Европска фондација за подобрување на животните и работните услови
The tripartite EU agency providing knowledge to assist in the development of better social, employment and work-related policies
The tripartite EU agency providing knowledge to assist in the development of better social, employment and work-related policies
27 Април 2023
Data source: Eurostat
Eurofound provides research, data and analysis on a wide range of social and work-related topics. This information is largely comparative, but also offers country-specific information for each of the EU Member States, which included the UK prior to its withdrawal from the European Union on 31 January 2020. Most information is available in English but some has been translated to facilitate access at national level.
Eurofound strives to strengthen the ongoing link between its own work and national policy debates and priorities related to quality of life and work. Increasingly important in this context are the EU’s policy priorities for a European Green Deal, a digital future, an economy that works for people, promoting and strengthening European democracy. To help repair the economic and social damage caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the European Commission, the European Parliament and EU leaders have also agreed on a recovery plan that will lead the way out of the crisis and lay the foundations for a modern and more sustainable Europe. The EU’s long-term budget, coupled with NextGenerationEU, the temporary instrument designed to boost the recovery, will be the largest stimulus package ever financed through the EU budget to help rebuild a post-COVID-19 Europe.
The European Semester provides a framework for the coordination of economic policies across the EU. It allows Member States to discuss their economic and budget plans and monitor progress at specific times throughout the year. For 2022, the European Semester resumes it broad economic and employment policy coordination, while further adapting in line with the implementation requirements of the Recovery and Resilience Facility. As part of this, Member States are encouraged to submit national reform programmes and stability/convergence programmes that will set out their economic and fiscal policy plans, as in previous Semester cycles. The main change in the 2022 cycle will be that the national reform programme will play a dual role. Besides its role for the European Semester, it will also fulfil one of the two bi-annual reporting requirements of Member States under the Recovery and Resilience Facility.
2015 Eurofound EWCS survey results in Austria: 93% of people are satisfied with working conditions in their job
COVID-19 continues to have a profound impact on people’s lives across the globe, with major implications for quality of life and work. Eurofound has taken a multipronged response to the pandemic, adapting its research focus in a variety of ways. A new database of national-level policy responses, EU PolicyWatch, collates information on measures taken by government and social partners, as well as company practices, aiming to cushion the effects of the crisis. Eurofound's unique e-survey, Living, working and COVID-19, provides an insight into the impact of the pandemic on people’s lives across the EU, with the aim of helping policymakers to bring about an equal recovery from the crisis. Five rounds of the survey have been carried out to date: in April 2020 when most Member States were in lockdown, in July 2020 when society and economies were slowly reopening, in March 2021 as countries dealt again with various levels of lockdown and vaccine rollout, a panel survey in October/November 2021 to track developments since the start of the pandemic, and in March–May 2022, charting the latest developments and looking at how life has changed over the past two years. The survey investigates the impact on quality of life and society, democracy and trust, working and teleworking, the financial situation and security of people, the quality of public services, support measures and vaccinations during COVID-19. Findings for each country and a range of data pages are available.
Explore our data pages by country to find out more on the situation in Austria.
The country page gives access to Eurofound's most recent survey data and news, directly related to Austria:
Research carried out prior to the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union on 31 January 2020, and published subsequently, may include data relating to the 28 EU Member States. Following this date, research only takes into account the 27 EU Member States (EU28 minus the UK), unless specified otherwise.
Survey results
Life satisfaction
Data source: 2016 EQLS survey
Ability to choose or change
methods of work
Data source: 2015 EWCS survey
Possibility to accumulate overtime
for days off
Data source: 2013 ECS survey
Recent developments
Eurofound contacts in Austria
Correspondents report on topics related to developments in the country's working life and inform Eurofound’s pan-European comparative analysis. Read more
Consortium Forschungs-und Beratungsstelle Arbeitswelt (FORBA), Working Life Research Centre and University of Vienna
Eurofound's Management Board is made up of representatives of the social partners and national governments of all Member States, European Commission representatives and an independent expert appointed by the European Parliament. Read more
Harald Fugger Federal Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Consumer Protection (BMASK)
Tobias Sonnweber Federation of Austrian Industries
Dinah Djalinous-Glatz Austrian Federation of Trade Unions (ÖGB)
Quality of life
EQLS data show that Austria has a high quality of life on average. Both life satisfaction and happiness have increased since 2007. Life satisfaction increased by 1 percentage point to 7.9 (on a scale of 1 to 10) and happiness also increased by 0.6 points to 7.9. Additionally, self-reported health has continually improved since 2007, from 25% of respondents rating their health as ‘very good’ in 2007 to 33% in 2016. In addition, the WHO-5 Mental Well-being Index has improved from 60 to 67 during the same time period, higher than the EU28 average of 64 (on a scale of 1 to 100). The share of people reporting difficulties in making ends meet is also below the 2007 level (25%), remaining at 20% in 2016.
Only 15% of the respondents in Austria report difficulties to deal with important problems, being the best ranking EU28 country in 2016. Additionally, 15% of respondents in Austria agree with the statement ‘when things go wrong in my life, it generally takes me a long time to get back to normal’ (close to the 13% recorded for the Netherlands, the best performing country). These two measures indicate a high level of resilience in Austria in comparison to other EU countries.
| 2003 | 2007 | 2011 | 2016 | ||
| Life satisfaction | Mean (1-10) | 7.8 | 6.9 | 7.7 | 7.9 |
| Taking all things together on a scale of 1 to 10, how happy would you say you are? | Mean (1-10) | 8.0 | 7.3 | 7.7 | 7.9 |
| Optimism about own future | Agree & strongly agree | - | - | - | 73% |
| Optimism about children’s or grandchildren’s future | Agree & strongly agree | - | - | - | 61% |
| Take part in sports or physical exercise | At least once a week | - | - | 50% | 56% |
| In general, how is your health? | Very good | - | 25% | 30% | 33% |
| WHO-5 mental wellbeing index | Mean (1-100) | - | 60 | 66 | 67 |
| Making ends meet | With some difficulty, difficulty, and great difficulty | 17% | 25% | 21% | 20% |
| I feel I am free to decide how to live my life | Strongly agree | - | - | 42% | 46% |
| I find it difficult to deal with important problems that come up in my life | Agree & strongly agree | - | - | - | 15% |
| When things go wrong in my life, it generally takes me a long time to get back to normal | Agree & strongly agree | - | - | - | 15% |
Work-life balance
Austria has a relatively good work¬–life balance, being above the EU average in all of the three work–life balance indicators presented below. Notably, women in Austria experience least problems in ‘fulfilling family responsibilities because of work’ among the EU28 countries (25% of women in Austria, compared to the EU average of 38%). Regardless of the relatively good work–life balance compared to the other EU countries, most of the work–life balance measures in Austria have deteriorated since 2011.
| 2003 | 2007 | 2011 | 2016 | ||
| (At least several times a month) | |||||
| I have come home from work too tired to do some of the household jobs which need to be done | Total | 42% | 45% | 45% | 53% |
| Men | 40% | 47% | 43% | 53% | |
| Women | 44% | 43% | 46% | 52% | |
| It has been difficult for me to fulfil my family responsibilities because of the amount of time I spend on the job | Total | 21% | 32% | 24% | 30% |
| Men | 23% | 37% | 23% | 34% | |
| Women | 18% | 24% | 26% | 25% | |
| I have found it difficult to concentrate at work because of my family responsibilities | Total | 7% | 14% | 14% | 13% |
| Men | 6% | 14% | 10% | 13% | |
| Women | 7% | 13% | 18% | 14% |
Quality of society
Many of the indicators of the quality of society in Austria have remained fairly stable since the previous survey in 2011. However, perceived tensions between different racial and ethnic groups increased approximately 10 percentage points from 2011, reaching 49% in 2016 and above the EU28 average of 41%. The Social Exclusion Index (with values ranging from 1 to 5) has improved 0.5 points from 2007, currently at 1.7 (close to the best ranking country Sweden at 1.6). Furthermore, trust in people has increased 0.5 points from 2007, now at 5.3 and close to the EU28 average of 5.2 on a scale of 1 to 10.
| 2003 | 2007 | 2011 | 2016 | ||
| Social exclusion index | Mean (1-5) | - | 2.2 | 1.9 | 1.7 |
| Trust in people | Mean (1-10) | 5.9 | 4.8 | 5.3 | 5.3 |
| Involvement in unpaid voluntary work | % "at least once a month" | - | - | 19% | 19% |
| Tension between poor and rich people | % reporting 'a lot of tension' | 30% | 20% | 24% | 23% |
| Tension between different racial and ethnic groups | % reporting 'a lot of tension' | 38% | 42% | 39% | 49% |
| I feel safe when I walk alone after dark | Strongly agree | - | - | - | 46% |
Quality of public services
Quality ratings for seven public services
Note: scale of 1-10, Source: EQLS 2016.
