Mobility in Europe 2011

Transcription

1 Mobility in Europe 2011 European Commission

2 This publication has been prepared by the European Job Mobility Laboratory (EJML), which is a network of academics and labour market practitioners established to support the Commission s work in mobility issues by providing capacity for research and as a vehicle for testing and validating labour market interventions and experiences with policy makers and practitioners alike. The work is co-ordinated by a consortium of Applica Sprl (Brussels) and Ismeri Europa (Rome). The work of the EJML is supported by the European Union Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity - PROGRESS ( ). This programme is managed by the Directorate-General for Employment, social affairs and equal opportunities of the European Commission. It was established to financially support the implementation of the objectives of the European Union in the employment and social affairs area, as set out in the Social Agenda, and thereby contribute to the achievement of the Lisbon Strategy goals in these fields. The seven-year Programme targets all stakeholders who can help shape the development of appropriate and effective employment and social legislation and policies, across the EU-27, EFTA-EEA and EU candidate and pre-candidate countries. PROGRESS' mission is to strengthen the EU contribution in support of Member States' commitment. PROGRESS is instrumental in: providing analysis and policy advice on PROGRESS policy areas; monitoring and reporting on the implementation of EU legislation and policies in PROGRESS policy areas; promoting policy transfer, learning and support among Member States on EU objectives and priorities; and relaying the views of the stakeholders and society at large For more information see: The information contained in this publication does not necessarily reflect the position or opinion of the European Commission. Editors Andy Fuller (Alphametrics Ltd., UK) & Terry Ward (Applica Sprl., Belgium). Researchers Duncan Coughtrie (Alphametrics Ltd); Erhan Ozdemir & Fadila Sanoussi (Applica Sprl). Expert contributors Heloise Petit (Centre d'études de l'emploi, Paris, France): Recruitment channels and jobsearch methods in France; Hermine Vidovic (The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, WiiW, Vienna, Austria): Opening up of the Austrian labour market to migrants from EU-8 countries; Timo Baas (Institute for Employment Research, Nürnberg, Germany): Labour mobility in Germany after the ending of transitional arrangements; Izabela Grabowska-Lusinska (University of Warsaw, Poland): Migration to and from Poland in

3 Table of contents Executive summary... 5 The impact of the recession on employment and the structure of European labour markets... 5 Connecting people to work: Job-search methods, recruitment channels and the role of the PES... 6 Migration between EU Member States recent developments... 7 Cross-border commuting... 8 Section I: The labour market context for mobility The impact of the recession on employment and the structure of European labour markets Employment trends through the recession period Changes in the structure of the labour market Difficulties of the unemployed finding work Section II: Connecting people to work Connecting people to work: Job-search methods, recruitment channels and the role of the PES Size and composition of the jobseeker population Characteristics of jobseekers Reasons for seeking another job Job-search methods Use of the public employment services (PES) Registration with the PES Role of PES and temporary employment agencies in job placement Summary of findings Recruitment channels and job-search methods in France Recruitment channels in the French labour market How do job search and job finding methods match? Job-search methods and recruitment channels in Poland and the particular case of methods used by migrants Main job-search methods and recruitment channels in Poland Job-search methods used by Polish migrants Section III: Migration and cross-border commuting Migration between EU Member States recent developments Migration flows between the EU-12 and EU-15 since the onset of recession Migration to and from Poland in Recent outflows to Germany and Austria after May 2011 and scenarios for the future Return migration New developments in Polish policies to support returning migrants Labour mobility in Germany after the ending of transitional arrangements Migration from EU-8 countries to Germany after May Structure of employment after May Response of firms in Germany to the removal of restrictions Concluding remarks Opening up of the Austrian labour market to migrants from EU-8 countries Migration developments since May The sectoral distribution of migrants The education level of migrants Conclusions

4 References Cross-border commuting The problems of distinguishing between migrants and commuters The scale of commuting Commuting to neighbouring countries and further afield The importance of cross-border commuting to destination countries Cross border commuting in border regions The growth of cross-border commuting The age of cross-border commuters The gender division of commuting The education levels of cross-border commuters The jobs that cross-border commuters do The sectors in which cross-border workers are employed The extent of part-time working among cross-border commuters Job duration of cross-border commuters Concluding remarks

5 Executive summary The impact of the recession on employment and the structure of European labour markets In the four years from 2003 to 2007 the European Union enjoyed a period of sustained economic growth and a relatively high rate of net job creation with the number of people in employment increasing by well over 1% a year. This growth in employment continued into the first half of 2008 but came to an abrupt halt in the second half of the year as the global recession hit labour markets. By early 2009, employment was declining across most of Europe and between the second quarter of 2008 and the same period in 2009, the number employed fell by 1.7%, a net loss of some 3.6 million jobs. The decline continued in the following year with a further 1.2 million jobs lost by the second quarter of 2010 but then started to reverse. The end result of these changes was that in the second quarter of 2011 there were more than 3.8 million fewer people in work than at the peak three years previously. However, these overall figures conceal some interesting details that tell far more about the impact of the crisis on European labour markets. First, the downturn affected men far more than women as it impacted most on sectors of activity where men dominate the workforce, particularly construction (over 90% men) and manufacturing of investment and production goods (75-80% men). Moreover, when the decline in employment was arrested, any increases were concentrated amongst women. The net result was that between the second quarters of 2008 and 2011 the number of men in work fell by 3.9 million whilst the number of women actually increased marginally (34 thousand). Second, there has been an important shift from full-time to part-time jobs. Almost all the jobs lost during the recession period were full-time, which is not too surprising given that job-losses were concentrated in construction and manufacturing, where few people are employed part-time across the EU. Over the three years up to mid-2011 the number of people in fulltime employment fell by around 5.7 million, with 4.8 million of these being men. However, the numbers of people employed part-time increased by 1.8 million over the same period with more or less equal numbers going to men and to women. As part-time employment was previously relatively infrequent amongst men the shift has been much more significant for them with the numbers of men employed part-time rising by 14% in the three years compared to just 4% for women. The shift to part-time jobs has occurred all over the EU, including most of the EU-12 countries (i.e. those that acceded from 2004 onwards) where part-time work was previously of relatively low importance. Moreover, although part-time work tends to be more common in lower skilled occupations, increases during the recession applied more or less across the board. Third, apart from men, the other main losers from the recession were young people under the age of 25. In mid-2011 there were 2.9 million fewer people aged in employment than three years earlier, a reduction of 13%. Young people therefore accounted for 75% of the overall net job losses during the period. As a result, the employment rate of young people across the EU declined from an average of just under 37.5% in mid-2008 to 33.5% in mid-2011, a reduction of almost 4 percentage points compared with a reduction of just under 1.5 percentage points in the overall employment rate (for those aged 15-64). Moreover, the lack of job opportunities has prompted more young people to stay in education or training so that the disturbingly high rates of youth unemployment seen across Europe do not reflect the real numbers wanting to work. 5

6 The recession has resulted in some structural shifts in terms of the distribution of employment between different sectors and occupations. The construction and manufacturing sectors were particularly hard hit in terms of job losses and the share of employment in these sectors has accordingly reduced by around 2 percentage points whilst the share in communal services, which includes public administration, health and education, has increased by a similar amount. This development is reflected also in the distribution of occupations with a decline in the proportion of employed people working in skilled and semi-skilled manual jobs and an increase in the proportion of professionals and technicians. In other words there has been a shift away from jobs typically requiring some form of vocational qualification towards jobs that generally require higher levels of education and more training. Connecting people to work: Job-search methods, recruitment channels and the role of the PES The Europe 2020 strategy has set an ambitious target to get 75% of people aged into employment. Achieving that target after the job-losses experienced in the recent recession will depend first and foremost on stimulating economic growth and adequate job creation. However, it will also require efficient labour markets with flexible working arrangements to suit individual needs, adequate support for people making transitions into work or between jobs, and effective means of matching supply and demand and connecting people to jobs. Analysis in this chapter investigates the mechanisms through which jobseekers are connected to jobs and considers the characteristics of people seeking work, the methods that they use to find work, with particular focus on the role of public employment services (PES). A case study from France goes further and looks at the link between job-search methods and recruitment channels (i.e. the methods used by employers to recruit staff). The analysis considers jobseekers to be all persons who are actively looking for work which includes the unemployed (but excluding those who have already found a job to start within 3 months), inactive people who are seeking work but not immediately available to start, and people who are already in work but are looking to either change jobs or find an additional job. Across the EU in 2010, an average of one in ten people of working-age (15-64) was seeking work, though this number varies from around one in twenty in Austria to nearer one in five in Spain. The main driver of jobseeker numbers is the number of unemployed in each country but the numbers of employed jobseekers is also important, especially in northern Member States. Younger people (those aged 15-24) and prime-age workers (25-49) are twice as likely to be seeking work as older workers (50-64). In general, people with lower levels of education are more likely to be jobseekers than those with higher levels. This largely reflects the fact that unemployment is higher amongst the low educated but this is offset to some extent by more job-search activity amongst higher educated employed people and overall the differences by educational level are not great. There are no significant differences in the likelihood of men and women being jobseekers. Jobseekers who are unemployed or inactive are looking to move into work but for people who are already employed there may be a number of reasons why they are looking for another or additional job. The most common reason (more than a third of employed jobseekers) is the desire to have better working conditions, which includes looking for a more senior position and better pay. Before the recent economic crisis this reason was more important but the economic circumstances mean that more jobseekers are now being driven to seek work for other reasons. For example, the number seeking work because they fear that their current job will be terminated has risen to around one in six and slightly more are seeking to work more hours, possibly to compensate for having to 6

