Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013
To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013
To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013
To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013
To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013
To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013
To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013
To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013
To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013
To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013
To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013
To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013
To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013
To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013
To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013
To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013
To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013
To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013
To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013
To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013
To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013
To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013
To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013
To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013
To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013
To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013
To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013
To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013
To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013
To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013
To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013
To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013
To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013
To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013
To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013
To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013
To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013
To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013
To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013
To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013
To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013

766

Published on

Provided by Prof. Igor Mantsurov …

Provided by Prof. Igor Mantsurov

Published in: Technology, Economy & Finance
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
766
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. International Labour Office Scientific and Research Institute of Economics (SRIE) at the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of Ukraine To the Final Report of Discussion Adapted by the 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, Geneva, 3-11 October 2013 Provided by Prof. Igor Mantsurov
  • 2. 2 2
  • 3. 3 Contents I. Introduction .........................................................................................................................4 II. ILO Decent Work Agenda .................................................................................................6 III. Decent Work framework and indicators ........................................................................7 1. Background to the development of the framework ..............................................................7 2. Different types of indicators .................................................................................................8 IV. Quality of Employment framework and indicators .......................................................8 1. Quality of Employment: variety of paradigms .....................................................................8 2. Quality of Employment: framework .................................................................................10 2. Quality of Employment: dimensions and indicators ...........................................................11 V. Decent Work and Quality of Employment: linkages, convergence and overlaps .......12 VI. Decent Work Country Profile: Ukraine .........................................................................16 1. Adequate earnings and productive work (DW) ....................................................................16 2. Income and benefits from employment (QE) .......................................................................18 3. Stability and security ate work (DW) ....................................................................................21 4. Social security (DW) .............................................................................................................22 5. Security of employment and social protection ......................................................................24 6. Safe work (DW) ...................................................................................................................26 7. Safety and ethics of employment (QE) ................................................................................28 VII. Conclusions and recommendations ................................................................................30 1. Convergence, overlap and similarities ..................................................................................30 2. Recommendations Annex 1: Decent Work Measures............................................................................................32 Annex 2: Quality of Employment Indicators .........................................................................35 References…………………………………………………………………………………......38 Tables Table 1: Equal opportunity and treatment in employment ……………………………...............9 Table 2: Decent Work and Quality of Work: Linkages, overlaps and similarities …………….12 Table 3: Non-wage pecuniary benefits …………………………………………………………20 3
