Facilitating flexibility nd security for older workers: HRMarangements in 4 European countries

1
Facilitating flexibility ánd security for older
workers HRM-arangements in 4 European countries

• CEDEFOP (Thessaloniki, 30 sept. 2008)
• Frank Tros
• Hugo Sinzheimer Instituut
• University of Amsterdam
• F.H.Tros_at_uva.nl

2
Agenda

• 1. Flexicurity-concept and older workers
• Comparative survey on 50 workers in workplaces
  in the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Belgium.
• Problem questions
• Do reflect workplaces European and national
  policy (-shifts)?
• Are there flexicurity-approaches?
• Is there cross-national (sectoral) variances in
  degree/ forms of HRM-activities that facilitate
  (different forms of) flexibility and security for
  the older workers?

3
Why flexicurity?

• Basics flexicurity-debate
• flexibility and security are mutually supportive
  /complementary
• Flexibility not monopoly of employers security
  not monopoly of workers
• Focus on new forms of security (activating)
• Older workers good test case for this concept
• ? Modernizing old fashioned passive HRM-practises
  
• Need for new combinations for flexibility ánd
  security
• Can broaden bargaining on early retirement issues

4
(No Transcript)
5
(No Transcript)
6
Employment rates 55-64 yrs
7
Institutional variety

• In all 4 countries policy shifts on older workers
• But different (initiating) role of the several
  actors in IR-systems
• How reflects policies and regulations on
  national/sectoral level the activities on
  workplace level?

8
Stratified samples (n3085 workplaces)
9
Arrangements facilitating working time
flexibility for 50 ( workplaces, weighted)
10
Arrangements facilitating functional flexibility
for 50 by ( workplaces, weighted)
11
Arrangements facilitating external numerical
flexibility for 50 ( workplaces, weighted)
12
Number of flex arrangements
13
Inititiators in most facilities for 50 (n3085
workplaces)
14
(No Transcript)
15
(No Transcript)
16
Intensity of activity/use of arrangements
17
Intensity of use among 50 (total 4 contries, in
case of availability)

• Early retirement
• Flexible reirement age
• Part-time retirments -
• Part-time contracts -
• Reduction working hours
• Relieve inconvenient working hours /-
• Training/education programmes
• Internal job mobility --
• Reservation senior jobs -
• Relieve workload -
• Outplacement/external job mobility --
• Support self employment --
• Demotion towards less paid jobs --
• Flexible pay
• gt 50 often used 40- 50 often used
  /- 30-40 often used - 20-30 often used --lt
  10 often used.

18
Overall picture 4 countries

• ? Hierarchy of flex-forms in HRM-practises
• Working hours flex
• Internal funtional flex
• External/wage
• need for more external flex - job-job mobility
  and education - in relation to employment
  security (?)
• ? The intensity in which some arrangements are
  used is low.

19
Large cross-country variances

• Dutch and Danish workplaces have more
  arrangements for flexibility and
  preventing/activating security for 50, compared
  to German/Belgian workplaces.
• Especially Netherlands have more intense use of
  these arrangements.
• Different focus and initiating actors in the
  countries.
• HRM in the countries reflect working of national
  IR-institutions.

20
(No Transcript)
21
Further work to do

• More evaluation needed on micro level for effects
  of arrangement and HRM-practises for flexibility
  and security in job/labour market in the long
  run.
• Do and how do flexible arrangements lead also to
  (sustainable) security? How secure is
  flexicurity?
• Further statistic analyses for explaining
  cross-country, and inside country variances.