7 work reduced hours in their current job or simply to boost household income in these difficult times. The most common methods used to find work are to study adverts in newspapers or journals (70%), ask personal contacts (friends, relatives, work colleagues 62%), direct application to employers (53%) and contacting the public employment services (PES, 50%). (Note that the LFS data do not distinguish use of the internet). Most jobseekers use more than one method of job-search, with unemployed jobseekers using an average of 4 methods, employed jobseekers 3 methods and inactive jobseekers 2 methods. Just under two-thirds of unemployed jobseekers say that they contacted the PES to find work within the last 4 weeks, four out of ten employed jobseekers, and just over a quarter of inactive jobseekers. Use of the PES is highest among older jobseekers, those with lower levels of education, and people working lower skilled occupations/sectors. More jobseekers say that they are registered with the PES than contacted the PES recently to find work: three-quarters of the unemployed, just under two-thirds of inactive jobseekers and nearly a third of employed jobseekers. The level of registration increases with age: threequarters of older jobseekers are registered but only just over half of younger ones. The evidence clearly suggests that the level of registration with the PES is strongly linked to access to unemployment-related. It means that young people with little or no previous experience of work and therefore no access to contribution dependent benefits have no incentive to register. This means that it is difficult for the PES to make contact with this group in order to offer assistance and guidance, which is of particular concern at the present time given the levels of unemployment amongst young people. Amongst people in work who have been in their current job for less than a year, just less than one in ten (9%) say that the PES was involved to some extent in their placement. This proportion is higher for older workers (50-64) and the unemployed than for other groups. A higher proportion of people working under temporary contracts (11%) than permanent ones (7%) said that the PES was involved. Overall, the findings confirm what might be intuitive expectations in that the unemployed and younger age-groups are most active in job-search, and that informal, self-initiative methods and personal contacts are the most common methods of job-search. Older and low-educated people are more likely to contact the PES for help in finding work. Whilst people with high levels of education are better equipped to find work under their own initiative, the low level of contact between PES and young people has to be a concern. Migration between EU Member States recent developments The 2010 Mobility in Europe report included a chapter looking at the phenomenon of return/circular migration and, in particular, movements from the EU-12 countries those that have entered the EU since 2004 into the EU-15 Member States and back again and how these were affected by the initial phase of the economic recession. The 2011 report brings that analysis up-to-date, with particular focus on Poland, which was a major sending country following accession to the Union. The chapter also takes a first look at the impact in Germany and Austria of the ending, in May 2011, of the transitional arrangements which restricted access to the labour market for people from the eight mainland countries that joined the EU in Migration flows between the EU-12 and EU-15 since the onset of recession After EU enlargement in 2004, migrants from the EU-10 countries concerned tended to go to the North West of Europe - to Ireland and the UK and, to a lesser extent, to Sweden, 7

8 the only EU Member States which did not impose temporary restrictions on entry to their labour markets. At the same time, there was a significant increase in movements from Romania and Bulgaria, countries which did not enter the EU until 2007, to the south of Europe - to Spain and Italy and, to a lesser extent, Greece and Cyprus. Net migration from the EU-10 countries to the main receiving countries (Ireland and the UK) declined significantly in 2009 as the recession hit hard but in 2010 the picture is more mixed as net migration increased slightly in the UK but continued to fall in Ireland. The situation for migrants from Bulgaria and Romania is different for the two main receiving countries. In Spain the number of young people from Bulgaria and Romania has declined significantly whilst the number of prime-age workers (those aged 25-49) has remained more or less flat. In Italy, by contrast, there has continued to be a net inflow of workers from these countries. Evidence from employment rates of nationals and migrants indicate that the large-scale inflows of migrants from the EU-10 countries and Romania and Bulgaria into the EU-15 did not create any threat to the jobs of residents. Moreover, developments since the onset of recession show that in most countries, migrant workers from the EU10 countries were hit harder by the recession than nationals in that their employment rates have fallen by more. This is particularly the case in Ireland and Spain where job-losses were most severe. Moreover, it is likely that the figures understate the real impact since many migrants that lost their jobs are likely to have returned home. The impact of the ending of transitional arrangements in Germany and Austria Although freedom of movement for workers is one of the four freedoms of the European Union, enabling people from any part of the EU to work in any other Member State, EU-15 countries were allowed to impose transitional restrictions on the entry of workers from the countries that acceded in 2004 or 2007 for up to 7 years in order to prevent serious labour market imbalances. The period following the first enlargement came to an end on 1 May 2011 and on this date the remaining restrictions applied in Germany and Austria to workers from the 8 mainland countries (the EU-8) that acceded in 2004 came to an end. In Germany, the restrictions did not apply to people who set up as self-employed or to certain categories of seasonal workers so there was already some inflow of migrants from EU- 8 countries. Evidence from the first five months suggests that the lifting of restrictions has not resulted in any significant increase in the number of workers moving from the EU-8 countries, indeed inflows are below projections. What has happened, however, is that the number of people from EU-8 countries recorded as formally employed has increased by more, which suggests that migrants already in Germany have taken the opportunity to formalise their employment arrangements. In Austria, by contrast, the inflow of workers from the EU-8 has been somewhat above expectations. The new migrants have come mostly from neighbouring countries (Hungary and Slovakia) and are now working in the Austrian regions closest to their home. Most are working in the basic - low-paid service sectors of tourism and retailing or in construction and manufacturing (70% of the total). Cross-border commuting Commuting typically entails someone travelling from their home to their place of work and back again on a daily basis. However, it can also take the form of someone working for a week, a month or even more extended periods away from the place where they live. The longer the interval between journeys to and from home and work the further the potential distance between them. In practice, because no limit is imposed on this interval in the data that are commonly used to measure the scale of migration, on the one hand, and the scale of cross-border commuting, on the other, and to identify the 8

9 people involved, it is difficult to make any meaningful distinction between the two, especially between commuting and short-term and circular migration. In the main source of data on commuting and migration flows, the European Labour Force Survey, therefore, the only distinction between the two is whether or not someone working in another country considers themselves to be resident in that country or not or, more accurately, whether the person providing the information to the survey (who is often another family member) considers this to be the case or not. For this reason, migration and commuting flows need to be considered together, as two elements of worker mobility. Across the EU, less than 1% of people in employment commute across national borders. These people tend to be men (they outnumber women commuters by two to one) and younger than others in employment (in % of commuters were aged below 25 compared to less than 10% of all employed). The scale of cross-border commuting varies from almost nothing in Ireland, Finland and Spain to as much as 4% in Estonia and 5.5% in Slovakia and has generally become more common in the EU-12 countries (i.e. those acceding to the EU in 2004 or later) than the EU-15 countries. Effectively, there are two distinct forms of cross-border commuting one which involves daily or weekly movement across national borders, typically over relatively short distances, and one which involves more prolonged stays at, or close to, the place of work. The former type is prevalent in most of the EU-15 countries (for example, over 90% of commuters in Belgium, France and Austria work in neighbouring countries, mostly in neighbouring regions within the two countries concerned). The latter is prevalent in the EU-12 where relatively few commuters work in neighbouring countries (10% in Latvia, 5% in Lithuania and only 1% in Romania), but instead tend to work predominantly in EU-15 countries whether neighbouring or not. Indeed, the distances travelled by many commuters from the EU-12 countries are such that they must stay in the country in which they are working for prolonged periods and return home only occasionally, emphasising the lack of any clear distinction between cross-border commuting and short-term and circular migration. These different forms of commuting are associated with different kinds of workers and jobs. Cross-border commuters from the EU-12 countries tend to work in manual jobs, both skilled and unskilled, in construction and manufacturing or, in the case of women, in basic service jobs, in households, hotels and restaurants and healthcare. In the EU-15, by contrast, the jobs tend to be higher level ones, which pay sufficiently well that the people concerned can afford to travel relatively long distances each day. At the same time, for commuters from the EU12, the wages they can earn from what are low paid jobs in the EU-15 country where they work still tend to be considerably higher than those they can earn in the country where they live. The scale of cross-border commuting in the EU has increased over recent years, particularly since the 2004 and 2007 enlargements, but it remains small compared to commuting across regional boundaries. There is, therefore, a continuing tendency for people even in areas close to national borders to look within their own country for work rather than outside, a tendency which may not only artificially restrict the job opportunities open to them but also limits the extent to which commuter flows can help to ease labour market imbalances. 9