  • 4. 4 Figures Figure 1. Nominal and real wage growth ……………………………………………………….19 Figure 2. Population differentiation by income and wage, Gini-coefficient …………………....19 Figure 3. Population differentiation by income, wage and sex, Gini-coefficient ……………....20 Figure 4. Poverty rates by type of households ……………………………………………. ……20 Figure 5. Employed with temporary contracts ……………………………………………..........25 Figure 6. Monthly social security expenditures by industry and per person, 2006 ……………..25 Figure 7. Structure of social security expenditures………………………………………..……..26 Figure 8. Expenditures of Unemployment Insurance Fund ……………………………………..26 Figure 9. Number of persons with occupational injuries and days lost due to occupational injuries ……………………………………………………… …….29 Figure 10. Occupational injury rate by industries (per 100,000 employees) …………………….29 4
  • 5. 5 I. Introduction Among the CIS1 and transition economies, Ukraine is one of the few countries which have an exceptionally rich gamut of statistical tools measuring various dimensions of socio-economic processes underpinning its population in general as well as monitoring and evaluating the national social policy programmes, in particular. Thus, in addition to the conventional data collection instruments (e.g. a population census, a labour force survey, a labour cost survey, administrative records, etc.) the State Statistics Committee of Ukraine has in its arsenal the following special tools generating a wide range of data on flexicurity 2 and an array of indicators measuring the qualitative aspects of work and labour s: 1. Enterprise Labour Flexibility and Security Survey. 2. People’s Security Survey. 3. LFS-based Modular Decent Work Survey. Notably, Ukraine is one of the first countries in Central and Eastern Europe where the Enterprise Labour Flexibility and Security surveys were launched, and to date ten such surveys have been conducted since 1994. Essentially, the ELFS survey examines the process of employment creation, labour utilisation, job structure, working conditions, gender segregation and labour relations at the enterprise or establishment level 3. Also, Ukraine is one of the first countries where the ILO sponsored People’s Security Survey (UPSS) was launched within the ambitious and comprehensive ILO Programme on Socio-Economic Security in the world of work. Since 2000, four UPSS rounds have been conducted. This survey is a unique statistical tool honed to measure the following labour-related forms of security4: • Basic needs security • Income security • Labour market security • Employment security • Job security • Work security • Skills reproduction security • Representation security Furthermore, Ukraine is a pioneering country to test and apply the ILO methodology on measuring various dimensions of Decent Work. The above exercise was carried out in the following two phases: 1. Participation in the ILO’s early developmental work and testing of the decent work statistical indicators (during 2001-2004), when the LFS-based Modular Decent Work Survey (UMDWS) was conducted and results discussed at the national tripartite seminar. 2. In 2008, Ukraine volunteered to be one of the five pilot countries to work with the ILO to test a comprehensive approach to the measurement of Decent Work 5. This work was carried out in the course of 2009 and resulted in the preparation of a Decent Work Profile of Ukraine. The work was based on the Decent Work Framework approved by the ILO Tripartite Meeting of Experts on the Measurement of Decent Work (September 2008), and endorsed by the 18 th International Conference 1 Commonwealth of Independent States. Flexicurity in general terms means a balanced combination of labour flexibility and socio-economic security. 3 For more information see: Enterprise Labour Flexibility and Security Surveys (ELFS): A technical guide. ILO, Geneva, 2004. 4 For more information see: People’s Security Surveys (PSS): A Manual for training and implementation. ILO, Geneva, 2004. 5 The five ILO pilot countries are: Austria, Brazil, Malaysia, Tanzania and Ukraine. 2 5
  • 6. 6 of Labour Statisticians6. The zero draft profile for Ukraine was used a basis for discussion at a tripartite National Consultation Workshop for Ukraine, held on 15-16 September 2009 in Kyiv. Finally, Ukraine actively participated in the joint UNECE/ILO/EUROSTAT Seminars on the Measurement of Quality of Work held in 2005 and 2007, and the UNECE/ILO/EUROSTAT Meeting on the Measurement of Quality of Employment held form 14-16 October 2009. Prior to the latter, Ukraine joined the UNECE Task Force on the Measurement of Quality of Employment established in 2008. As a member of the Task Force, Ukraine volunteered to test the Quality of Employment Framework developed by the Task Force and present at the October UNECE/ILO/EUROSTAT Meeting on the Measurement of Quality of Employment mentioned above7. Taking into consideration the multifaceted experience of Ukraine in measuring both the Decent Work and the Quality of Employment paradigms, the ILO asked Ukraine to write a report on synergy and coherence between the two frameworks. The objectives of this paper are to: (1) Present ILO Decent Work Agenda and decent work indicators. (2) Present the Quality of Employment framework and indicators developed by the UNECE Task Force 8 and approved by the October UNECE/ILO/EUROSTAT Meeting on the Measurement of Quality of Employment 9. (3) Identify linkages, convergence and overlaps