The perceived quality of public services is good in Austria. Ratings given by respondents for all seven public services are above the EU28 average, as shown below. Austria ranked highest among the EU28 countries on health services (8.0 out of 10) and social housing (7.1). Most of the ratings have not changed much since 2007. However, the perceived quality of childcare services increased by 0.7 points since 2007.
| 2003 | 2007 | 2011 | 2016 | ||
| Health services | Mean (1-10) | 8.1 | 7.8 | 8.0 | 8.0 |
| Education system | Mean (1-10) | 8.0 | 7.5 | 7.3 | 7.4 |
| Public transport | Mean (1-10) | 7.2 | 7.2 | 7.3 | 7.6 |
| Childcare services | Mean (1-10) | - | 7.0 | 7.3 | 7.7 |
| Long-term care services | Mean (1-10) | - | - | 7.1 | 7.5 |
| Social housing | Mean (1-10) | - | - | 7.2 | 7.1 |
| State pension system | Mean (1-10) | 5.6 | 5.8 | 6.2 | 6.1 |
This profile describes the key characteristics of working life in Austria. It aims to complement other EurWORK research by providing the relevant background information on the structures, institutions and relevant regulations regarding working life. This includes indicators, data and regulatory systems on the following aspects: actors and institutions, collective and individual employment relations, health and well-being, pay, working time, skills and training, and equality and non-discrimination at work. The profiles are updated annually.
Highlights – Working life in 2022
Author: Bernadette Allinger
Institution: Working Life Research Centre (FORBA)
Highlights updated on: 27 April 2023
Working paper: Austria: Developments in working life in 2022
The global political situation following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 had a huge effect on Austria’s economic situation. Gross domestic product growth was at 4.7%, and inflation increased substantially (to 8.6%). On the upside, Austria was able to reduce its strong dependency on Russian gas imports – from 79% to around 20%. In addition, the labour market situation was positive: employment levels were increasing while unemployment was significantly declining – the rate in November 2022 was 5.6%. Austria received a large cohort of refugees from Ukraine in the aftermath of the war; by the end of the year, the number had reached around 90,000, with the majority (about 80%) being women and children. Only around 8,000 of them were in active employment at this time, although an additional 7,000 were registered with the Austrian Public Employment Service and therefore ready to take on work. However, the number of Ukrainian refugees who could potentially enter the labour market is considered to be much higher (around 40,000). One of the main reasons for the low take-up of employment is the current regulation of the basic care system under which refugees from Ukraine fall. This regulation acts as a disincentive to seeking paid employment, as a monthly income above €110 leads to a loss of basic care, including organised accommodation. Ukrainians have mainly found work in the hotel, restaurant and catering sector and are often employed below their qualification level. The Austrian labour market is currently in need of more Ukrainian employees, as labour shortages stand at an all-time high and are expected to stay at this level in the coming years. Shortages are particularly prevalent in the tourism and construction sectors, and among care personnel and teachers. The government has started to tackle the shortages issue by implementing measures mostly in the area of qualifications, with a focus on nursing and environmental professions.
Collective bargaining became more conflictual in 2022. In the face of the extremely unusual economic situation, with record inflation and increasing prices, employers initially offered flat rate increases in the autumn negotiation rounds. However, these were rejected by the unions. Collective action in the form of works council meetings and strikes were held in some sectors, but these were quickly halted again when more favourable conditions were offered by the employers. The agreements reached were quite satisfactory for employees and did not differ structurally from past agreements, mostly compensating for rolling inflation (backward looking) and providing a small top-up. Overall, wage increases of between 7% and 10% were reached in the autumn bargaining rounds. There was a tendency towards staggered wage increases: higher increases in lower wage groups and lower increases in higher wage groups. Moreover, certain minimum amounts were agreed on, which yielded even higher percentage increases for the lowest wage groups.
Regarding other topics in collective bargaining, a reduction in working time from 38 to 37 hours per week was implemented in the private social care sector on 1 January 2022, making it (together with the Caritas agreement) one of the collective agreements with the shortest working hours. This agreement covers around 120,000 employees. Besides wage bargaining, bipartite social dialogue was also positive and the social partners’ stances were partially taken into account by the government in policy design, for example, in updating the short-time work regulations or in its anti-inflation packages.
Key figures
Comparative figures on working life in Austria
| 2019 | 2020 | % (point) change 2012-2019 | % (point) change 2019-2020 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Austria |
EU27 |
Austria |
EU27 |
Austria |
EU27 |
Austria | EU27 |
|
GDP per capita |
38.170 |
27,970 |
35,490 |
26,230 |
4.9% |
11.5% |
-7.0% | -6.2% |
| Unemployment rate - total | 4.5 | 6.7 | 5.4 | 7.1 | -0.4 | -4.1 | 0.9 | 0.4 |
| Unemployment rate - women | 4.4 | 7 | 5.2 | 7.3 | -0.4 | -4.0 | 0.8 | 0.3 |
| Unemployment rate - men | 4.6 | 6.4 | 5.5 | 6.8 | -0.4 | -4.3 | 0.9 | 0.4 |
| Unemployment rate - youth | 8.5 | 15 | 10.5 | 16.8 | -0.9 | -8.7 | 2.0 | 1.8 |
| Employment rate - total | 77.1 | 73.4 | 76.6 | 72.9 | 2.0 | 2.4 | -0.5 | -0.5 |
| Employment rate - women | 72.3 | 67.9 | 72.1 | 67.5 | 2.3 | 3.0 | -0.2 | -0.4 |
| Employment rate - men | 81.8 | 79 | 81 | 78.3 | 1.6 | 1.8 | -0.8 | -0.7 |
| Employment rate - youth | 56.4 | 39.4 | 56.1 | 37.9 | -2.8 | -0.4 | -0.3 | -1.5 |
Source: Eurostat – Real GDP per capita (chain linked volumes [2010], in EUR) and percentage change 2012–2020 (both based on sdg_08_10). Unemployment rate by sex and age – annual average (15–74 years, % active population) and youth (15–24 years) % [une_rt_a]; Employment rate by sex and age – annual average (15–64 years, unit % total population, employment indicator active population) % [lfsi_emp_a].
Background
In 2019, the GDP growth was smaller than in the previous two years. In 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the economy saw the largest decrease in decades with a minus 7.0%* in GDP, which is almost twice as much as during the financial and economic crisis in 2009 (where a decrease of 3.8% was recorded). While overall investments increased by 4% in 2019, they decreased by 5%* in 2020. On the labour market, while in 2019 an increase of dependently employed workers by 1.6% was recorded, reaching a record of around 3.72 million employees, this was followed by a 2% decrease in 2020, reaching 3.65 million*. Due to the widespread use of short-time work in the course of the crisis, the level of employment did not decrease any further. The number of unemployed people increased by 108,000 between 2019 and 2020 and the unemployment rate stood at 9.9%* according to the national mode of count. The harmonised index of consumer prices amounted to 1.4% on average, and the budget balance for 2020 lies at a record deficit of €37.7 billion*.
* Please note, all data for 2020 are preliminary.
Source: WKO 2020, Wirtschaftslage und Prognose, December 2020, available at http://wko.at/statistik/prognose/prognose.pdf
There is a multitude of legislation in Austria dealing with different aspects of labour law. However, the central legislative enactment in Austrian labour law is the Labour Constitution Act ( Arbeitsverfassungsgesetz, ArbVG). This law regulates the collective interest representation on the two sides of industry at and above company level as well as collective bargaining.
For historical reasons (bitter class struggles in the First Republic, experiences of Austro-Fascism and the Nazi regime), the characteristic feature of the Second Republic is a strong commitment to the principle of harmonious cooperation. In the industrial relations system this principle found expression organisationally in the creation of collective interest organisations representing employers and employees which are widely encompassing, extend across party-political lines and are free from rivalry. The basic structure of this commitment to harmonious cooperation in Austria is its system of social partnership. In terms of societal values, this denotes readiness on the part of government and the collective organisations to make all social and economic issues the subject of negotiations as a means of arriving at consensual solutions. Institutionally, social partnership is a complex system built on co-determination within the establishment at micro level, the collective bargaining system at meso level, and tripartite and bipartite forms of concertation at macro level. Whereas the government admits an exclusive circle of social partner organisations to participate in all decisions on economic and social policy, the regulation of the terms and conditions of employment remains the autonomous province of the labour market parties, within the framework laid down by the ArbVG. The core area of industrial relations remains free from substantive state intervention.
Although the Austrian system of social partnership was overtly challenged during the period of the conservative-populist coalition government from 2000 to 2006, Austrian corporatism has largely recovered since the mid-2000s. The country’s system of collective bargaining, which takes place almost exclusively at branch/sector level, has continued to work – despite the fact that in the wake of the financial and economic crisis wage 2008/09 accords and collective agreements could in some cases be settled only after the threat of industrial action – which is unusual in Austria. With the re-instalment of a conservative-populist coalition government in late 2017, the social partners’ influence in overall policy-making was limited once more. When drafting new legislation in the area of social and employment policies, the government regularly overlooked the stances and views of organised labour, while the positions of organised business often proved to be congruent with the government’s intentions. The government was ended abruptly in 2019 due to a political scandal involving the far-right junior coalition partner and a conservative-Green coalition government was installed in early 2020.