10 Section I: The labour market context for mobility The Mobility in Europe report aims to present an analysis of the current situation and trends around mobility related issues in the European Union in a way that will feed and stimulate debate amongst labour market policy makers and actors. Each year the first section of the report is a general analytical section giving an overview of some key issues and trends in the labour market which set the context for mobility. This year the focus is on the impact of the recession on the structure of labour markets around Europe. The analysis investigates which groups of workers have been most affected by the downturn, the types of jobs that have been lost or gained, and the impact on the distribution of employment between different sectors and occupations. 10

11 The impact of the recession on employment and the structure of European labour markets Employment trends through the recession period In the 4 years from 2003 and 2007, there was a significant rate of sustained economic growth virtually throughout the EU. This was accompanied by a relatively high rate of net job creation, with the number in employment increasing by well over 1% a year on average across the EU. This growth in employment continued at only a slightly slower pace into 2008 and across the EU as a whole employment grew by 1.1% between the second quarter of 2007 and the second quarter of 2008, by which time the impending downturn in the economy was very evident. The end result of this employment growth was that by mid-2008, the number of people aged in employment in the EU had risen to million. Growth in the EU economy, and in employment, came to a halt in the second half of the year as the global recession, initiated by the crisis in international financial markets, hit the labour market in EU Member States. Employment began to decline first in Ireland, Spain and the three Baltic States as the boom or bubble in the construction industry came to end, causing substantial job losses before spreading to other sectors. By the beginning of 2009, employment was declining across most of Europe and between the second quarters of 2008 and 2009 the number employed fell by 1.7%, representing a net loss of some 3.6 million jobs in the EU as a whole. The fall in employment, however, occurred at very different rates across the Union. In Germany and Poland the only countries in Europe to avoid a downturn in GDP as well as in the smaller economies of Luxembourg and Malta, there was little decline in employment at all during this period. The differing rates of job loss were partly a reflection of the differing rates of decline in output but also of the differing extent and scale of the measures adopted to protect jobs (short-time working arrangements in particular). They were equally a reflection in very different expectations about how severe the recession was likely to be and about the timing and pace of any subsequent upturn. Two extreme examples, Germany and Spain, illustrate these differing underlying factors. In Germany, employment declined only slightly during the recession period, while in Spain, which experienced a smaller reduction in GDP, it fell markedly and unemployment increased rapidly. In Germany, substantial measures were implemented to protect jobs through the expansion of an existing scheme to support short-time working in case of economic difficulties or other disruption to production. At the peak of the crisis (April-May 2009) not far short of 1.5 million workers were being supported through this scheme and various estimates indicate that over the period between 1.2 and 1.5 million jobs were saved 1. In Spain, by contrast, although some measures were introduced, these were much smaller in scale and had only a limited effect on the number employed. Equally, business confidence about the prospects for the economy once the recession was over was considerably higher in Germany than in Spain. In Germany, moreover, the fall in output was concentrated very much on investment goods and the automotive industry and caused primarily by the reduction in demand in world markets and so was expected to pick up again once the global recession had come to an end. In Spain, on the other hand, the fall in output was concentrated in the construction industry where the expansion had been domestically engineered and where there was little prospect for renewed growth after the recession. Accordingly, in

12 Germany, employers were both willing and able, because of government support, to maintain jobs, especially in the engineering industries. In Spain, however, there was neither the ability nor the willingness to do so since it was unlikely that the workers concerned would be needed when the recession was over. Employment of men hit far more than employment of women The recession affected men and women very differently, to a large extent because of the nature of the recession and its effect on particular sectors of activity. As indicated above, the economic downturn, because of its origins in financial markets and, in particular, in the housing market in the US, was very much concentrated initially on the construction industry, which had over-expanded in a number of EU countries. On average, over 90% of those employed in construction in the EU are men. Moreover, as the recession spread, it hit manufacturing especially hard, most notably the investment and production goods industries as expenditure on capital equipment and durable goods, which can most easily be postponed, was cut back. In the industries concerned, around 75-80% of all those employed are men. Not surprisingly, therefore, as employment was reduced in these sectors, men were hit much more than women. While the number of men in employment declined markedly in 2009 (by 2.7% or by around 3.2 million), the number of women fell only slightly (by only 0.4% or 400 thousand). The number of men employed continued to fall in 2010, though at a declining rate (by around 0.8% between the second quarter of 2009 and the same quarter of 2010), as did the number of women (by only 0.2%). During the latter part of 2010, employment began to increase again, if only slowly. This increase, however, just as the preceding decline, was concentrated more on women than men. Between the second quarters of 2010 and 2011 (the latest date for which data are available), the number of men employed increased by just 0.3%, while the number of women increased by twice as much. By mid-2011, therefore, the number of men in employment was 3.9 million less than it had been in three years earlier at the beginning of the recession period, whilst the number of women in employment was actually slightly higher, by around 35 thousand. A shift from full-time to part-time jobs At the same time as employment has shifted from men to women, there has been a parallel shift from full-time to part-time jobs, which has affected men as well as women. Almost all the jobs lost during the recession period were full-time, which is not too surprising given their nature and their relative concentration in construction and manufacturing, where few people are employed part-time across the EU. Between the second quarter of 2008 and the same quarter of 2009, therefore, full-time employment declined by some 4.1 million (Figure 1). Almost 3.5 million of the people concerned were men. At the same time, and perhaps surprisingly, part-time employment increased by over 400 thousand, with the number of men working part-time rising by much the same as the number of women. The following year, in the 12 months up to the second quarter of 2010, full-time jobs declined by only around half as much as in the preceding year (by 2.1 million), but part-time jobs continued to increase, and by twice as much as in Of the net additional 875 thousand people in employment working part-time in 2010, some 390 thousand were men. 12

13 Figure 1 Annual changes in employment of men and women aged 15-64, EU-27, 2007Q2-2011Q2 Total (men and women) Change in millions Total Part-time Full-time Index 2007Q2 = 100 Total Part-time Full-time Q2-2008Q2 2008Q2-2009Q2 2009Q2-2010Q2 2010Q2-2011Q2 2007Q2 2008Q2 2009Q2 2010Q2 2011Q2 Men Change in millions Total Part-time Full-time Index 2007Q2 = 100 Total Part-time Full-time Q2-2008Q2 2008Q2-2009Q2 2009Q2-2010Q2 2010Q2-2011Q Q2 2008Q2 2009Q2 2010Q2 2011Q2 Women Change in millions Total Part-time Full-time Index 2007Q2 = 100 Total Part-time Full-time Q2-2008Q2 2008Q2-2009Q2 2009Q2-2010Q2 2010Q2-2011Q Q2 2008Q2 2009Q2 2010Q2 2011Q2 Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey (lfsq_egan) Between the second quarters of 2010 and 2011, there was renewed growth of full-time jobs (which increased by almost 490 thousand in net terms), but there was an even bigger expansion of part-time ones, even if less than in the preceding year, with again 13