existing between the Quality of Employment and Decent Work frameworks. (4) Illustrate, where relevant, complementary nature of the two frameworks on the basis of finding from the Ukrainian decent work and quality of employment profiles. (5) Summarise the findings of the study and make recommendations on how the indicators produced could be used to better measure progress on decent work and quality of employment. The paper is prepared within the context of the joint ILO/EEC Project “Enhancing the Understanding of Decent Work Issuers by Developing Decent Work Indicators”. When writing this paper, the author has largely drawn on the experience gained during the years of his collaboration with the ILO and the UNECE in measuring decent work and qualitative aspects of employment. The author is grateful to Ms. Natali Vlasenko, Deputy Chair, Ms Nadiya Hryhorovych, Director, and Ms Alla Solop, Head of Labour Force Survey Division, Department of Labour Statistics of the State Statistics Committee of Ukraine, as well as to Iryna Kalachova, Director, Social Statistics Department of the State Statistics Committee of Ukraine, for providing background statistical information. Thanks are also due to Academician Ella Libanova, Director, Institute of Social and Demographic Research, National Academy of Science of Ukraine, for helpful comments on draft chapters. Special thanks are given to Mr Igor Chernyshev, ILO Department of Statistisc, and Mr Malte Luebker, ILO Policy Integration Department, for conceptual guidance and continued cooperation on the ILO Decent Work Agenda. 6 ILO, Resolution on further work on the measurement of decent work. Report of the 18th International Conference of Labour Statisticians. Geneva, December 2008. 7 Statistical Measurement of Quality of Employment: Conceptual framework and indictors. ECE/CES/GE.12/2009/12 September 2009. 8 Statistical Measurement of Quality of Employment: Conceptual framework and indictors. Report of the UNECE Task Force on the Measurement of Quality of Employment. Geneva, December 2009 (mimeographed). 9 Meeting on the measurement of quality of employment (14-16 October 2009, Geneva, Switzerland). Report of the Fifth Meeting on the Measurement of Quality of Employment. ECE/CES/GE.12/2009/2. 6
  • 7. 7 II. ILO Decent Work Agenda The concept of Decent Work has been defined by the ILO and endorsed by the international community as opportunities for women and men to obtain productive work in conditions of freedom, equity, security and human dignity.10 Decent work sums up the aspirations of people in their working lives – their aspirations for opportunity and income; rights, voice and recognition; family stability and personal development; and fairness and gender equality. Ultimately these various dimensions of decent work underpin peace in communities and society. Decent work reflects the concerns of governments, workers and employers, who together provide the ILO with its unique tripartite identity. 11 Decent Work provides a unified framework for the major areas of ILO work and draws attention to the relationships between its four strategic objectives: • • • • Fundamental principles and rights at work and international labour standards Employment and income opportunities Social protection and social security Social dialogue and tripartism. These objectives hold for all workers, women and men, in both formal and informal economies; in wage employment or working on their own account; in the fields, factories and offices; in their home or in the community. Decent work is central to efforts to reduce poverty, and is a means for achieving equitable, inclusive and sustainable development. The ILO works to develop Decent Work-oriented approaches to economic and social policy in partnership with the principal institutions and actors of the multilateral system and the global economy is the balanced and integrated programmatic approach to pursue the objectives of full and productive employment and Decent Work for all at global, regional, national and sectoral levels. The ILO provides support through integrated Decent Work Country Programmes developed in coordination with ILO constituents. They define the priorities and the targets within the national development frameworks and aim to tackle major Decent Work deficits (such as unemployment and underemployment, poor-quality and unproductive jobs, unsafe work and insecure income, rights that are denied and gender inequality) through efficient programmes that embrace and integrate each of the strategic objectives. Decent Work has already gained support and has been endorsed by the international community. At the 2005 United Nations World Summit, heads of state and government declared that they strongly supported a fair globalization and resolved to make the goals of full and productive employment and Decent Work for all. In 2006 and again in 2007, the ECOSOC Ministerial Declaration called for the mainstreaming of Decent Work throughout the UN system. The ILO is expanding its work with the UN specialised agencies. It has strengthened collaboration with UNDP, as formalised in a joint agreement signed by ILO Director-General and UNDP Administrator to advance the Decent Work Agenda in UN country programmes. In 2008, the ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization) endorsed Decent Work Agenda as main objective of the ILO’s work. 10 Juan Somavia, ILO Director-General, Decent Work: Report of the Director-General, International Labour Conference, 87th Session. Geneva 1999. 11 For a comprehensive information on Decent Work concept, Agenda and goals see: Guide to Communicating Decent Work, International Labour Office. Geneva 2009; at: http://www.ilo.org/intranet/libdoc/announcements/guide.english.pdf 7