In the face of the COVID-19 crisis, the maintenance of social peace was an important factor for the government, so that the social partners were again meaningfully involved in policy-making, albeit to varying degrees. With the participation of the more labour-friendly Green Party in the government, organised labour was cautiously brought back to the policy making process and could exert some influence again, even though it was somewhat less successful in enforcing its demands than organised business. The employer organisations (with close ties to the chancellor's party) were involved in most of the larger measures concerning their clientele. The social partners themselves prepared an agreement on the very generous COVID-scheme of short-time work (which allowed for a temporary reduction of working hours to zero), which was then enshrined in law, as well as an agreement for the regulation of home office work, which is about to be implemented by the government in February 2021. The involvement of the social partners in policy-making also had a positive effect on social dialogue and collective bargaining. Facing the most difficult economic situation in decades, with a severe economic recession, very high unemployment and high incidence of short-time work, collective bargaining was – with few exceptions – peaceful and unusually quick. In many sectors, agreements were found in the first round of negotiations (for instance in the pattern-setting metalworking sector) as there was not much room for wage bargaining, with agreements mostly just compensating for inflation. The social partners also agreed upon the first general collective agreement (applying to virtually the whole economy) since decades on Corona tests at the workplace, accompanying federal legislation. The well-established social partnership has come forward to its best performance in crisis times, it seems.
Actors and institutions
Trade unions, employers’ organisations and public institutions play a key role in the governance of the employment relationship, working conditions and industrial relations structures. They are interlocking parts in a multilevel system of governance that includes the European, national, sectoral, regional (provincial or local) and company levels. This section looks into the main actors and institutions and their role in Austria.
With regard to industrial relations and working conditions, the three most important public authorities are the Federal Ministry for Digital and Economic Affairs ( Bundesministerium für Digitalisierung und Wirtschaftsstandort, BMDW), the Federal Ministry of Social Affairs, Health, Care and Consumer Protection ( Bundesministerium für Soziales, Gesundheit, Pflege und Konsumentenschutz, BMSGPK and, in particular, the Federal Ministry of Labour ( Bundesministerium für Arbeit, BMA). The latter ministry is responsible, among other things, for employment policy and the supervision of the Public Employment Service (Arbeitsmarktservice, AMS), and hence also unemployment insurance; for labour law; and for organising the Labour Inspectorates (Arbeitsinspektorate).. The Federal Arbitration Board (Bundeseinigungsamt, BEA), a joint body established within the structure of the BMA, has a decisive role in Austria’s industrial relations system in that it is equipped with the right to recognise voluntary collective interest organisations as collective bargaining parties (or to revoke this recognition). This body thus facilitates social dialogue. The BMSGPK is responsible for general social policy and for the policy on the disabled, care provision and welfare benefits. The BMDW’s range of activities involves, among other things, economic policy and part of employment policy. The AMS, which is a public-law service agency with separate legal personality, is charged with responsibility for job placement and the provision of advisory services to job-seekers and employers regarding supply and demand in the labour market. The Labour Inspectorate forms part of the BMA and monitors employment conditions, including health and safety at work. The AMS, the BEA and the Labour Inspectorate are all under the responsibility of the BMA and can likewise be considered public authorities of importance for Austria’s industrial relations system. In the case of individual labour disputes, labour and social security courts (at three instances) are competent to rule on all disputes arising from labour law and all benefit claims arising from social security law, whereas disputes concerning the social insurance relationship are referred to administrative authorities under the aegis of the BMSGPK.
There is no explicit concept of representativeness applying to collective interest organisations of labour and business in Austria. However, in relation to the capacity of voluntary organisations to conclude collective agreements, the Austrian labour law (the ArbVG) identifies some general preconditions a voluntary collective interest organisation has to meet: the (financial) independency (in particular, of the other side of industry); an extensive occupational and territorial coverage in terms of membership domain, which means that the organisation must at least be operative above company level; and a major economic importance in terms of the absolute number of members and business activities in order to be in a position to wield effective bargaining power. The criterion of representativeness is thus linked to the capacity of collective interest organisations to conclude collective agreements (the right to conclude collective agreements is conferred by the Federal Arbitration Board) and hence to their recognition as relevant social partner organisations.
More information on representativeness of the main social partner organisations can be found in Eurofound’s representativeness study of the cross-industry social partners or in Eurofound’s sectoral representativeness studies.
Austrian constitutional law protects the right to organise within the framework of the general freedom of association (Vereinsfreiheit) guaranteed to all citizens by Article 12 of the 1867 Basic Law ( Staatsgrundgesetz). It also guarantees the right to form associations for the protection of employment-related interests in accordance with the Associations Act (Vereinsgesetz) giving practical effect to the freedom of association. Moreover, the right to organise is guaranteed as an independent basic right in Article 11 (1) of the 1950 European Convention of Human Rights, which forms part of constitutional law in Austria. As a consequence, in Austria, individuals are given the right to engage in trade union activities and to join them. There is no category of workers or sectors excluded from this right.
Trade union density has been declining since the 1960s in Austria. This trend is mainly due to the long-term structural transformation of the economy and employment: in the strongholds of unionisation – namely in manufacturing and the public sector – employment has declined, to the benefit of the private service sector which tends to record low density rates, especially among women, white-collar workers and atypical workers. In the 2000s, this trend has again accelerated, especially in the wake of the revelation of the Austrian Trade Union Federation’s ( Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund, ÖGB) involvement in the financial debacle concerning its former bank BAWAG PSK. Most recently, however, an increase in membership has been recorded since 2016, which can be attributed to a comparatively large membership gain of the Union of Public Employees (GÖD). The trade unions’ involvement in public policy-making is highly institutionalised in Austria in that the ÖGB and its seven affiliates participate in a number of bodies and committees – on an informal rather than formal (legal) basis, though. Thus, sovereign tasks such as the administration of pensions or unemployment schemes are not performed by them. ‘Yellow unions’ are not at all an issue in Austria, due to the tight procedure of recognition of interest organisations as social partners possessing the capacity to conclude collective agreements.
|
2015 |
2016 |
2017 |
2018 |
2019 |
Source |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Trade union density in terms of active employees |
27.4% |
26.9% |
26.7% |
26.3% |
26.3% |
OECD/AIAS ICTWSS Database 2021 |
|
Trade union membership in 1000s |
987 |
991 |
995 |
999 |
1,004 |
OECD/AIAS ICTWSS Database 2021 |
In Austria, there is only one trade union confederation: the ÖGB.
|
Long name |
Abbreviation |
Members as of 31 December 2019 |
Involved in collective bargaining? |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund (Austrian Trade Union Federation) |
ÖGB |
1,216,810 |
Yes (in general through its affiliated unions) |
In the 2000s, the Austrian trade unions were increasingly confronted by the need to merge due to a combination of factors – in particular, membership decline and financial weakness, especially in the wake of the revelation of ÖGB’s involvement in the financial debacle concerning its former bank BAWAG PSK. As a consequence of the BAWAG crisis, ÖGB was forced to sell all of its shares in the bank in 2006. Since then, the only source of revenue for ÖGB and its member unions has been the membership dues paid by trade union members. With the latest restructuring and merging processes, Austria’s trade union structure under the umbrella of ÖGB was significantly streamlined, compared with the late 1990s. Within a 10-year period, the number of trade unions affiliated to the ÖGB was reduced from 14 to seven unions. Since 2009 no notable developments have occurred.
There are two main cross-industry employer organisations in Austria, the mandatory Austrian Federal Economic Chamber (WKO) and the voluntary Federation of Austrian Industry (IV), which organises large enterprises mostly in the manufacturing industry. All companies and entrepreneurs holding a business licence must register with the WKO (and its corresponding subunits), which is organised along geographical subdivisions (provinces, known as Länder) and sectoral sections, which are further subdivided into sectoral subunits. Companies holding more than one business licence are to register with all corresponding WKO sectoral groups; this means that there are more members than companies due to the fact that many employers hold more than one business licence.
For the IV and all other (sectoral) voluntary employer organisations, the principle of the general freedom of association as outlined above in the context of the trade unions equally applies to the employer side.
Due to compulsory membership of all of Austria’s companies – with the exception of those in agriculture, the liberal professions and the non-trading public sector – of the WKO and its respective subunits, the density of WKO in terms of both companies and employees is 100%. No information is available on the IV’s membership density.
|
2015 |
2016 |
2017 |
2018 |
2019 |
Source |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Employers’ organisation density in terms of active employees |
n.a. |
n.a. |
n.a. |
100% |
n.a. |
OECD/AIAS ICTWSS Database 2021 |
|
Employers’ organisation density in terms of active employees* |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
Economic Chamber Act (Wirtschaftskammergesetz) |
|
Employers’ organisation density in private sector establishment ** |
n.a. |
n.a. |
n.a. |
n.a. |
59% |
*Within the private sector (with the exception of agriculture and the liberal professions) due to compulsory membership of all enterprises of the WKO; **percentage of employees working in an establishment which is a member of any employer organisation that is involved in collective bargaining.