14 many of them being taken by men. Of the 530 thousand or so net additional people employed part-time in mid-2011 as compared with a year earlier, around 315 thousand were men. Over the three years up to mid-2011, therefore, full-time employment fell by around 5.7 million, while part-time employment increased by 1.8 million. Half of the net additional people in employment working part-time over this period were men. This shift reflects perhaps a reluctance of employers to take on workers on a full-time basis at a time of such uncertainty, as well as their search for more flexibility in the organisation of their work force, so possibly converting full-time jobs into part-time ones, with the acceptance on the part of employees given the alternative of losing their jobs completely. A further feature of developments over this period is that the shift from full-time working to part-time is not confined to the EU-15 countries, where part-time employment was already very important before the onset of the recession, though much more among women than men, but is equally evident in the EU-12 countries which have entered the EU since Here, part-time working even among women was extremely limited before the recession, to a large extent because of the need of workers for full-time earnings as well as full-time employment. The recession seems to have changed this, with the same kind of uncertainty affecting employers in the EU-12 as in the EU-15 and with a similar shortage of jobs, giving rise to a greater willingness on the part of jobseekers to take whatever job they can find, whether full-time or part-time. Indeed, the proportion of employment accounted for by part-time jobs has risen in all countries except Poland and Sweden where there have been marginal declines (Figure 2). Perhaps not surprisingly, the importance of part-time work has increased most in some of the countries hardest hit by the recession Ireland (+4.8 percentage points), Estonia (3.9 pp), Latvia (2.8 pp) and Spain (2.2 pp) - but also in Belgium (2.7 pp) and Hungary (2.4 pp). Figure 2 - Part-time employment as a share of total employment, aged 15-64, 2008Q2-2011Q2 50% 40% 2008Q2 2011Q2 30% 20% 10% 0% NL SE DE UK DK AT BE IE EU-27 FR LU IT FI ES MT PT RO SI PL CY LT LV EE EL CZ HU SK BG Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey (lfsq_eppga) What is also interesting to note is that the increase in part-time employment occurred across occupations (Figure 3). Whilst part-time work tends to be more common in lower skilled professions, increases during the recession applied more or less across the board. The most significant increase was among skilled agricultural, fishery workers and elementary occupations (1.5 percentage points) followed by service workers and shop and market sales workers (0.9 pp) and then craft and related workers, plant and machine operators and assemblers along with professionals, technicians and associate professionals (both 0.7 pp). 14

15 Figure 3 Proportion of people working part-time by occupation, EU-27, 2007Q2-2010Q2 35% 30% 25% 20% Legislators, senior officials and managers Professionals, technicians and associate professionals Clerks 15% 10% 5% 0% 2007Q2 2008Q2 2009Q2 2010Q2 Service workers and shop and market sales workers Skilled agricultural, fishery workers and elementary occupations Craft and related workers, plant and machine operators and assemblers Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey (lfsq_epgais) A big reduction in employment of young people The other main losers from the recession, apart from men, were young people under the age of 25. Of the net reduction in employment of those aged of 3.6 million between the second quarter of 2008 and 2009 across the EU as a whole, 1.6 million, or 45% of the total, was accounted for by those under the age of 25. In the subsequent year to the second quarter of 2010, the reduction in the number of young people employed was smaller, but it still amounted to over 900 thousand, which represented almost 75% of the overall reduction. In the year to the second quarter of 2011, the employment of young people continued to decline, even if at a much lower rate, while the overall number employed increased. In consequence, in mid-2011, there were 2.9 million fewer young people aged under 25 in employment than three years earlier, a reduction of 13%. Young people were therefore responsible for 75% of the overall net job losses of just under 3.9 million over these three years. As a result, the employment rate of young people aged in the EU as a whole declined from an average of just under 37.5% in mid-2008 to 33.5% in mid-2011, a reduction of almost 4 percentage points (Figure 4). This compares with a reduction of just under 1.5 percentage points in the overall employment rate (for those aged 15-64). In the countries where job losses were largest over the period, the decline in the employment rate of young people was much greater. In Ireland, in particular, it fell by 18 percentage points (from 46% in mid-2008 and 49% in mid-2007 to just 28%), in Spain, by 14 percentage points (from 36% in mid-2008 and 39% in mid-2007 to 22%) and in Latvia, by over 11 percentage points. Although the decline in the employment rate of young people in Italy and the UK was smaller, the reduction in their employment accounted for 82% of the overall decline in the number in work in the former and 90% in the latter. The substantial reduction in employment of young people is the result not only of job losses being disproportionately concentrated on them but more importantly of the lack of new job creation and a reduction in replacement demand which occurs each year as older workers retire. This typically amounts to 2-3% of employment a year. Because of the recession, however, and the high degree of uncertainty attached to future economic prospects, this replacement demand was cut back as employers opted not to take on new people to fill the jobs of those retiring. At the same time, the creation of new 15

16 jobs was reduced too since there was no need to expand production. Young people, therefore, have borne the brunt of the recession because of these underlying forces, all of them lowering the demand for young people leaving the education system who, accordingly, have been faced with very limited job openings on the labour market. Given this situation, many young people have opted to remain in education or training, so that the unemployment figures for people aged under 25 do not fully reflect the true numbers who would like to work if jobs were available 2. Figure 4 - Employment rate among those aged 15 to 24, 2008Q2-2011Q2 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 2008Q2 2011Q2 0% EU-27 BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey (lfsq_egan) As indicated above, while the overall employment situation improved in the year to mid- 2011, employment of young people continued to fall. Moreover, the latest economic forecasts are for very little growth in the EU economies in 2012, which is almost certain to mean, if this in fact proves to be the case, that employment of young people will decline further and those completing their education and initial training will have even fewer job opportunities open to them. Changes in the structure of the labour market This section examines the structure of the labour market in terms of the distribution of employment across occupations and sectors. The focus is on the changes which took place during the recession period when, as indicated above, employment declined markedly across the EU, in particular in the year between the second quarter of 2008 and the same quarter in 2009 and in the subsequent year as the fall in employment began to moderate and come to an end. The further interest is in the following year up to the second quarter of 2011 as renewed job growth was initiated, even if at a slow pace. Unfortunately, there are limitations to the data available. Ideally, as above, the period examined would be the 4 years from the second quarter of 2007 to the same quarter in However, this is not possible because the sector classification used (the NACE Revision 1 classification) was changed between 2007 and 2008 (to the NACE Rev.2 classification, which is on a different basis and therefore not directly comparable) and the occupation classification used (ISCO 88) was changed between 2010 and 2011 (to ISCO 08). Therefore, the examination of sectoral developments focuses on the three years from the 2 The latest data (2nd quarter of 2011) show that almost 5.1 million or 8.8% of the population aged is currently unemployed. Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey (lfsq_pganws) 16

17 second quarter of 2008 to the second quarter of 2011 and consideration of occupations on the three years between the second quarters of 2007 and Occupational shifts The main change in the division of employment between broad occupations over the period examined was a significant increase in the share of jobs accounted for by professionals, technicians and associate professionals (occupations such as engineers, accountants, doctors, teachers and so on) and a counterpart reduction similar in size in the share of skilled and semi-skilled manual workers (craft workers such as toolmakers, welders, electricians, bricklayers and so on together with machine operators of various kinds, such as those working on production lines or drivers). See Box 1 for details of the occupational groups used in the analysis. Box 1 - Occupational aggregation The data on occupations between 2007Q2 and 2010Q2 is based on the ISCO 88 classification system. To simplify the analysis some 1-digit occupations were aggregated into groups as follows: Aggregates used Legislators, senior officials and managers Professionals, technicians and associate professionals Clerks Service workers and shop and market sales workers Skilled agricultural, fishery workers and elementary occupations Craft and related workers, plant and machine operators and assemblers ISCO-88 1 digit occupations 1 - Legislators, senior officials and managers 2 Professionals 3 - Technicians and associate professionals 4 Clerks 5 - Service workers and shop and market sales workers 6 - Skilled agricultural and fishery workers 9 - Elementary occupations 7 - Craft and related workers 8 - Plant and machine operators and assemblers Between the second quarter of 2007 and that of 2008, there were only modest changes in the division of employment between occupations, though there was a small rise in the share of professionals and technicians, reflecting a long-term upward trend in this category the most marked feature of longer-term developments in the structure of jobs coupled with a small fall in the share of skilled and semi-skilled manual workers ( craft and related workers plus plant and machine operators in Figure 5). The shares of the other broad occupational groups remained largely unchanged, though with a very small increase in the share of sales and services workers, which again mirrors the long-term upward trend in such jobs, though at a much lower rate than in the case of professionals. In the two years between the second quarter of 2008 and the same quarter of 2010, these long-term trends were reinforced. Employment of skilled and semi-skilled manual workers in particular declined markedly as the recession hit the construction industry and manufacturing, as shown below. Their share of total employment across the EU, therefore, declined by 1.6 percentage points over these two years. This trend was present in all of the EU Member States and was particularly pronounced in Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Ireland and Spain (Figure 6). Furthermore, as such occupations tend to be male dominated, the decline in their share of total male employment during this period (1.9 percentage points) was more than double that in the share of total female employment (0.8 percentage points). At the same time, employment among professionals and technicians increased, even if only slightly, pushing up their share of total employment by 1.2 percentage points. This trend occurred in all but 4 Member States (Italy, Latvia, Cyprus and Malta) and was particularly pronounced in Estonia, Luxembourg, Ireland and Lithuania (Figure 6). Furthermore the increase applied more or less equally to male and female employment. 17