  • 8. 8 III. Decent Work framework and indicators 1. Background to the development of the framework The Declaration on Social Justice recommends that ILO Members may consider “the establishment of appropriate indicators or statistics, if necessary with the assistance of the ILO, to monitor and evaluate the progress made”. The ILO started to work on measurement of decent work in 2000, both at its Headquarters in Geneva and in the field Offices. The ILO Decent Work Agenda implies the following concept for the measurement of decent work:      Coverage of all elements of the Decent Work Agenda (beyond employment). Coverage of all workers. Concern for the most vulnerable workers. Cross-cutting concern for gender. Importance of social and economic context. Stemming from the above, a series of the ILO Governing Body discussions have set the basic principles for measurement of decent work:     Purpose is (i) to assist constituents to assess progress towards decent work and (ii) to offer comparable information for analysis and policy development. “No” ranking of countries and “No” composite index. Needs to cover all dimensions of Decent Work, i.e. go beyond employment and include rights, social protection and social dialogue. Measurement to draw on existing statistics. As a result of the above discussions, the ILO Governing Body gave mandate to the former Policy Integration and Statistics Department to convene a Tripartite Meeting Of Experts on the Measurement of Decent Work, which was held in Geneva, September 2008. The Meeting was attended by 20 experts. The author of this report was invited to the meeting and represented Ukraine – that was for the first time when an expert from Ukraine participated in the ILO Meetings of Expert. The Meeting reviewed the list of statistical decent work indicators, stressed the importance of rights at work and recommended to provide systematic information on rights at work and the legal framework for decent work in a manner consistent with ILO supervisory system. 12 The Tripartite Meting of Experts made the following two proposals with respect to decent work measures: • Textual description of legal framework and data on actual application for all substantive elements of decent work (L). • Construction of indicators for countries’ compliance with Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, starting with the freedom of association and collective bargaining Taking into consideration that gender is cross-cutting concern of the Decent Work Agenda, the Meeting strongly recommended that: (a) Should not be treated in isolation, but measurement should inform about women’s and men’s access to decent work across all substantive elements. 12 See: International Labour Office, Chairperson’s report, Tripartite Meeting of Experts on the Measurement of Decent Work. Geneva, 8-10 September; at: http://www.ilo.org/stat/Publications/lang--en/docName--WCMS_099981/index.htm 8
  • 9. 9 (b) Therefore, wherever possible, indicators should be reported separately for men and women in addition to the total. (c) In addition, indicators for vertical and horizontal segregation are included under ‘Equal opportunity and treatment in employment’. The Meeting of Experts agreed on the ILO Decent Work conceptual framework and recommended that a core set of Decent Work Indicators encompassing both quantitative and qualitative dimensions of decent work (see Annex 1) be tested in a small number of pilot countries. The recommendations of the Meeting were reported to the 18 th International Conference of Labour Statisticians ((24 November – 5 December 2008) and the Conference adopted Resolution concerning further work on the measurement of decent work13 Finally, several countries volunteered to participate in the ILO exercise on the preparation of Decent Work Pilot Country Profiles. The following five countries were selected: Austria, Brazil, Malaysia, Tanzania and Ukraine. 2. Different types of indicators The Tripartite Meeting of Experts adopted the following “layer approach” to the Decent Work Indicators:      Main indicators (M): parsimonious core set of indicators to monitor progress towards decent work. Additional indicators (A): to be used where appropriate, and where data are available. Context indicators (C): provide information on the economic and social context for decent work. Future indicators (F): currently not feasible, but to be included as data become more widely available. Information included under legal framework (L). In order to facilitate analysis of different decent work dimensions, the indicators are grouped under the following substantive elements of the Decent Work Agenda:            Employment opportunities (1 + 2) Adequate earnings and productive work (1 + 3) Decent hours (1 + 3) Combining work, family and personal life (1 + 3) Work that should be abolished (1 + 3) Stability and security of work (1, 2 + 3) Equal opportunity and treatment in employment (1, 2 + 3) Safe work environment (1 + 3) Social security (1 + 3) Social dialogue, workers’ and employers’ representation (1 + 4) Economic and social context for decent work Note: (1) Rights at work; (2) Employment; (3) Social protection; (4) Social Dialogue IV. Quality of Employment framework and indicators 1. Quality of Employment: variety of paradigms As rightfully stated in the UNECE Task Force Paper, 14 quality of employment is an issue of importance to many. Nobody wants bad working conditions for themselves, and all but a few would want to eradicate the worst forms of work and labour for others. 13 International Labour Organization, Report of the Conference, 18th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, ICLS/18/2998/IV/FINAL. Geneva, 24 November – 5 December 2008. Geneva 2009, pp. 11-14 and p. 68. 14 Statistical Measurement of Quality of Employment: Conceptual framework and indictors. Report of the UNECE Task Force on the Measurement of Quality of Employment. Geneva, December 2009 (mimeographed), p. 3. 9