Apart from the WKO, the IV is the most important employer organisation in Austria. Its membership domain encompasses manufacturing, managerial staff in the manufacturing industry and enterprises associated with the manufacturing industry.
|
Long name |
Abbreviation |
Members |
Year |
Involved in collective bargaining? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Wirtschaftskammer Österreich (Austrian Federal Economic Chamber) |
WKO |
663,534 total members (active and passive) 537,636 active members |
2019 |
Yes (in general, through its subunits) |
|
Industriellenvereinigung (Federation of Austrian Industry) |
IV |
More than 4,500 |
2019 |
No (waives the right to conclude agreements) |
*Figure refers to active members (companies and entrepreneurs)
As far as general economic and social matters are concerned, national tripartite policy concertation is most strongly formally institutionalised in the so-called Parity Commission (Paritätische Kommission). This commission originally consisted of top representatives of the government and the four major social partner organisations. The Parity Commission was running four subcommittees: the Advisory Council for Economic and Social Affairs (Beirat für Wirtschafts- und Sozialfragen), the Subcommittee on International Issues ( Unterausschuss für Internationale Fragen), the Subcommittee on Wages (Lohnunterausschuss) and the Subcommittee on Competition and Prices (Wettbewerbs- und Preisunterausschuss). Since the ‘Bad Ischler Declaration’ of the social partners in 2006, the Parity Commission only has one subcommittee, the Advisory Council for Ecomomic and Social Affairs. The Parity Commission was the focal point for tripartite social dialogue, where matters of particular significance, common strategies and concerted action, as well as emerging conflicts, were discussed and the recommendations of the Advisory Council for Economic and Social Affairs were considered. However, the Commission’s role has diminished since Austria’s accession to the European Union in 1995 and it has last convened in 1998.
Social partner consultation in Austria is based on a practice of permanent, but informal, cooperation, rather than on legal regulations. The tripartite dialogue is extensive and deals with a variety of issues across all economic sectors. Social dialogue is strongly developed and is highly relevant for policy making.
Apart from the Parity Commission, a series of national and regional employment pacts (TEPs) have been set up by the (regional) governments in close cooperation with the national and regional social partners to implement tailor-made employment policies at national and regional level. The social partners’ participation in government employment policies is most strongly institutionalised in the AMS (in whose supervisory board there are representatives of both the government and social partners), which is the core instrument for realising labour market goals at the national and regional level. Moreover, the social partners are represented in the social insurance institutions, the BEA and numerous other bodies.
In terms of bipartite concertation, there is a long tradition of voluntary, informal cooperation and bargaining practice between the social partners at both national and sectoral levels rather than formalised bipartite bodies.
|
Name |
Type |
Level |
Issues covered |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Arbeitsmarktservice Österreich (Public Employment Service AMS) |
tripartite |
national |
Job placement, advisory services to job-seekers and employers; realisation of labour market goals |
|
Dachverband der Sozialversicherungs-träger (Umbrella Association of Social Security Institutions) |
tripartite |
national |
Representation and coordination of the five social insurance institutions, covering health, accident and pensions insurances |
The works council (Betriebsrat) is the only body in the private sector representing employees at workplace level. In legal terms, the works council is a body which is to be set up within establishments consistently employing five or more workers. It exercises the workplace-level consultation and co-determination rights conferred by law on the workforce as a whole. Works councils can either be established separately for blue-collar workers and white-collar workers, or may represent both categories. A works council is elected by the workforce – essentially by all employees within the establishment aged at least 18 – for a term of five years (for all works councils established from 2017 onwards; for pre-existing works councils the former term of four years applies) on the basis of proportional representation, with the number of council members determined by the size of the workforce. With regard to the works council’s information, consultation and co-determination rights, the employer is required to hold regular discussions with the works council and keep it informed on matters that are relevant to the workforce. The most important instrument for the expression of works council’s co-determination rights over a specific range of ‘social’ matters is the conclusion of a works agreement (Betriebsvereinbarung) between management and the works council.
In the public sector, a series of special rules exist regarding employee representation bodies (Personalvertretung) for each of the major employers – that is, the federal government, regional (Länder) governments, local governments and public enterprises; the rules are fixed by particular legal provisions. These bodies largely correspond to the works councils in the private sector.
|
Regulation |
Composition |
Competences of the body Involved in company level collective bargaining? |
Thresholds/rules when they need to be/can be set up |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Betriebsrat (works council) |
Codified in the ArbVG |
Representatives of the establishment’s workforce (number is contingent on the size of the workforce) |
Consultation and co-determination rights; conclusion of a works agreement with management on social matters (not on pay issues) |
Workforce of at least five employees |
Industrial action and disputes
In legal terms, no clear principles are laid down for assessing the lawfulness and consequences of disputes, and in particular there is no Supreme Court case law on the subject. The legitimacy of strikes as a form of industrial action (Kampfmittel) by employees is to be inferred from, not least, the legal provisions which ensure the impartiality of the state. Nevertheless, this legitimacy applies only to strikes perceived as action taken collectively (Gesamtaktion) by the employees’ side as such. In general, the term designates any form of adversarial confrontation over pay or other terms and conditions of employment between individual employers or employers’ organisations on the one hand and trade unions or groups of employees on the other. Forms of industrial action used in such disputes include strikes, lock-outs and (possibly) boycotts. A distinction is made in legal theory between, in the case of strike action, an economic strike (wirtschaftlicher Streik), political strike ( politischer Streik), unofficial strike (wilder Streik), selective strike (Schwerpunktstreik), token strike used as a warning (Warnstreik) and partial strike (Teilstreik) and, in the case of lock-outs, between an offensive lock-out initiating a dispute (Angriffsaussperrung) and a defensive lock-out as a reaction to a strike (Abwehraussperrung). However, it should be noted that since so few industrial disputes occur in Austria, even the expert approach is essentially theoretical.
Between 2011 and 2014, minor strikes occurred (of which the biggest occurred in 2011), while from 2015 to 2017 there were no strikes (as in the period 2005–2010). In 2018, some 37,923 employees were taking part in strikes, with 71,468 hours lost; in 2019, 5,262 persons were involved in strikes, contributing to 15,786 hours lost due to industrial action.
|
2015 |
2016 |
2017 |
2018 |
2019 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Total working days lost |
n.a. |
n.a. |
n.a. |
8,934 |
1,973 |
|
Strike minutes per employee |
n.a. |
n.a. |
n.a. |
1.1 |
0.2 |
Source: WKO Streiks in Österreich (latest update from June 2020), ÖGB Streikstatistik since 1945 .
At company level, within the framework of its co-determination rights in social matters, the works council must participate in the regulation of all social matters within the establishment; for some it possesses a right of ‘parity’ co-decision-making, and for others it can call on a mediation and arbitration board (Schlichtungsstelle) if agreement cannot be reached with the employer. This board, composed of equal numbers of representatives from both sides with a judge as neutral president and set up by the competent labour and social security court, has the task of attempting to establish agreement between the parties on the matter in question and, if this is unsuccessful, deciding the case itself.
In Austria individual labour law and employment disputes dealt with through jurisdiction fall within the purview of ordinary courts. Compared with these jurisdictional mechanisms in a narrow sense, alternative dispute resolution methods do not figure prominently in the country’s legal system of individual dispute resolution. To a certain extent, this may be due to the country’s pronouncedly ‘corporatist’ industrial relations structure. In the case of an individual labour/employment dispute, the employee concerned will – in particular if a works council is absent in the employer company – normally contact either the relevant trade union (in the case of membership) or the AK (membership of which is compulsory for all private-sector employees) for obtaining information, advice and – possibly – assistance in legal procedures. Actually, in most cases of individual employment dispute, either the AK or the trade unions usually try to intervene (by contacting the employer) in order to bypass formal litigation before the courts.
No official data on the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (see paragraph above) are available. The Chamber of Labour annually publishes its performance report, in which it reports on the number and types of consultation for its members, as well as on the financial amount it could reclaim for its members in judicial and extrajudicial proceedings.
Individual employment relations
Individual employment relations are the relationship between the individual worker and their employer. This relationship is shaped by legal regulation and by the outcomes of social partner negotiations over the terms and conditions governing the employment relationship. This section looks into the start and termination of the employment relationship and entitlements and obligations in Austria.
The employment of children (minors under the age of 15 or before completion of their compulsory schooling, whichever is the later) is in principle prohibited (under certain provisions, children aged 12 and over who work at home or in a close relative’s business are exempt from this rule). Thus, 15 years is the minimum working age in Austria. In general, there are no formal requirements for concluding an employment contract. If both parties provide declarations of their willingness to establish a continuing contractual relationship an employment contract is concluded. Freedom of form is a basic element of employment contracts in Austria which means it may be established in oral or written form. Even in the absence of explicitly defined terms statutory law and collective agreements guarantee minimum standards of employment conditions and have therefore to be considered in every employment relationship.
The unilateral termination of employment (Kündigung) does not need to be justified in Austria. Employee and employer can withdraw from an employment contract that has been concluded for an unspecified duration without giving reasons. The period of notice, which is related to job tenure, needs to be observed (as laid down by law or collective agreement). The range is from six weeks (up to two years of job tenure) to five months (26 years of job tenure and more).