18 The only other occupational group to show much of an increase in share over this period was sales and service workers (up by 0.4 of a percentage point), though this was more a result of employment in other occupations declining than of any expansion of the jobs concerned. Figure 5 Share of employment by occupation, EU-27, 2007Q2-2010Q2 35% 30% 25% 20% Legislators, senior officials and managers Professionals, technicians and associate professionals Clerks 15% 10% 5% 0% 2007Q2 2008Q2 2009Q2 2010Q2 Service workers and shop and market sales workers Skilled agricultural, fishery workers and elementary occupations Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey (lfsq_epais) Figure 6 Change in the share of employment by occupation (in percentage points), 2008Q2-2010Q Professionals, Technicians and associate professionals Craft and related workers, plant and machine operators and assemblers EU-27 BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey (lfsq_epais) Accordingly over the recession period, there was a more pronounced shift than usual towards higher level occupations, which generally require a higher level of educational attainment and more training. This was coupled with a shift away from not the lowest level jobs but from those employing skilled and semi-skilled manual workers, who typically have vocational qualifications but who have experienced a long-term decline in demand across the EU-15, not least because of the process of automation because they happen to do the jobs which are most replaceable by machines. There has been little shift over the long-term, or over the recession period, from elementary jobs (such as cleaning) or even more from sales and services jobs (such as for shop assistants or hotel workers), which in many cases do not require high levels of education or extensive training, but which are more difficult to automate. 18

19 Long-term trends in the EU-12 countries are slightly different because of the relocation of manufacturing activities from the EU-15 to them which has occurred over the past 10 years or so, before and after they entered the EU. Their low wages relative to those in the EU-15 have encouraged manufacturing companies in particular to relocate the more labour-intensive parts of the production process, such as the assembly of products like motor vehicles, to the countries concerned. This has led to the share of skilled and semi-skilled manual jobs in total employment increasing. Nevertheless, the recession hit the EU-12 countries in a similar way to those in the EU-15, so that here too these occupations were hit hardest by the recession. Although because of data problems, it is difficult to assess what has happened to the occupational structure of employment in the early phase of the recovery period however short-lived this proves to be there is little sign of the job losses for skilled and semi-skilled workers being reversed and the share of higher level jobs seems to be continuing to increase. All forecasts of skill requirements in future years point to this upward trend continuing. Sectoral shifts As would be expected from the discussion above about the sectors most affected by the crisis, the main change in the division of employment between broad sectors over the recession period has been a significant decline in the share of jobs accounted for by industry (including construction, though these are shown separately in Figure 7) and a counterpart increase in the share of communal services (mainly public administration, health and education). (See Box 2 for details of the sectoral groupings used in the analysis.) Figure 7 Share of employment by sector, EU-27, 2008Q2-2011Q2 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 2008Q2 2009Q2 2010Q2 2011Q2 Agriculture Industry (except construction) Construction Basic services Advanced services Communal services Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey (lfsq_egan2) In the two years between the second quarter of 2008 and the same quarter of 2010, the share of jobs accounted for by industry (including construction) fell by 2 percentage points and the share in construction continued to fall into the following year. This trend was common to the large majority of EU Member States but declines in the construction sector were particularly pronounced in the three Baltic states, Ireland and Spain where the recession hit hardest as the bubble in construction was abruptly burst (Figure 8). The decline in industry was counterbalanced by the communal services sector which increased in importance as a share of total employment by 1.9 percentage points between the second quarters of 2008 and In absolute terms the number of jobs in the communal services increased by 2.8 million over the period, over 70% of which went to women, enough to offset only around half of the losses in industry and construction, which mostly affected men. These jobs were gained mostly in the health and education sectors whilst other parts of public administration saw little change. It is unlikely that this 19

20 will remain the case moving forwards as the austerity measures now being taken around Europe are anticipated to result in substantial cut-backs in public sector employment. Figure 8 - Change in the share of employment by sector (in percentage points), 2008Q2-2011Q2 Industry (except construction) Construction Communal services EU-27 BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey (lfsq_egan2). Data for industry (except construction) not available for BE, EE, LV, LT, LU and MT. RO SI SK FI SE UK Box 2 Sectoral aggregation The data on sectors between 2008Q2 and 2011Q2 uses the NACE rev.2 classification system. To simplify the analysis some 1-digit sectors were aggregated into groups as follows: Aggregates used Agriculture Industry (except construction) Construction Basic services Advanced services Communal services NACE rev.2 1-digit sectors A - Agriculture, forestry and fishing B - Mining and quarrying C - Manufacturing D - Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply E - Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities F Construction G - Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles H - Transportation and storage I - Accommodation and food service activities R - Arts, entertainment and recreation S - Other service activities T - Activities of households as employers; undifferentiated goods- and services-producing activities of households for own use U - Activities of extraterritorial organisations and bodies J - Information and communication K - Financial and insurance activities L - Real estate activities M - Professional, scientific and technical activities N - Administrative and support service activities O - Public administration and defence; compulsory social security P - Education Q - Human health and social work activities Difficulties of the unemployed finding work The chances of someone unemployed finding a job within a year diminished significantly during the recession. In 2007, almost a third (32.3%) of those aged who were unemployed a year before had found a job within one year (according to the Labour Force Survey, which asks respondents about their employment status one year before the survey). The proportion of men unemployed who found a job within this time was slightly larger than for women (34% as opposed to 31%). The overall proportion, however, varied from over 60% in Luxembourg and over 50% in both Sweden and Cyprus to under 20

21 10% in Slovakia and just over 10% in Slovenia and was slightly higher in the EU-15 countries (33%) than in the EU-12 ones (29%). In 2008, as the recession began to hit some of the EU Member States, the chances of someone unemployed finding work within a year declined, the proportion who were successful in doing so falling (from 32.3% to 31.1%) and more so for men (from 33.9% to 32.1%) than for women (30.5% to 30.2%). The decline, moreover, was confined to the EU-15, the proportion of the unemployed in the EU-12 finding a job within a year increasing in In 2009, as the recession spread across the EU and employment fell, the chances of the unemployed finding work diminished greatly. Only just over a quarter (27%) of those who had been unemployed one year before had found a job at the time they were surveyed in 2009 and the chances were reduced significantly for women as well as for men, if by a slightly smaller amount (decline of 3.7 percentage points for women as opposed to 4.5 pp for men). The reduction was also slightly larger in the EU-12 than the EU-15 (the proportion declining by 4.5 percentage points as against 4 percentage points). In 2010, the situation improved a little, especially for men and more in the EU-15 than in the EU-12, where the probability of the unemployed finding work within a year was much the same as the year before. In the EU as a whole, therefore, the proportion of men finding a job within 12 months increased by 1.6 percentage points in the EU-15 though by only 1.1 percentage points if Germany, where the job market improved by more than elsewhere, is excluded. In the EU-12, by contrast, the proportion declined. For women, on the other hand, the proportion finding jobs in the EU-15 remained much the same but increased in the EU-12. The reduction between 2007 and 2010 in the chances of someone unemployed finding work within a year varied markedly in scale across the EU (Figure 9). It was particularly pronounced in Spain, where the proportion who were successful in doing so declined from just under 43% to just under 26% over this period, a reduction of 17 percentage points. In both Lithuania and Luxembourg, the reduction was even larger (by percentage points), while in Sweden, it amounted to over 12 percentage points and in Romania, to 10 percentage points (there are no data for Ireland, where given the large-scale decline in employment, the reduction is likely to have been substantial). Figure 9 Proportion of people aged who were unemployed in the previous year but employed in the current year, 2007 and % 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% EU-27 BE BG CZ DK DE EE EL ES FR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey. Note: 2007 data not available for BG, NL and IE. 21

22 Section II: Connecting people to work European Commission Meeting the ambitious EU 2020 target of getting 75% of people aged into employment is going to be a real challenge, particularly given the current economic circumstances. It will require not only renewed economic growth to support substantial job creation but also efficient labour markets that provide an environment that encourages people to work, support them in the job-search process and effectively matches supply and demand. This section of the report investigates the mechanisms through which jobseekers are connected to jobs the characteristics of people seeking work, the methods that they use to find work and, in particular, the role of the public employment services (PES) in the recruitment process. 22