  • 10. 10 Internationally, there is great interest in the issue of quality of employment. From the perspective of the International Labour Organization (ILO), the quality of employment is about security of tenure and prospects for career development; it is about working conditions, hours of work, safety and health, fair wages and returns to labour, opportunities to develop skills, balancing work and life, gender equality, job satisfaction and recognition and social protection. It is also about freedom of association and having a voice in the workplace and the society. Finally, it is about securing human dignity and eliminating discrimination, forced labour, human trafficking and forms of child labour, especially in its worst forms. In Europe, the promotion of quality of work is a “guiding principle” in the Social Policy Agenda of the European Union (EU).15 In 2000, heads of state and governments of the EU met in Lisbon to launch a series of reforms. At this meeting, a new “overall goal of moving to full employment through creating not only more, but also better jobs” was set. 16 Subsequent meetings of the European Council have also concluded that promoting quality and productivity at work is a priority for the EU. To meet their needs to monitor and develop policies to improve quality of work, both the ILO and the EU have developed their specific frameworks which are compactly presented in Table1. Table 1: Dimensions of the ILO, European Union and European Foundation frameworks17 ILO Decent Work Dimensions EU Quality of Work Dimensions European Foundation Job and Employment Quality Dimensions 1. Employment opportunities 1. Intrinsic job quality 1. Career and employment 2. Inclusion and access to the labour security. market 3. Diversity and non-discrimination 2. Adequate earnings and productive work 4. Skills, lifelong training and career development 1. Career and employment security. 2. Skills development 3. Decent hours Some aspects of working time are implicitly included 3. Reconciliation of working and non-working life. 4. Health and well-being. 4. Combining work, family and personal life 6. Work organisation and work-life balance 3. Reconciliation of working and non-working life. 5. Work that should be abolished Not defined Not defined 6. Stability and security of work 5. Flexibility and security 4. Health and well-being. 7. Equal opportunities and fair treatment in employment 7. Gender equality 1. Career and employment security. 8. Safe work environment 8. Health and safety at work 4. Health and well-being. 9. Social security Not included but a set of indicators have been defined 1. Career and employment security 10. Social dialogue, workers’ and employers’ representation 9. Social dialogue and worker involvement 1. Career and employment security + Economic and social context of decent work 10. Overall work performance Not included 15 Lozano, Esteban. Quality in work: Dimensions and Indicators in the Framework of the European Employment Strategy, UNECE/ILO/Eurostat Seminar on the Quality of Work, Geneva, (11-13 May, 2005, p. 2. 16 IBID, p. 2. 17 Joint UNECE/ILO/EUROSTAT Seminar on the Quality of Work. Towards an International Quality of Employment Framework: Conceptual Paper of the Task Force on the Measurement of Quality of Work. Working paper No. 1, Geneva, 7 February 2007. 10
  • 11. 11 As described in Chapter III, a framework for the measurement of decent work has been developed by the ILO that combines statistical decent work indicators with information on the legal framework. 18 In other words, the ILO framework covers all elements of the Decent Work Agenda and therefore goes beyond employment. Within the EU, two frameworks are used. One set of indicators is maintained by the European Commission for monitoring labour market policies. Another was developed and is being used by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions for their work on this topic. 2. Quality of Employment: framework What is quality of employment? What indicators ought to be used to assess such a concept? How it is answered depends upon the perspective that one has. The European Foundation has identified three perspectives on the quality of work and employment: societal, corporate and individual. 19 From a societal perspective, it may be desirable to have good quality of employment, since high quality employment is assumed to have social spin-offs. However not all aspects of the societal point of view would imply that quality of employment is positive. For example, although public employment generally represents high quality employment, large growth in this sector may not be desirable because it can burden government budgets. From the corporate point of view, good employment might mean having hard-working, productive staff. Of course there is overlap between the corporate view and the views of the worker on what is high quality employment. However, what is in the interest of the employer is not always the same as that of the worker. So, while an employee might see high wages to his benefit, the employer may not see that attribute of the job as a positive one. The framework and its indicators proposed by the Task Force and endorsed by the October 2009 UNECE/ILO/EUROSTAT Meeting are primarily designed to measure quality of employment from the perspective of the individual or worker. However, there is also some element of the