsajūtu, kā arī lielāku iespējamību justies atstumtiem no sabiedrības. Saikne starp sociālo atstumtību un darba nedrošību ir līdzīga saiknei starp sociālo atstumtību un bezdarbu, kas liecina, ka bezdarba draudi ir pietiekami, lai darba ņēmēji justos atstumti no sabiedrības.

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.

Key findings

List of tables

List of figures

Share this page

Tell us what you think