23 Connecting people to work: Job-search methods, recruitment channels and the role of the PES The EU has set itself an ambitious target to have 75% or people aged in employment by Achieving this target will depend on a combination of factors. Fundamentally, it will be necessary, on the one hand, to boost economic growth and the number of jobs in the economy and, on the other, to provide an environment that will stimulate large numbers of people who are currently inactive, particularly women and older workers, to participate actively in the labour market. At the same time, success will also depend on efficient national and international labour markets with flexible working arrangements to suit individual needs, effective means of connecting people to jobs and adequate support - both practical and financial - for those that need assistance in making the transition into work or between jobs. This chapter aims to investigate the mechanisms through which jobseekers are connected to jobs the characteristics of people seeking work, the methods that they use to find work and, in particular, the role of the public employment services (PES) in the recruitment process. The analysis relies primarily on 2010 data from the EU Labour Force Survey (LFS) provided by Eurostat by and is split into four sections. The first looks at the characteristics of jobseekers around the EU, the second investigates the methods they use to find work, the third focuses on registration with the PES and the fourth considers the involvement of the PES and temporary employment agencies in placement. In addition, two case studies use national data to consider particular issues of interest. Data from the French LFS are used to consider the recruitment process more from the perspective of employers and look at the methods through which people were recruited to their last job (recruitment channels) and how these match to the job-search methods that these people were using beforehand. A second study from Poland exploits data from a number of surveys to consider the job-search methods used generally in the country and how these compare to those used by mobile workers seeking work abroad. Definition of jobseekers Jobseekers undertake the process of finding work from a variety of situations some are working already, some are not; some are available to work immediately, others are not. For the main analysis in this chapter, jobseekers are defined to be all people who are actively seeking work, irrespective of their current labour status. The two case studies, in contrast, are focused only on unemployed jobseekers. Jobseekers, as defined here, can be identified from the LFS data in three main groups according to labour market status: Unemployed jobseekers. In general, the definition of unemployment used in the LFS requires that people are out of work, actively seeking work and available to start work within two weeks. However, the figures also include people currently out of work and wanting to work who have already found a job that will start within the next three months. Since these people are unlikely to be still actively seeking another job they are not considered as active jobseekers and are excluded from the analysis. It means that the number of unemployed jobseekers in each country is less than the total number of unemployed, but not by much those who have already found a job account for just 4.3% of the unemployed across the EU and a maximum of 10% in France and 11% in Cyprus

24 Employed jobseekers. People who already have a job but are seeking another one. This may be as an alternative to their current job or in addition to it (i.e. to get more hours). Inactive jobseekers. People who are out of work and say they are actively seeking work but who are not immediately available for work (otherwise they would be counted as unemployed). Inactive jobseekers are presumably planning to work once their circumstances change - e.g. they manage to find alternative carers for children or other dependents, recover from illness, or reach the end of a training course, etc. Size and composition of the jobseeker population In 2010, there were nearly 33 million jobseekers in the European Union, meaning that roughly one in ten of the working-age (15-64) population was actively seeking work (Figure 10). The majority of these (two thirds) were unemployed, more than a quarter (28%) employed and just over one in twenty (6%) inactive. The proportion of the working age population seeking work varies considerably between Member States ranging from nearly one in five in Spain (18%) to one in twenty in Austria (5%). This share is largely driven by the number of unemployed jobseekers so that the four countries with the highest shares of jobseekers in the working-age population (Spain, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania) are also those with the highest rates of unemployment and, at the other extreme, countries with low shares of jobseekers also tend to be those with the lowest rates of unemployment. There are, however, exceptions in countries with below average levels of unemployment but relatively high levels of job-seeking amongst people who are already employed (e.g. Sweden, Finland, the United Kingdom, Denmark, the Netherlands and Luxembourg - Figure 10 and Figure 11). Figure 10 - Total jobseekers (% of population aged 15-64), % 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Inactive jobseekers Employed Jobseekers Unemployed jobseekers Total Unemployed ES LV EE LT SE FI UK SK PT IE DK EL EU-27 FR DE BE PL SI BG HU NL LU IT CZ CY MT RO AT 20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Source: EU LFS - own calculations. Jobseekers are all persons who are currently seeking work, irrespective of their labour status and availability to start, but excluding those who have already found a job to start within 3 months. Unemployed people constitute 80% or more of jobseekers in most of the Eastern Member States (CZ, EE, LV, SK, LT, RO, BG and HU) as well as in Greece and Ireland (Figure 11). On the other hand, in most Central and Northern Member States (LU, NL, FI, UK, SE, DK, DE and BE) they are accompanied by many employed and inactive jobseekers so that the unemployed account for less than 60% of the total (Figure 11). The proportion of all jobseekers that is employed ranges from 49% in Luxembourg to 6% in Bulgaria whilst the 24

25 proportion that is inactive is low in all countries with a maximum of just under 12% in Austria. Figure 11 - Jobseekers by ILO status (% of total jobseekers), % 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Inactive jobseekers Employed Jobseekers Unemployed jobseekers LU NL FI UK SE DK DE BE FR AT SI EU-27 MT PL CY ES IT PT EL CZ EE LV SK LT RO BG IE HU Source: EU LFS - own calculations. Jobseekers are all persons who are currently seeking work, irrespective of their labour status and availability to start, but excluding those who have already found a job to start within 3 months. The main difference between countries in terms of the composition of the jobseeker population thus lies in the relative numbers of unemployed and employed. If the propensity for employed people to seek work was more or less the same in all countries then the proportion of employed amongst jobseekers would be low when unemployment is high and vice-versa but it is clear from the way that the composition of the jobseeker population in some countries breaks this trend (Figure 10) that this is not the case. The proportion of people in work who are looking for another job varies from 7% or more in the UK, Finland and Sweden to less than 1% in Hungary and Bulgaria ( 25

26 Figure 12). The reasons behind these differences are many and complex but include the level of labour market regulation and the relative importance of temporary work as well as much more personal issues such as perceptions of job security and job satisfaction and the prevalent culture of labour market behaviour. In general, people in work are more likely to be seeking an alternative or additional job in countries where more people are working i.e. where the employment rate is high (Figure 13) but there are exceptions such as Spain where the high incidence of temporary contracts, which apply to a fifth of all people in work there 4, inevitably means that many workers will regularly be looking for the next opportunity. The propensity to seek work amongst inactive people also varies between countries ( 4 In Spain in 2010, 20.8% of people in employment were employed on a temporary contract compared to the average of 11.7% across the EU. Source: EU-LFS. 26

27 Figure 12). The level is around 5% in Finland and Sweden and just over 4% in Germany but less than 1% in eleven countries mostly from the south and east of the EU (CY, EE, PL, CZ, IE, IT, PT, EL, MT, HU, RO). 27

28 Figure 12 - Proportion of employed and inactive seeking work, % 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% Source: EU LFS - own calculations European Commission UK FI SE ES DK LU NL FR BE EU-27 DE PL SI LV EE PT MT EL SK IT LT CY AT IE CZ RO HU BG Figure 13 Proportion of employed seeking work in relation to the employment rate, 2010 Proportion of employed seeking work (%) 10% 9% 8% 7% 6% Source: EU LFS - own calculations; employment rate refers to people aged Characteristics of jobseekers ES Employed Inactive 5% FR LU PL NL BE EU-27 4% DE EE SI LV MT PT 3% EL SK 2% IT LT CY IE AT 1% CZ HU RO BG 0% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% Employment rate (%) It is interesting to break down the jobseeker population further by personal characteristics such as sex, age and education to see which groups are more likely to be seeking work. Age Overall, around 10% of people of working-age (15-64) in the EU are seeking work but the level amongst younger people aged (12.2%) and people of prime working-age (25-49) (11.5%) is roughly double that for people in the age-group (5.8%). This is an expected pattern with job-seeking most prevalent amongst young people as they look for their first job, or try to find the right job to suit their career plans, and lowest amongst older people, a significant proportion of whom will be retired (early) and no longer FI UK SE DK 28

29 interested in working. Indeed, both employment and unemployment rates are significantly lower for older workers than for prime age workers 5 and it is a key challenge for the EU to get more people working longer in order to counteract projected labour shortages and support the growing burden of pension and welfare costs as the population ages. The rate of unemployment is particularly high amongst younger people who are active but since the majority are still in training/education the proportion of jobseekers in relation to the total population is not so significant. The difference between the younger and older age-groups is more pronounced when considering the propensity for people already in employment to be seeking another (or additional) job. Across the EU, 7.9% of young employed people are actively seeking work compared to 4.6% of prime-age workers and just 2.3% of the older age-group (Figure 14). This pattern - the propensity for employed people to seek work declining with age holds true in all Member States. Figure 14 Proportion of people in employment seeking another or additional job, by age group, % 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Total UK FI SE ES DK LU NL FR BE EU-27 DE PL SI LV EE PT MT EL SK IT LT CY AT IE CZ RO HU BG 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Source: EU LFS - own calculations There is a different picture, however, amongst the inactive group where the prime-age group (those aged 25-49) is most likely to be seeking work - 3.9% compared to 1.9% and 0.9% for the younger and older age-groups respectively. This is not unexpected, reflecting the fact that the prime-age group includes many women who would like to return to work after a break for family reasons and who are liable to be counted as inactive (rather than unemployed) because ongoing caring responsibilities limit their immediate availability for work. The pattern for the prime-age group to be most likely to be seeking work amongst the inactive holds in all countries except Finland and Sweden where the younger age-group is more active (Figure 15). 5 Employment rates (2010) : %; %; % Unemployment rates (2010): %; %; % 29