social perspective built into this framework.20 Because work is something that delivers a large variety of benefits and negativities to individuals and societies, and individual and societal tastes for what they want from work are equally varied. As a result, there is no one, single definition of what it means to be working in “good" employment. This perspective affects the framework in a few ways. First, it prevents any development of an index of quality of employment, and as such, the Task Force strictly avoided moving the framework in that direction. Second, because quality of employment means many different things, it requires a varied and populous set of indicators. These indicators, in turn, will be interpreted differently by different people. Since for one person, changes in an indicator can mean good news, while for another it can be neutral or even negative. As a result, the framework will never yield a black and white picture of quality of employment, a reflection of the complexity of the issue being measured. Since under the proposed framework the qualitative aspects of work are the subject of study, the DW dimension employment opportunities was a dimension considered, but determined to be outside the scope of the framework. However, one cannot forget the general labour market conditions when using the framework to produce analysis of the state of quality of employment in a country. To get a full picture of the labour market situation of a country, the framework on quality of employment should always be accompanied by regular indicators on employment and unemployment such as unemployment and labour force participation rates, etc. The conventional labour market indicators, in particular those that adequately reflect access to employment of certain vulnerable groups of population, are an essential piece of information for interpreting the results of the 18 International Labour Office. Measurement of decent work: Discussion paper for the Tripartite Meeting of Experts on the Measurement of Decent Work, Geneva, 8–10 September 2008, ILO, Geneva, 2008; and International Labour Office. Tripartite Meeting of Experts on the Measurement of Decent Work Geneva, 8- 10 September 2008. Chairperson’s report, ILO, Geneva, 2008. 19 European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Quality in work and employment in the European Working Conditions Survey, UNECE/ILO/Eurostat Seminar on the Quality of Work, Geneva, 11-13 May , 2005, p. 2. 20 Note that also the ILO framework on decent work has both a societal and individual perspective. 11
  • 12. 12 measurement of quality of employment. In turn, qualitative measures can assist in interpreting conventional indicators of employment and unemployment - certain qualitative aspects of the work available, for example, can result in lower labour market participation, specially for vulnerable groups like school-leavers, re-entrants or elderly. 2. Quality of Employment: dimensions and indicators The following seven quality of employment dimensions are suggested: 1. Safety and ethics of employment (a) Safety at work (b) Child labour and forced labour (c) Fair treatment in employment 2. Income and benefits from employment (a) Income (b) Non-wage pecuniary benefits 3. Working hours and balancing work and non-working life (a) Working hours (b) Working time arrangements (c) Balancing work and non-working life 4. Security of employment and social protection (a) Security of employment (b) Social protection 5. Social dialogue 6. Skills development and training 7. Workplace relationships and work motivation (a) Workplace relationships (b) Work motivation Annex 2 shows how to parley the higher-level, conceptual discussion, into statistical indicators. The October 2009 UNECE/ILO/EUROSTAT Meeting concluded that the goal of the Quality of Employment framework should be to provide assistance to countries which need or want to “draw” a comprehensive portrait of the quality of employment within the country. Further work would be required to provide the specifics of each indicator (precise definitions and collection methods), before meaningful international comparisons can be made. The indicators being considered for the framework are suggested indicators for use by countries. During their development, the Task Force on the Measurement of Quality of Employment reviewed and agreed-upon this set of possible indicators for country use. Each has been through several rounds of development and review and has been applied by at least one country, including the set on child and forced labour, as well as the workplace relationships and work motivation variables. The latter were considered by the Task Force to be the most problematic. Ukraine along with other eight UNECE Task Force member-countries, volunteered to prepare a Quality of Employment: Country Profile for Ukraine21 21 Mantsurov. I. and Senyk.I Quality of Employment: Country Profile for Ukraine. UNECE/ILO/EUROSTAT Meeting on the Measurement of Quality of Employment; Research and Scientific Institute of Economics, Ministry of Economy of Ukraine, and the State Statistics Committee of Ukraine. Kyïv 2009; .at: http://www.unece.org/stats/documents/ece/ces/ge.12/2009/zip.27.e.pdf 12