In Austria, maternity leave is obligatory and accessible only for mothers. A variety of different options exist for parental leave that include the participation of fathers. New regulations regarding parental leave and a so-called ‘family time bonus’ (essentially paternity leave for fathers to be taken within two months of the birth of a child) were implemented in 2017. The share of fathers taking parental leave has been stagnating at a very low level in the last decade: Men account for only 4.5 percent of the approved days of childcare allowance in 2018, the same share as in 2009.
|
Maternity protection |
|
|
Maximum duration |
16 weeks: eight weeks pre-natal and eight weeks post-natal maternity protection. It is obligatory and cannot be taken by fathers. Post-natal leave is extended to 12 weeks in the case of premature birth, multiple births or a Caesarean section. |
|
Reimbursement |
100% of average income of the last three months of employment before being on maternity protection, plus a supplement for bonus payments (essentially, an aliquot share of the 13th and 14th monthly payments). |
|
Who pays? |
(70%) from Familienlastenausgleichsfond (FLAF – Family Burdens Equalisation Fund), financed by contributions from employers (4.5% of their salary bill) and from general taxes; and partly (30%) from public health insurance. |
|
Legal basis |
Maternity Protection Act (Mutterschutzgesetz) 1979. |
|
Parental leave |
|
|
Maximum duration |
According to labour law, the maximum duration of parental leave (entitlement by family) is up to the second birthday of the child. There are no mandatory periods for fathers, only optional ones. |
|
Reimbursement |
Parents can choose between a flat-rate childcare benefit account and an income-related model. Flat-rate account: - The period of drawing the benefit can vary by choice from between 12 months and 28 months by one parent. If the second parent also draws benefits from the account, the total maximum period for both parents increases to between 15 and 35 months. - Depending on the length of the leave/drawing period, the daily rate is between €14.53 and €33.88 (in the shortest variant, this corresponds to about €1,030 a month for 12 (or 15) months and €442 a month for 28 (or 35) months for the longest period). - For each parent, 20% of the total period is reserved, which are non-transferable. In its shortest variant, the minimum length for each parent is 91 days, in its longest possible variant, the minimum share for each parent is 212 days (around seven months). - If the parents share the drawing period (at least 40:60%), an additional partner bonus of €1,000 (€500 for each parent) is granted. Income dependent variant: - 80% of the net income for 12 months (only one partner) or 14 months (both partners) with an upper threshold of €2,000 per month. - The partner bonus (€500 each if they share the leave at least 40%:60%) is also granted for this variant. For up to 31 days, both partners may draw childcare benefits in both the flat-rate account and the income dependent model at the same time. |
|
Who pays? |
FLAF |
|
Legal basis |
Maternity Protection Act (Mutterschutzgesetz) 1979, Paternity Leave Act (Väter-Karenzgesetz) 1989, Childcare Benefit Act ( Kinderbetreuungsgeldgesetz) 2001 |
|
Paternity leave |
|
|
A so-called ‘family time bonus’ (Familienzeitbonus ) for fathers was introduced on 1 March 2017. Adoptive or foster fathers are also eligible, as are same-sex partners (adoptive or foster parents). A written agreement with the employer is needed; there is no legal right to the family bonus time. |
|
|
Maximum duration |
The length of family time is between 28 and 31 days, within 91 days of the birth of a child; the earliest starting day is the day of birth. |
|
Reimbursement |
Daily rate of €22.60 (maximum €700 for 31 days). The monetary allowance received during the family time will be deducted from the father’s daily rate of childcare benefit if he later takes parental leave. |
|
Who pays? |
FLAF |
|
Legal basis |
Family Time Bonus Act ( Familienzeitbonusgesetz, 2017) |
If workers are unable to work due to illness or accident and are thus on sick leave (Krankenstand), they are entitled to the continued payment of their full wages by their employers for a certain period of time (depending on their job tenure, up to 12 weeks). Once this period of continued full payment by the employer is exhausted, employees are entitled to half of their pay by the employer for another four weeks. During these four weeks and up to one year after the beginning of the sick leave, sickness benefits by the health insurance are provided. They are set at 60% of the former monthly wage; during the four weeks when half pay is granted by the employer, half of the sick benefits (30% of the former monthly wage) are granted as a top-up.
In Austria, the current statutory retirement age is 65 years for men and 60 years for women. According to the current legal framework, between 2024 and 2033 the pensionable age for women will gradually be increased by 0.5 year-steps per year to equal the pensionable age for men. For all pre-retirement schemes there is a deduction of 4.2% per pre-retirement year, there also exists a bonus of 4.2% per year for retirement after age 60 or 65.
Pay
Pay: For workers, the reward for work and main source of income; for employers, a cost of production and focus of bargaining and legislation. This section looks into minimum wage setting in Austria and guides the reader to further material on collective wage bargaining.
The median annual income for full-time, full-season (i.e. year-round) workers has increased from EUR 36,273 in 2011 to EUR 43,719 in 2019 (see table below). This group of employees had an average real increase in gross annual income of 9% between 2004 and 2019, after accounting for inflation (see Rechnungshof 2020, 48). According to these data, there is still a profound income gap between males and females, even though it is slowly decreasing over the years: while in 2011, the female median income was at 81 per cent of the males’ wages, it increased to 86 percent in 2019 (see Rechnungshof 2012 and 2020). There are large differences depending on the sector: in the mining and quarrying branches (NACE B), the median wages of full-time, year-round female workers were at 114% percent of male workers in 2019, whereas in NACE section S (other services), the female median was at only 68% of the male one. The sector paying the highest wages in total (for both sexes in aggregate) is the electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning branch (NACE D). Whereas female workers earn the highest wages in the mining and quarrying branches (NACE B), males so do in NACE section K (financial and insurance services) (see Rechnungshof 2020, 106). The lowest wages, on the other hand, which were paid in 2019 were found in the accommodation and food services sector (NACE I), for both male and female full-time, year-round workers.
When looking into pay developments for all workers in Austria (i.e. also those with instable and precarious employment relationships, which are not taken into account in the data provided in the table below), only small pay increases between 2000 and 2015 can be observed, according to a study from 2017 (Eppel et al. 2017). According to the researchers, this cautious increase lies in a segmentation of the Austrian labour market in stable (i.e. year-round employed) and instable (i.e. seasonally employed, employed with interruptions) employees. Over a third of employees fall into the latter category; while the median real gross wages (i.e. corrected for inflation) have increased by 6.2% between 2000 and 2015 overall, the increase among the stable employees was over 7% and for unstable employed, real wages stagnated (plus 0.3%). The composition of the two labour market groups has changed within the last 15 years, also due to the labour market opening for nationals from central and Eastern European countries in 2011 and 2014; while in 2015, only 44% of foreign workers had a stable employment relationship, in 2000, the share was at 53%. At the same time, almost three quarters of Austrian employees (72%) had a stable employment relationship in 2015, which increased even from 2000 (68%).
To sum it up, those in stable, long-term employment relationships have benefited to a much higher degree from wage increases than those with unstable employment relationships, of which especially Austrian nationals have benefited (Der Standard on 26 May 2017).
Median annual basic wages and salaries per full-time, year-round dependently employed worker (excluding apprentices) in 2011 and 2019 (in EUR, gross)
|
NACE |
2011 |
2019 |
|||||
|
Men* |
Women* |
Total** |
Men*** |
Women*** |
Total**** |
||
|
B |
Mining and quarrying |
42,209 |
39,853 |
41,869 |
49,909 |
57,003 |
50,374 |
|
C |
Manufacturing |
39,648 |
28,419 |
37,548 |
47,785 |
36,587 |
45,753 |
|
D |
Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply |
58,956 |
43,972 |
56,770 |
69,407 |
52,278 |
67,002 |
|
E |
Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities |
32,828 |
29,451 |
32,437 |
38,920 |
36,641 |
38,672 |
|
F |
Construction |
33,763 |
30,095 |
33,503 |
40,223 |
37,807 |
40,078 |
|
G |
Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles |
34,214 |
26,205 |
30,920 |
41,207 |
33,354 |
38,034 |
|
H |
Transportation and storage |
34,932 |
31,237 |
34,448 |
41,080 |
36,713 |
40,489 |
|
I |
Accommodation and food service activities |
22,990 |
20,049 |
21,195 |
27,775 |
25,324 |
26,457 |
|
J |
Information and communication |
53,372 |
41,101 |
50,050 |
63,313 |
48,568 |
59,638 |
|
K |
Financial and insurance activities |
61,350 |
42,583 |
52,836 |
71,170 |
53,431 |
64,136 |
|
L |
Real estate activities |
43,528 |
29,677 |
34,811 |
50,477 |
39,119 |
43,728 |
|
M |
Professional, scientific and technical activities |
48,424 |
33,180 |
40,284 |
57,825 |
41,854 |
50,110 |
|
N |
Administrative and support service activities |
29,254 |
24,170 |
27,570 |
35,109 |
30,056 |
33,600 |
|
O |
Public administration and defence; compulsory social security |
44,994 |
40,311 |
42,583 |
52,754 |
48,178 |
50,394 |
|
P |
Education |
48,940 |
33,962 |
40,378 |
54,537 |
40,608 |
46,987 |
|
Q |
Human health and social work activities |
36,881 |
31,009 |
32,825 |
44,839 |
39,273 |
41,036 |
|
R |
Arts, entertainment and recreation |
36,364 |
28,509 |
33,126 |
42,480 |
35,818 |
39,624 |
|
S |
Other service activities |
38,459 |
23,712 |
29,889 |
45,692 |
31,240 |
38,593 |
|
TOTAL (incl. NACE A, T, U) |
38,776 |
31,598 |
36,273 |
45,900 |
39,320 |
43,719 |
|
Note: The annual wage is generally based on 14 monthly payments, but exceptions may occur. * Table 31, p. 63 (Rechnungshof 2012), ** Table 29, p. 60 (Rechnungshof 2012), *** Table 46, p. 106 (Rechnungshof 2020), **** Table 44, p. 102 (Rechnungshof 2020). The data used in the reports are provided by Statistics Austria, based on income tax data and data provided by the Umbrella Association of Social Security Institutions (Dachverband der Sozialversicherungsträger).