30 Figure 15 Proportion of inactive people seeking work by age group, % 14% Total 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% FI SE DE FR BE UK NL AT DK LT EU-27 ES LU BG SI SK LV CY EE PL CZ IE IT PT EL MT HU RO 0% Source: EU LFS - own calculations Gender Gender does not appear to be a major factor in terms of the propensity to seek work. Overall, 10.6% of working-age men in the EU are jobseekers compared to 9.3% of women and men are slightly more likely to be jobseekers in all Member States except the Czech Republic, Greece, France, Portugal and Sweden. This largely reflects the higher level of activity amongst men. As noted above, the level of unemployment is the main determinant of jobseeking activity and although unemployment rates of men and women are similar (9.7% for both sexes in 2010), the fact that more men are active (activity rate of 77.6% compared to 64.4% for women) means that a higher proportion of the overall population of men is unemployed and seeking work (7.5% compared to 6.2% for women) 6. There are also only minor differences amongst other jobseekers. Inactive men are slightly more likely to seek work (2.2%) than inactive women (1.8%) whilst employed women are slightly more likely to be looking for another or additional job (4.7%) than employed men (4.1%). Gender differences among inactive and employed jobseekers are 2 percentage points or less in all countries. Education level A little less than a third (31%) of the working-age population has a low level of education (maximum of lower secondary) and this group is more likely than average to be unemployed (the low educated account for 39% of all unemployed), considerably more likely to be inactive (50%), and less likely to be employed (22%). Although the population of jobseekers is dominated by unemployed jobseekers in most countries the fact that the low educated are least represented amongst the next most important group of jobseekers, those in employment, means that the share of low educated people is only slightly higher amongst jobseekers than in the general population (34% vs. 31%). Overall, there is a general trend for the level of jobseeking within the population to decline with increasing level of education. However, the differences are not great % of low educated people are seeking work, compared to 9.8% of medium educated and 9.0% of high educated - and the pattern does not hold consistently across the Member States, though those with high 6 Note that these figures refer to all unemployed and therefore include those who have found a job to start later who are excluded from the final jobseeker figures. 30

31 levels of education are least likely to be seeking work in all but four Member States (Cyprus, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Slovenia). Amongst both employed and inactive populations, the situation is reversed with those with higher levels of education more likely to be seeking work. However, again the differences are small. For employed people 4.5% of those with low levels of education are jobseekers compared to 4.0% of medium-educated and 4.9% of high-educated, though in a few countries people in work with low levels of education are considerably more likely to be seeking work than other groups (e.g. Slovakia 14.7% low educated, 2.1% medium and 1.7% high). And amongst the inactives, 1.5% of low educated are jobseekers, 2.1% of medium educated and 3.5% of high educated. This pattern is repeated in all but four Member States Hungary, Portugal, Romania and Slovakia. Reasons for seeking another job Unemployed and inactive jobseekers are looking to move into work but for people already in work there is a variety of reasons that can motivate them to seek an alternative or additional job. The most common incentive is the desire for better working conditions probably more often than not this means looking for better pay or career progression, but it also covers issues such as working time, travel time and quality of work. In 2010, more than a third of jobseekers in the EU (36%) reported this as being the main reason behind their current jobsearch activity and it was the most common reason in almost two thirds of Member States (Table 1) but particularly so in Poland (72%), Cyprus (64%), Spain (63%), Austria (58%) and Romania (55%). Seeking better working conditions is a more important driver for prime-age workers than for other age-groups (38% of those aged compared to 30-31% for the younger and older groups). Younger workers, on the other hand, are more likely than other age-groups to be seeking another job because they consider their current position as transitional (17% of those aged compared to 11-12% for all older workers). Both these patterns hold in around two thirds of Member States and are consistent with the idea that young people entering the labour market for the first time are liable to be occupied with finding the right job/career whilst established prime-age workers are more concerned with career progression. Across the EU, the second most common reason for employed people seeking work in 2010 (16% of jobseekers) was the risk that the current job would be terminated. However, this was only the most frequently given reason in Finland (30%) and the second in six other countries. In fact, after combining reasons, slightly more jobseekers (18%) said that they were seeking work in order to get more hours either through a different job or through an additional (part-time) job. This is an important reason for seeking work in the Netherlands and in Germany, two countries where the proportion of people working part-time is significantly above average, but it is also important in Greece, Italy, Cyprus and Lithuania where parttime work is less common. Not surprisingly, given that nearly a third of women work part-time compared to less than one in ten men 7, seeking additional hours is a more common reason for female jobseekers (21%) than male jobseekers (15%). Indeed, this is the only significant difference between the sexes in terms of reasons for job-search. 7 In 2010, 31.4% of employed women in the EU-27 worked part-time compared to 7.8% of men. Source: Eurostat, Labour Force Survey, lfsa_eppga 31

32 Table 1 - Reasons for seeking another job amongst employed jobseekers, EU-27, 2010 Reason Wish to have better working conditions Risk or certainty of loss or termination of present job % employed jobseekers Most common reason in European Commission Second most common reason in 36.1 BE, CZ, DK, EE, ES, FR, CY, LV, LT, LU, AT, PL, PT, RO, SI, SE, UK (17) EL, MT, FI (3) 16.1 FI (1) BG, CZ, IE, ES, IT, HU (6) Other reasons 15.8 NL (1 see notes) BE, LU, AT, SI, SE, UK (6) Actual job is considered as a transitional job Seeking a job with more hours worked than in present job Seeking an additional job to add more hours Seeking a job with less hours worked than in present job 12.3 DE, HU (2) DK, FR, LV, PL, PT, RO, SK (7) 11.2 EL, IT (2) DE, CY, LT, NL (4) 6.6 BG, IE, MT, SK (4) EE (1) Source: EU LFS - own calculations. In NL the option wish to have better working conditions is not used and people that would have given this answer are counted under other reasons. Changes in the reasons for seeking another job as a result of the crisis Over recent years there has been little change in the proportion of people in employment who are seeking another job (Table 2). However, there is some evidence that the level of jobseeking activity fell as a result of the economic crisis. In particular, the proportion of employed people seeking work around the EU fell by half a percentage point between 2007 and 2008 and has remained at this lower level since. Although the change is small, the proportion of employed seeking work fell in 21 out of 27 Member States so would appear to reflect a real change in attitude with people preferring to hold on to the positions they already had rather than taking the risk of changing jobs. Table 2 - Proportion of employed seeking another job, , EU-27 Proportion of employed looking for an alternative or additional job Source: EU LFS - own calculations % 5.0% 4.8% 4.3% 4.2% 4.4% This is supported by changes in the relative importance of the different reasons for seeking alternative or additional work. Since 2007, the proportion of jobseekers seeking better conditions has fallen by more than five percentage points from just under 42% to 36%, whilst the proportion motivated by the risk of losing their current job has risen from 13% to 16% (Table 3). The share seeking to work more hours (different or additional job combined) has also risen from 13% to 18% as people seek to boost income or perhaps compensate for hours lost (either by themselves or by a partner) as employers cut back regular and overtime hours. 32

33 Table 3 - Reasons for seeking another job, employed jobseekers, , EU-27 European Commission % employed jobseekers Risk or certainty of loss or termination of present job Actual job is considered as a transitional job Wish to have better working conditions Seeking a job with more hours worked than in present job Seeking a job with less hours worked than in present job Seeking an additional job to add more hours Looking for another job because of other reasons Source: EU LFS - own calculations Job-search methods Having considered the characteristics of the jobseeker population around Europe and the reasons that some of them are seeking work, the next section focuses on how different groups of jobseekers go about their search for work. Box 3 - Methodological notes: job-search methods and use of the internet The data used for this analysis refer to the methods used by jobseekers to find work within the last four weeks only. The LFS distinguishes twelve defined methods (see list in Figure 16) and one final catch-all category of other methods. The LFS data do not distinguish use of the internet from other forms of media. However, guidelines for each relevant question 8 recommend using the internet for the purposes of finding work should be considered equally with other media or contact methods. Therefore, Inserted or answered advertisements in newspapers or journals includes referring to, or placing, adverts online. And Contacted the public employment office to find work includes using the website of the PES to search for vacancies (though not for other purposes). Detailed job-search methods and intensity of job-search In 2010, the most widely used method was to study advertisements in newspapers/journals or online (70%), though fewer actually responded to an advert or placed one themselves (42%). Just under two-thirds (62%) used personal contacts (friends, relatives and work contacts) to try and find work, while just over half (53%) applied directly to employers. The public employment services were contacted by half of all jobseekers (50%) but only one in five used a private agency (20%). As a rule, unemployed jobseekers are more active in their job-search than other groups and are more likely to use any one method than employed jobseekers who are in turn more likely to use each method than inactive jobseekers (Figure 16). Interestingly, the exception to this rule involves use of the public employment services, where inactive jobseekers are more likely than employed jobseekers to contact, or be waiting for a call from, the public employment services. 8 For further information refer to the sections on methods used to find work in the EU Labour Force Survey Explanatory notes published by Eurostat: f 33