  • 13. 13 The findings of the report demonstrated that from the Ukrainian perspective and based on our experience gained through the collaboration with the ILO, the quality of employment framework should be used for an in-depth analysis of the qualitative aspects of relevant f Decent Work dimensions. V. Decent Work and Quality of Employment: linkages, convergence and overlaps The comparative study of the Decent Work (DW) and Quality of Employment (QE) frameworks showed that the first five dimensions proposed by Quality of Employment framework (i.e. Safety and ethics of employment; Income and benefits from employment; Working hours and balancing work and non-working life; Security of employment and social protection; Social dialogue) are also included in the ILO Decent Work framework (see Table 2). Table 2: Decent Work and Quality of Work: Linkages, overlaps and similarities Quality of Employment 1. Safety and ethics of employment a) Safety at work b) Child labour and forced labour c) Fair treatment in employment Decent Work 8. Safe work environment 5. Work that should be abolished 7. Equal opportunity and treatment in employment 2. Income and benefits from employment a) Income from employment b) Non-wage pecuniary benefits 2. Adequate earnings and productive work 3. Working hours and balancing work and nonworking life a) Working hours b) Working time arrangements c) Balancing work and non-working life 3. Decent hours 4. Combining work. family and personal life 4. Security of employment and social protection a) Security of employment b) Social protection 6. Stability and security of work 9. Social security 5. Social dialogue 10. Social dialogue, workers’ and employers’ representation 13
  • 14. 14 Within Quality of Employment framework the Fair treatment in employment doesn’t identify specific indicators but is rather considered a cross-cutting dimension.. The dimensions 6 and 7 (Skills development and life-long learning, Workplace relationships and work motivation) are specific of the Quality of Employment framework. The dimension Employment opportunities is specific of Decent Work framework. As for the indicators measuring the multiple dimensions of the two paradigms, the Quality of Employment framework includes 54 indicators, while the ILO framework includes 18 main indicators, 25 additional indicators, 20 legal indicators – 63 in total, and in addition , 11 indicators measuring socio-economic context of decent work. The list of Decent Work Indicators below includes 5 Quality of Employment Indicators, which overlap with the DW framework (see highlighted in grey). 1. Employment opportunities22 M – Employment-to-population ratio, 15-64 years M – Unemployment rate M – Youth not in education and not in employment, 15-24 years M – Informal employment A – Labour force participation rate, 15-64 years (1) [to be used especially where statistics on Employment-topopulation ratio and/or Unemployment rate (total) are not available] A – Youth unemployment rate,15-24 years A – Unemployment by level of education A – Employment by status in employment A – Proportion of own-account and contributing family workers in [to be used especially where statistics on informal employment are not available] total employment A – Share of wage employment in non-agricultural employment F – Labour underutilization L – Government commitment to full employment L – Unemployment insurance (QE Dimension 4) 2. Adequate earnings and productive work M – Working poor M – Low pay rate (below 2/3 of median hourly earnings) A - Average hourly earnings in selected occupations 22 M = Main indicator; A = Additional indicator; F = Future indicator; L = Legal indicator; indicator. C = Contextual 14
  • 15. 15 A - Average real wages A - Minimum wage as % of median wage A - Manufacturing wage index A - Employees with recent job training (past year / past 4 weeks) L – Statutory minimum wage 3. Decent hours M – Excessive hours (more than 48 hours per week A -‘Usual’ hours A -Usual hours worked (standardized hour bands) A - Annual hours worked per employed person F -Time-related underemployment rate Share of employees entitled to annual leave (QE Dimension 2) L – Maximum hours of work L – Paid annual leave 4. Combining work, family and personal life F – Asocial / unusual hours (Developmental work to be done by the Office) F – Maternity protection (developmental work to be done by the Office; main indicator) L – Maternity leave (incl. weeks of leave, replacement rate and coverage) L – Paternity and parental leave 5. Stability and security of work M – Stability and security of work (developmental work to be done by the ILO). A – Number and wages of casual/daily workers Memo item: Informal employment grouped under employment opportunities. L – Employment protection legislation (incl. notice of termination in weeks) Memo item: Unemployment insurance grouped under employment opportunities; needs to be interpreted in conjunction for ‘flexicurity’. 6. Work that should be abolished M – Child labour [as defined by the 18th ICLS Resolution] A – Hazardous child labour F – Other worst forms of child labour 15
  • 16. 16 F – Forced labour L – Child labour (incl. public policies to combat it) L – Forced labour (incl. public policies to combat it) 7. Equal opportunity and treatment in employment M – Occupational segregation by sex M – Female share of employment in ISCO-88 groups 11 and 12 A – Gender wage gap A – Indicator for Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (Elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation) to be developed by the Office A – Measure for discrimination by race / ethnicity / of indigenous people / of (recent) migrant workers / of rural workers where relevant and available at the national level. F – Measure of dispersion for sectoral / occupational distribution of (recent) migrant workers F – Measure for employment of persons with disabilities L – Anti-discrimination law based on sex of worker L – Anti-discrimination law based on race, ethnicity, religion or national origin 8. Safe work environment [QE Dimension 1] M – Occupational injury rate, fatal A – Occupational injury rate, non-fatal A – Time lost due to occupational injuries A – Labour inspection (inspectors per 10,000 employed persons) L – Occupational safety and health insurance L – Labour inspection 9. Social security M – Share of population aged 65 and above benefiting from a pension M – Public social security expenditure (% of GDP) A – Health-care exp. not financed out of pocket by private households) A – Share of population covered by (basic) health care provision F – Share of econ. active population contributing to a pension scheme F – Public expenditure on needs-based cash income support (% of GDP) F – Beneficiaries of cash income support (% of the poor) 16