Sources: Rechnungshof (Court of Auditors) 2020, Allgemeiner Einkommensbericht 2020 (General Income Report 2020), Vienna and Rechnungshof 2012, Allgemeiner Einkommensbericht 2012, Vienna.
There is no statutory minimum wage provision in Austria. Minimum rates of pay are not fixed by law but are laid down in sectoral/branch-level collective agreements. The wage set for the least skilled group of workers determines the de facto minimum wage for the industry covered by the applicable collective agreement. A monthly minimum wage of €1,000 (gross) has been established by collective agreements in virtually all branches of the economy since 2008. The ÖGB sets minimum wage targets every few years: In 2010, the ÖGB demanded a minimum wage of €1,300, in 2015, this was increased to €1,500, and in the most recent ÖGB’s policy programme (2018 –2023), it is set at €1,700. By the end of 2020, a minimum wage of €1,500 was reached in virtually all collective agreements. This is due to a social partner agreement from mid-2017 (triggered by the federal government), via which the new minimum wage of €1,500 was to be implemented via sectoral collective agreements by 2020 (in all those sectors where the minimum wage was lower).
For more information regarding the level and development of minimum wages, please see:
For more detailed information on the most recent outcomes in terms of collectively agreed pay, please see:
Working time
Working time: ‘Any period during which the worker is working, at the employer’s disposal and carrying out his activities or duties, in accordance with national laws and/or practice’ (Directive 2003/88/EC). This section briefly summarises regulation and issues regarding working time, overtime, part-time work as well as working time flexibility in Austria.
The legal regulation on working time in Austria is laid down in the Working Time Act (Arbeitszeitgesetz, AZG) and the Act on Rest Periods ( Arbeitsruhegesetz, ARG) setting the legal frame for the working time regulation. According to these laws, deviations from the legal standards at sectoral and at company level are possible but this requires first a sectoral collective agreement and, based on this, a works agreement between works council and management. Hence, working time still remains an issue in collective bargaining. This is particularly the case since the last amendments to the Working Time Act (Arbeitszeitgesetz, AZG), which have increased the options for flexible working hour arrangements, reserving their implementation to regulation by collective agreement, and, most recently (2018), extended the maximum working hours from 10 to 12 hours a day and from 50 to 60 hours a week.
For more detailed information on working time (including annual leave, statutory and collectively agreed working time), please consult:
The legislation in Austria restricts the working day to a maximum of eight hours (excluding breaks) and the working week to a maximum of 40 hours. However, weekly working hours may be varied up to 12 hours per day and up to 60 hours a week over a reference period (between 13 and 52 weeks) by agreement, as long as an average 40-hour week is maintained. The thresholds marking the beginning of overtime are set by legislation via both daily and weekly working hours. In Austria, the thresholds are eight hours per day and 40 hours per week. Due to an amendment to the AZG in September 2018, the daily maximum working hours may be extended to 12 hours and the weekly hours to 60 hours. The amendment has also extended the maximum working day under flexitime arrangements to 12 hours. (For more detailed information, see the Austrian national contribution of Eurofound’s Annual Review.)
Separately from the maximum working time, legislation in Austria also sets the number of overtime hours, usable as required in a set period, often a year, but still in compliance with the upper limits set for daily and weekly working time. The logic behind this regulation is to limit the over-concentration of allowable hours into too short a period. Specific maximum overtime limits are five hours per week, and an additional 60 hours per year. There are no conditions for the use of overtime (procedures, justifications) and the enhanced pay rate and time off in lieu is 50%.
Part-time work in Austria is defined by law (Working Time Act) as any employment, where the agreed weekly working time on average is below the normal working time fixed by law, by collective agreement or by works agreement. According to the favourability principle, collective and works agreements can only agree a shorter normal working time. Since 2007 (amendment to the Working Time Act), an enhanced pay rate of 25% for extra work (even within the normal working time) has been implemented. Extra work is defined up to the limit of the normal working time (40 hours a week), therefore overtime pay rates normally begin beyond the 40-hour limit, so the amendment implemented an enhanced pay rate for part-time work below the 40-hour limit.
Part-time work in Austria is very prevalent and has been rising during the last decade, reaching a peak of 28.2% of total employment in 2016 and 2017 and decreasing slightly to 27.5% in 2019 and 27.6% in 2020. This high share is attributable to the increase in both male and female part-time work, but while female part-time work has been stagnating at a very high level in the last few years, male part-time in Austria has been decreasing again in the last two years. Almost every second woman in employment in 2019 was working part time, this makes Austria one of the countries with the highest female part-time rates in the EU, where the female share of part-time employment stood at 29.4%. Interestingly, in 2020 the share of women employed in part-time jobs decreased by 0.2pp. while the share of men increased by 0.3pp.
|
2015 |
2016 |
2017 |
2018 |
2019 |
2020 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Total (EU27) |
18.2 |
18.1 |
18 |
17.8 |
17.8 |
16.6 |
|
Total (Austria) |
27.7 |
28.2 |
28.2 |
27.6 |
27.5 |
27.6 |
|
Women (EU27) |
30.2 |
30 |
29.8 |
29.5 |
29.4 |
27.6 |
|
Women (Austria) |
47.8 |
47.9 |
47.9 |
47.6 |
47.8 |
47.5 |
|
Men (EU27) |
8 |
7.9 |
7.9 |
7.7 |
7.8 |
7.2 |
|
Men (Austria) |
9.7 |
10.5 |
10.5 |
9.9 |
9.4 |
9.7 |
Source: Eurostat Labour Force Survey [lfsi_pt_a ] – Persons employed part time (20 to 64 years of age) – total and by sex.
Involuntary part-time workers can be defined as those working part time because they could not find a full-time job.
|
2015 |
2016 |
2017 |
2018 |
2019 |
2020 |
|
|
Total (EU27) |
32.3 |
31 |
29.7 |
28 |
26.5 |
25 |
|
Total (Austria) |
12.4 |
13 |
12.4 |
10.5 |
8.9 |
9.4 |
|
Women (EU27) |
28.8 |
27.7 |
26.4 |
25.2 |
23.9 |
22.5 |
|
Women (Austria) |
11 |
11.3 |
10.8 |
9.1 |
7.9 |
8.5 |
|
Men (EU27) |
43.6 |
41.8 |
40.4 |
37.2 |
34.9 |
33.1 |
|
Men (Austria) |
18.5 |
19.9 |
19.4 |
16.6 |
13.2 |
13.1 |
Source: Eurostat Labour Force Survey [lfsa_eppgai]- involuntary part-time employment as a percentage of the total part-time employment, by sex and age (20 to 64 years of age)
Involuntary part-time work in Austria has risen from 10.1% in 2012 to a peak of 13% in 2016, and has fallen since to a level of 8.9% in 2019. In 2020 it increased again to 9.4%. It is much less prevalent than the EU average, which stood at 25% in 2020. The gender difference is quite pronounced: males are more likely to be in part-time work involuntarily than women (just like in the EU27). This shows that for women, part-time work is often a strategy to better reconciliate work and family, in a country which is still dominated by the male-breadwinner model with the female only supplementing the family income.
According to the Working Time Act (AZG) (§12a), night work is defined as work between 22:00 and 5:00.
Regulations on shift work (Schichtarbeit) are found in the Working Time Act (§4a, 11 and 12), in the Act on Rest Periods (ARG) (§3, 5 and 7), and in sectoral collective agreements. The Labour Inspectorate classifies work as shift work if a workplace is taken by one or more alternating workers on a working day or when work groups replace one another successively in certain company departments. Overlapping working hours can still be considered shift work if those overlaps are minimal. However, the fundamental characteristic that several workers alternate on a workplace needs to be met.