34 Figure 16 - Proportion of jobseekers using different methods of job-search within the last 4 weeks, EU-27, 2010 Unemployed jobseekers Employed jobseekers Inactive jobseekers Total jobseekers Awaiting results of a competition for recruitment to the public sector Looked for permits, licences, financial resources Looked for land, premises or equipment Waiting for a call from a public employment office Took a test, interview or examination Other method used Awaiting the results of an application for a job Contacted private employment agency to find work Inserted or answered advertisements in newspapers or journals Contacted public employment office to find work Applied to employers directly Asked friends, relatives, trade unions, etc. Studied advertisements in newspapers or journals 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: EU LFS - own calculations. Jobseekers are all persons who are currently seeking work, irrespective of their labour status and availability to start, but excluding those who have already found a job to start within 3 months. Another way of looking at the differing intensity of job-search is to consider the average number of methods used at some point within the last 4 weeks. The 2010 data indicate that unemployed jobseekers used an average of four different methods whilst employed jobseekers used three methods and inactive jobseekers closer to two (Figure 17). Interestingly, measured in this way, the intensity of job-search varies quite considerably between countries with jobseekers using an average of more than 5 different methods in Luxembourg, Slovenia, the Czech Republic and Austria but 2.5 methods or less in Belgium and Sweden. Figure 17 - Average number of job-search methods used by jobseekers in the last 4 weeks, Employed jobseekers Unemployed jobseekers Inactive jobseekers Total jobseekers LU SI CZ AT RO HU IE LV EL ES MT IT DK FR PL LT EU-27 NL CY PT DE UK FI SK EE BG BE SE 0 Source: EU LFS - own calculations. LU: no data for employed (question not asked); RO & MT: data for inactive (too unreliable to be shown but included in EU total); EE, CY & LU: data for inactive unreliable (small sample). Jobseekers are all persons who are currently seeking work, irrespective of their labour status and availability to start, but excluding those who have already found a job to start within 3 months. 34

35 The use of intermediaries in job-search The twelve detailed methods considered above can be grouped into four categories related to the extent to which the jobseekers exploit intermediaries in their job-search. Contacted public employment services (PES) Contacted private employment agencies (PRES) Asked friends, relatives, trade unions (Personal contacts) Self-initiative The first three come directly from the list of detailed methods and involve either formal or informal intermediaries, whilst the fourth combines all direct approaches: applied to employers directly; studied, inserted or answered advertisements in newspapers or journals or online; looked for land, premises or equipment; looked for permits, licences, financial resources. Unsurprisingly, the large majority (85%) of jobseekers around the EU use some form of selfinitiative in their efforts to find work, though the share varies from 98% or more in Romania and Ireland to 66% in Belgium (Figure 18). Not far from two thirds of jobseekers use personal contacts but the share here varies even more between countries from just under 25% in Sweden to over 90% in Greece, the Czech Republic and Latvia. Use of the public employment services is highest in some of the central/eastern countries (CZ, LT, SK and HU all between 75 and 80%) but is below 30% in the Netherlands and Italy and most notably in Cyprus (14%). Private employment agencies (PRES) are the least used method in all countries except Belgium and the Netherlands. A third or more of jobseekers exploit the services of private agencies in Luxembourg, Ireland and Belgium but they are hardly used at all in Cyprus, Slovakia, Latvia and (perhaps surprisingly) Denmark (all less than 5%). In countries like the Netherlands the use of private employment agencies is well established and there are agreements between the PES and PRES to work together to help place out-of-work jobseekers. However, it is interesting to note relatively high use of PRES also in a country like Spain where the market has only much more recently been opened up to private agencies 9. In this case, the high incidence of temporary work in Spain is the main driver behind their use. Focusing only on those methods that involve intermediaries, countries can be allocated to different bands of use (high, medium or low) for each method (Table 4). Comparing the members of the high-use group in each case shows that high use of more than one intermediary method is relatively infrequent. Only in Hungary is use of all three intermediary methods high. Use of two intermediary methods is high in four countries, though in different combinations: Luxembourg - PES & PRES; Czech Republic - PES and personal contacts; Ireland and Spain - PRES and personal contacts. 9 The Spanish public employment service (INEM) held a monopoly in the market until 1994 when Act 14/94 allowed temporary work agencies to be established. 35

36 Figure 18 - Proportion of jobseekers using different methods of job-search within the last 4 weeks, 2010 PES PRES Personal contacts Self-initiative Source: EU LFS - own calculations. Data for LU exclude employed jobseekers. Jobseekers are all persons who are currently seeking work, irrespective of their labour status and availability to start, but excluding those who have already found a job to start within 3 months. Table 4 - Proportion of jobseekers using intermediaries for job-search within the last 4 weeks, 2010 Intermediary Proportion of jobseekers Countries using method PES High >60% CZ, DE, LT, LU, HU, AT, SK, SE (8) Medium 40-60% BE, EE, IE, EL, FR, LV, MT, PL, PT, RO, SI, UK (12) Low 40% BG, DK, ES, IT, CY, NL, FI (7) PRES High >30% BE, IE, ES, LU, HU, MT, NL (7) Medium 10-30% BG, CZ, DE, EE, FR, IT, AT, PT, RO, SI (12) Low <10% DK, EL, CY, LV, LT, PL, SK, SE (8) Personal contacts High >80% CZ, IE, EL, ES, CY, LV, HU, RO, SI (9) Medium 60-80% BG, DK, EE, IT, LT, LU, MT, AT, PL, SK (10) Low <60% BE, DE, FR, NL, PT, FI, SE, UK (8) Source: EU LFS - own calculations. Data for LU exclude employed jobseekers. Jobseekers are all persons who are currently seeking work, irrespective of their labour status and availability to start, but excluding those who have already found a job to start within 3 months. Use of the public employment services (PES) This next section focuses on the PES as a method of jobsearch. Analysis is based on the question that asks about job-search methods used in the last 4 weeks and whether people have contacted the PES in that time (see box). It should be noted that most unemployed who are registered with the PES will have an individual action plan (IAP) outlining the steps to be taken towards effective integration and this plan will usually include a specified frequency for face-to-face interviews. This frequency varies between countries and even within countries depending on individual needs for example, people considered to be well-equipped to find work under their own initiative may not be required to attend on a regular basis. The results in this section may, therefore, be partly influenced by the frequency of contact specified in IAPs. 36

37 Box 4 - Methodological notes: contact with the PES as a job-search method European Commission The LFS question on contact with the PES to find work requires that the contact should involve one of the following 10 : first registration (i.e. being registered by the PES as a jobseeker following a period of employment or inactivity); finding out about possible job vacancies (including consulting the website of the PES); contact initiated by the PES regarding information about a possible job opportunity. Labour market status As is the case for other job-search methods, contacting the PES is most common among the unemployed (61%) but, unlike other methods, it is then more common among inactive jobseekers (41%) than employed jobseekers (27%) a pattern that is reflected across most Member States. Use of the PES is highest among unemployed jobseekers in all countries except Latvia whilst use among inactive jobseekers exceeds that of employed jobseekers in 21 out of the 25 countries for which data are available (Figure 19). As a general rule, therefore, employed jobseekers are less likely than other groups to use the PES. The proportion of each group that used the PES varies between countries but there are some consistent patterns. Use of the PES is above average for all groups in Hungary, Slovakia and Germany but below average for all groups in Cyprus, Bulgaria, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark, Ireland and Estonia. Figure 19 Proportion of jobseekers who contacted the PES in the last 4 weeks by ILO status, 2010 Unemployed Employed Inactive Source: EU LFS - own calculations. Data for total in LU exclude employed jobseekers. Data are not available for inactive in MT and RO. Data are unreliable for inactive in EE, CY and LU. Jobseekers are all persons who are currently seeking work, irrespective of their labour status and availability to start, but excluding those who have already found a job to start within 3 months. 10 For further information refer to the sections on methods used to find work in the EU Labour Force Survey Explanatory notes published by Eurostat: f 37