Generally, all employees are entitled to an uninterrupted weekly rest period of 36 hours which must include Sunday (in which case it is referred to as ‘weekend rest period’). However, exceptions to weekend rest period are regulated in the ARG (§10 to 22). For example, employees may be employed in cleaning and maintenance work, nursing and care activities or supervisory and security duties. In addition, by ministerial decree, the following types of work may be exempt from Sunday work: work which is necessary to meet essential needs or manage transport and communications, requires continuous operation for technological reasons, cannot be postponed owing to the risk that raw materials will deteriorate or is necessary to meet leisure, recreational or tourism requirements. Special regulations govern weekend work, for example work carried out by employees at fairs and markets, transport workers, hospital staff and the drivers of certain vehicles. Further exemptions from the ban of Sunday work can be established by collective agreements where it is necessary to avoid a business disadvantage and to preserve jobs. Saturday work in the retail sector is regulated in collective agreements; in principle, employees may work every Saturday, but in exchange, they receive five ‘extra-long weekends’ (Friday to Sunday or Saturday to Monday) per half year.
Provisions for breaks (Ruhepausen) and rest periods ( Ruhezeiten) are stipulated in the Working Time Act (§11 and 12).
A scheduled break (Ruhepause) of at least 30 minutes is granted when the daily working time exceeds six hours. Under certain circumstances (if it is in the interests of the employee or necessary for company reasons), the rest break may be divided into two parts of 15 minutes each or into three parts of 10 minutes each. A different division of the break can be stipulated in a works agreement. In companies with no works council, the labour inspectorate may grant a different division of breaks upon request; however, each part of the break must have a duration of at least 10 minutes. Manual labourers working at night are entitled to an additional 10-minute break per night. This break is counted towards the working hours (i.e. paid), whereas the 30-minute break for six hours of work is not counted towards working time (i.e. unpaid). Special regulations apply for shift workers. Employees engaged in work activities which require the uninterrupted continuation of work are to be granted ‘short breaks of appropriate duration’ instead of the above-mentioned rest breaks. Such short breaks are to be counted towards working hours (i.e. paid).
Special regulations also apply to employees who work with display screens (such as computers) for more than two hours a day: according to the Regulation on Display Work (Bildschirmarbeitsverordnung BS-V §10), an employee is eligible to a 10-minute break after each 50 minutes of display work. These breaks are to be paid by the employer. Instead of breaks, a change in work activity, which compensates the burden of display work, can be taken.
After the end of daily working hours, employees are entitled in principle to an uninterrupted break of at least 11 hours before the start of the next day’s work (Ruhezeit – rest period). However, for hotel, restaurant and tourism workers, a 2018 amendment to the ARG now allows for the reduction of the daily rest period from 11 to eight hours in the case of split shifts. In addition, all employees are entitled to an uninterrupted weekly rest period of 36 hours, which must include Sunday (in which case it is referred to as Wochenendruhe – weekend rest period) or, where they also work at weekends as permitted, to an uninterrupted rest period of 36 hours granted in lieu which does not fall at the weekend and must include one entire weekday (in which case it is referred to as Wochenruhe – weekly rest period in lieu). For exceptions from the weekend rest, see above.
The Working Time Act (Arbeitszeitgesetz, AZG) allows for options for flexible working hour arrangements, reserving their implementation to regulation by collective agreement. Most sectoral collective agreements in Austria have provisions on flexible working time arrangements. This especially refers to bandwidth models and flexitime. Bandwidth models allow companies to exceed the normal working time within a certain scope of fluctuation, for instance, up to 44 hours a week, reaching the normal working time within a certain reference period. Moreover, due to derogation clauses in collective agreements, concrete flexible working time schemes (such as bandwidth models and flexitime) can be agreed upon at company level by works council and management in a works agreement.
Health and well-being
Maintaining health and well-being should be a high priority for workers and employers alike. Health is an asset closely associated with a person’s quality of life and longevity, as well as their ability to work. A healthy economy depends on a healthy workforce: organisations can experience loss of productivity through the ill-health of their workers. This section looks into psychosocial risks and health and safety in Austria.
The main instrument to protect the health and well-being of workers in Austria is the Health and Safety at Work Act ( ArbeitnehmerInnenschutzgesetz).
|
2015 |
2016 |
2017 |
2018 |
2019 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
All accidents |
51,224 |
52,736 |
51,833 |
53,124 |
n.a. |
|
Percent change on previous year |
-3.3 |
3.0 |
-1.7 |
2.5 |
|
|
Per 1,000 employees |
14.2 |
14.3 |
13.9 |
14.0 |
n.a. |
Source: Eurostat, [hsw_mi01] and [lfsa_eegaed]
Year |
Number of accidents |
|---|---|
2015 |
103,000 |
2016 |
104,000 |
2017 |
105,000 |
2018 |
108,000 |
2019 |
105,000 |
*including accidents on the way to and from work, rounded to 1,000s
Source: AUVA (2019 and https://www.auva.at/cdscontent/?contentid=10007.670939&portal=auvaportal (2019 data)).
The main instrument to protect the health and well-being of workers in Austria is the Health and Safety at Work Act ( ArbeitnehmerInnenschutzgesetz). Since the 2013 amendment the legislation explicitly refers to psychological strains as a risk factor at workplaces that need to be avoided. Psychological strains include psycho-social, psycho-emotional and psycho-mental strains. According to the law, employers are required to evaluate workplaces with respect to psychological strains that can cause health problems and find and implement adequate remedies. The evaluation and possible measures have to be documented, stored and made available to the labour inspectorate upon request. In practice the labour inspectorate recommends regular surveys among employees with questions on psychological strains (the law does not specify how often the evaluations have to take place). The labour inspectorate provides a model interview guideline which covers physical, mental and emotional strains; problems with respect to qualification, cooperation, lack of information and lack of room for manoeuvre; climatic, acoustic and visual strains; lack of space and resources; inadequately designed work processes; lack of orientation, disturbances and interruptions; burdensome work hours and workloads, as well as other psychosocial risks.
For more detailed information on health and well-being at work, please consult:
Skills, learning and employability
Skills are the passport to employment; the better skilled an individual, the more employable they are. Good skills also tend to secure better-quality jobs and better earnings. This section briefly summarises the Austrian system for ensuring skills and employability and looks into the extent of training.
The Austrian system of vocational education contains two major pillars: On the one hand there are specific VET schools (for diverse subjects such as general technical education, IT, business administration, tourism etc.), some of which provide the students with a university-entrance diploma ( Matura); on the other hand, there is an elaborated apprenticeship system that combines on-the-job learning with a limited school-attendance (what is also called dual system of education). While the VET schools fall under the responsibility of the Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research (BMBWF) and are regulated by the School Education Act ( Schulunterrichtsgesetz), the apprenticeship system with some 200 different apprenticeships is overseen by the Federal Ministry for Digital and Economic Affairs (BMDW), based on the Vocational Education Act ( Berufsausbildungsgesetz). It is on the apprenticeship system that the social partners can exert some influence. The BMDW maintains an advisory board for vocational education in which the social partners have a seat. In the case of the development of a new apprenticeship, proposals are discussed in the advisory board and the social partners have the possibility to submit an official statement about any draft regulation put forward by the ministry. Draft regulations can also be developed by the social partners themselves.
An obligation to provide education or training up to the age of 18 was implemented in the school year 2017–2018. This stipulates that every young person must participate in further schooling or training following their compulsory education (after nine years of school). The focus lies on individual support, taking into account the respective interests, skills and needs of the young persons. Through the programme, various education and training offers and measures are coordinated. Support in the choice of an education/training programme, prevention of drop-out, preparation of further education for disadvantaged young people and supra-company apprenticeships are provided.
Further training is not regulated in Austria. There are hundreds of institutions that supply further training courses on a wide range of issues. Because of the lack of general standards, the quality of the courses differs considerably. The social partners operate their own training institutions. The Wirtschaftsförderungsinstitut der Wirtschaftskammer (WIFI) has strong links to the Federal Economic Chamber, while the Berufsförderungsinstitut (BFI) is supported by the Austrian Trade Union Federation and the Chamber of Labour. Both institutions are among the largest providers of further training in Austria.
Work organisation
Work organisation underpins economic and business development and has important consequences for productivity, innovation and working conditions. Eurofound research finds that some types of work organisation are associated with a better quality of work and employment. Therefore, developing or introducing different forms of work organisation are of particular interest because of the expected effects on productivity, efficiency and competitiveness of companies, as well as on workers’ working conditions. Ongoing research by Eurofound, based on EurWORK, the European Working Conditions Survey and the European Company Survey, monitors developments in work organisation.
More information on:
For Austria, the European Company Survey (ECS) 2019 shows that there is quite some polarisation between establishments which are highly digitalised and those which only show limited digitalisation, both at around 30%. Regarding collaboration and outsourcing, Austria ranks in midfield of the EU-27 countries with comparatively little outsourcing activities. Establishments belonging to the ‘high complexity and autonomy’ type lie below 10% in Austria, those belonging to the ‘command and control’ type at around 25%.
A 2018 FORBA study on the spread and impact on working conditions of self-managed work organisation, with a particular focus on working time, found that the majority of employees still have little autonomy in the organisation of working time. However, major differences can be found according to the highest level of education completed. Employees with relatively low levels of education are more frequently bound to fixed working hours, and those with a high level of education on average find far more opportunities to organise their working hours by themselves. However, self-managed working times tend to go along with longer working hours and more work-related burdens. On the other hand, workers report higher satisfaction with working time organisation if they have more autonomy. To sum up, self-manged working times bear the possibility to increase work-life-balance while at the same time they challenge the protective role of working time regulations.
For more detailed information on work organisation, please consult:
Equality and non-discrimination at work
The principle of equal treatment requires that all people, and in the context of the workplace all workers, have the right to receive the same treatment, and will not be discriminated against on the basis of criteria such as age, sex disability, nationality, race and religion.
The main legal basis for equality at work is the Equal Treatment Act ( Gleichbehandlungsgesetz). Initially adopted in 1979 to stop discrimination against women in the world of work, a 2004 amendment has expanded the coverage to ban discrimination based on ethnicity, religion and ideology. For public sector workers there is specific legislation, the Public Sector Equal Treatment Act (Bundesgleichbehandlungsgesetz) which pursues the same objectives. There is also specific legislation for the equal treatment of disabled persons (Disabled Persons Equal Treatment Act, Behindertengleichstellungsrecht).
The main institution that deals with infringements of equal treatment principles is the Commission for Equal Treatment ( Gleichbehandlungskommission). Workers who feel discriminated against can file complaints with the Commission. In addition there is also an Advocacy for Equal Treatment ( Anwaltschaft für Gleichberechtigung) where complainants receive legal support.
The Equal Treatment Act (Gleichbehandlungsgesetz) and the Public Sector Equal Treatment Act (Bundesgleichbehandlungsgesetz) both explicitly prohibit gender-specific discrimination in pay issues. Since 2011, companies with more than 150 employees are required to produce an income report (Einkommensbericht) every two years. The report has to include how many men and women are assigned to the different wage groups as well as the average salary of men and women. The works council or employees in companies without works council have the right to be informed about the content of the report and they can file a legal complaint up to three years after the publication.
Furthermore, job vacancies must be advertised in a gender-neutral way and the advertisement must include the collectively agreed minimum wage for the position and a statement on the willingness of the employer to pay more than the minimum wage (Überzahlung). In 2016, an obligation to inform part-time workers about forthcoming full-time jobs was introduced: When an employer plans to announce a full-time position or a position with a higher number of hours, the employer’s part-time employees are to be informed beforehand. In this way, internal employees wanting to increase their working hours can apply first – this applies mainly to female workers due to the high incidence of female part-time work in Austria. While in 2011, Austria’s largest union, the Union for Salaried Employees, Graphical Workers and Journalists (GPA-djp), suggested to regularly hold specific female wage bargaining rounds, in order to increase their salaries and reduce Austria’s high gender pay gap, this was never implemented. Thus, there are no regularly recurring social partner initiatives targeted towards closing the gender pay gap. At the same time, in many collective agreements, the recognition of leaves (parental, nursing care, hospice) for wage increases has been addressed within the last few years, of which mostly female workers benefit, as they are the ones usually taking longer leave periods than men.
According to the latest bi-annual General Income Report from the Austrian Court of Auditors (Rechnungshof) published in late 2020, women in Austria in 2019 earned on average 36% less than men (not corrected for working time). Among permanent full-time workers, the gender pay gap still lies at 14%. Pay inequalities are highest among full-time white-collar employees (31%) and blue-collar employees (27%), but virtually non-existent among public sector workers: 6% lower pay for female contract public sector workers and 5% higher wages for female career public servants. One of the main mechanisms to reduce the gender wage gap is the increase in sector-specific minimum wages (Hermann, 2009).
According to Eurostat data, Austria’s unadjusted gender pay gap (defined as the relative difference between the average gross hourly earnings of women and men in the private sector) was at 19.6 percent in 2018 and has thus decreased within the last decade (in 2006, it was at 25.5 percent). Compared to other member states of the European Union, Austria is still among the ‘top five’ countries with the highest gender-related wage differentials and is above the EU27 average, which was at 14.8 percent in 2018.
Based on 2014 data (in which Austria had a gender pay gap of 22.2 percent), Statistics Austria conducted an analysis of various factors influencing the gender pay gap: 8.6 percentage points could be explained by differences in observed characteristics such as economic activity, occupation, education, age, length of service in the enterprise, full-and part-time work, type of employment contract, region or size of the enterprise. The remaining 13.6 percentage points could not be explained by the observed characteristics.
The Disabled Person Employment Act (Behinderteneinstellungsgesetz) requires that companies with 25 and more employees employ one disabled person for every 25 workers. In some sectors the threshold is 40 employees. However, the legislation also includes the possibility that companies can pay a special monthly tax to avoid the employment of disabled staff.
In 2011 the government has adopted quotas for supervisory boards of corporations in which the state has a stake of 50% and more. In total the regulation applies to 55 companies. At least 25% of those board members that are delegated by the ministry of economic affairs should be female and the proportion should reach 35% in 2018. Already in 2016, the proportion of women in the supervisory boards of state-controlled companies reached 38%, according to the Ministry for Women’s Affairs; thus, the target was reached prematurely. In 2018, quota regulations for women in management on supervisory boards in privately owned companies were implemented: a quota of 30% females in supervisory boards in listed companies and companies with more than 1,000 employees is to be reached. If a company fails to comply with the quota, the vote is void and the respective seat remains vacant. Data show that the regulation has been adhered to widely: The proportion of women on the supervisory boards of stock exchange companies affected by the quota has risen from 22.4 percent to 31.7 percent in the two years since its introduction. Almost two thirds of the corporations meet the requirements, seven have a share of women of 40 percent.
Working life links
Austrian Federal Economic Chamber and sections
Other employer organisations
Chambers of Labour
ÖGB and Affiliates
Government
Other links
Bibliography
AUVA (2019), Auszug aus der Statistik 2018, Vienna, available at https://www.auva.at/cdscontent/load?contentid=10008.633448&version=1474356231
Bönisch, M. (2008), ‘Kollektivvertragliche Abdeckung in Österreich’, Statistische Nachrichten 2008 (3), pp. 207-211.
Eurofound (2018), Pay transparency in Europe: First experiences with gender pay reports and audits in four Member States , Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
Eurofound (2020a), Industrial relations: Developments 2015–2019 , Challenges and prospects in the EU series, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
Eurofound (2020b), Minimum Wages in 2020: Annual review , Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
Eurofound (2020c), Collective agreements and bargaining coverage in the EU: A mapping of types, regulations and first findings from the European Company Survey 2019, working paper, Dublin.
Eurofound (2020d), Employee representation at establishment or company level: A mapping report ahead of the 4th European Company Survey, working paper, Dublin.
Eurofound and Cedefop (2020), European Company Survey 2019: Workplace practices unlocking employee potentia l , European Company Survey 2019 series, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
Eurofound (2021), Working conditions and sustainable work: An analysis using the job quality framework , Challenges and prospects in the EU series, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
Eurostat, LFS ad-hoc modules: 2019. Work organisation and working time arrangements . Eurostat database.
Eurostat, Part-time employment and temporary contracts – quarterly data [lfsi_pt_q]. Eurostat database.
Geisberger, T. and Glaser, T. (2017), Gender Pay Gap. Analysen zum Einfluss unterschiedlicher Faktoren auf den geschlechtsspezifischen Lohnunterschied, Statistische Nachrichten 6/2017, pp. 460-471, Statistik Austria, Vienna, available at https://www.statistik.at/wcm/idc/idcplg?IdcService=GET_PDF_FILE&dDocName=113028
Eppel, R. et al (2017). Österreich 2025 – Segmentierung des Arbeitsmarktes und schwache Lohnentwicklung in Österreich, WIFO Monatsberichte (monthly reports), WIFO, vol. 90(5), pages 425-439.
FORBA (2018), Flexible Arbeitszeitarrangements aus der Perspektive österreichischer ArbeitnehmerInnen, Materialien zu Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft 182, AK Wien, available at https://emedien.arbeiterkammer.at/viewer/ppnresolver?id=AC15214434
Hermann, C. (2009), ‘Mindestlöhne in Österreich: Historische Entwicklung und aktuelle Probleme’, in Hermann, C. and Atzmüller, R. (eds.), Die Dynamik des ‘österreichischen Modells’: Brüche und Kontinuitäten im Beschäftigungs- und Sozialsystem , Edition Sigma, Berlin, pp. 111–133.
OECD (2012), OECD Employment Outlook 2012 , OECD Publishing, Paris.
OECD (2021), OECD/AIAS ICTWSS Database , version: 17 Feb 2021, Paris
Rechnungshof (2020), Bericht des Rechnungshofes über die durchschnittlichen Einkommen der gesamten Bevölkerung („Allgemeiner Einkommensbericht 2020“) , Rechnungshof, Vienna.
Rechnungshof (2012), Bericht des Rechnungshofes über die durchschnittlichen Einkommen der gesamten Bevölkerung („Allgemeiner Einkommensbericht 2012“) , Rechnungshof, Vienna.
Eurofound is an agency of the European Union
MEMBER OF THE NETWORK OF EU AGENCIES
EUROFOUND ACHIEVES EMAS REGISTRATION
Add new comment