  • 17. 17 F – Sick leave (QE Dimension 2) [Interpretation in conjunction with legal framework and labour market statistics.] L – Pension (public / private) L – Incapacity for work due to sickness / sick leave L – Incapacity for work due to invalidity 10. Social dialogue, workers’ and employers’ M – Union density rate (S) M – Enterprises belonging to employer organization [rate] M – Collective bargaining coverage rate (S) M – Indicator for Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining) to be developed by the Office A – Strikes and lockouts/rates of days not worked [interpretation issues] L – Freedom of association and right to organize L – Collective bargaining right L – Tripartite consultations The comparative exercise demonstrated a remarkable degree of convergence and overlap existing between the frameworks of Quality of Employment and Decent Work. Furthermore, the findings of the Ukrainian reports on Decent Work and Quality of Employment country profiles demonstrate the complementary nature of QE indicators which could be used for an in-depth qualitative analysis of relevant decent work dimension as well as overall progress on decent work. A possible way of combining the two frameworks is illustrated in Chapter VI on the basis of Ukrainian findings. VI. Decent Work Country Profile: Ukraine The Chapter contains extracts of analysis of selected decent work dimensions taken from the draft ILO report on Decent Work Country Profile: Ukraine prepared within the ILO pilot programme on measuring decent work in selected countries. 23 The extracts are supplemented with the Ukrainian quality of work indicators produced for and analysed in the report on Quality of Employment: Country Profile for Ukraine prepared for the UNECE/ILO/EUROSTAT Meeting on the Measurement of Quality of Employment (October 2009). 24 1. Adequate earnings and productive work (DW) Wage developments throughout the early transition period in the 1990s were characterized by an extraordinary fall in real wages, mainly due to hyperinflation and a restrictive wages and incomes policy.1 Non-payment of wages or delays in the payment of wages also became a widespread 23 ILO, Decent Work Country Profile: Ukraine. Policy Integration Department (mimeographed). Geneva 2010. Research and Scientific Institute of Economics, Ministry of Economy of Ukraine, and the State Statistics Committee of Ukraine. Quality of Employment: Country Profile for Ukraine. UNECE/ILO/EUROSTAT Meeting on the Measurement of Quality of Employment; at: http://www.unece.org/stats/documents/ece/ces/ge.12/2009/zip.27.e.pdf 1 The Ukrainian challenge: Reforming labour market and social policy, ILO-CEET, Central European University Press, 1995. 24 17
  • 18. 18 phenomenon, further eroding living standards of ordinary workers. Since about 2000, there has been a rebound of wages and a ‘catching up’-process, that partly reflects the depth of the previous decline. Subsequent real wage increases are thus impressive: From 1999, when average nominal wages reached a low level of 228 hryvnia (in 2000 prices), they grew 3.5-fold in real terms in the nine years to 2008 (799 hryvnia in 2000 prices; see table x). This is equivalent to an annual compound growth rate of almost 15 per cent. According to the World Bank, the rise in wages was driven by improved labour productivity, and “real wages rose without raising the unit costs of production and without harming the competitiveness of Ukrainian goods and services in world trade”. 2 Along the real wage increases, the wage share that is the share of economic output that goes to labour in the form of wages also recovered and reached 49 percent in 2008, or slightly above its level in 1998 (see chapter on ‘Economic and social context for decent work’). At the same time, there has been a progressive increase of the minimum wage, both in nominal and real terms, with relatively large increases in 2000 and 2005. While this helped wage earners at the bottom of the wage scale, the increase in minimum wages did not kept pace with overall wage developments and the ratio of minimum wages as a percentage of average wages declined (see Table). The problem of wage arrears has also been addressed by the mid-2000s, notably through the public authorities’ strong intervention. Wage increases, combined with increases in social transfers (notably pensions), had a positive effect on poverty. Using a poverty line based on minimum needs for food and non-food goods and services, 3 the World Bank estimates that the poverty headcount ratio has fallen from 31.7 per cent in 2001 to 7.9 per cent in 2005. However, the poverty line used for this purpose was extremely low, at 1,813 Ukrainian Hryvnia per person and year (in 2003 prices). This is equivalent to only 151 UAH per month, and much lower than the subsistence minimum set by the Parliament. Using a higher poverty line obviously raise poverty rates. According to data from the SSCU, 29.3 percent of the population still had incomes below the subsistence minimum in 2007. Although this is still a high share, this was a significant improvement compared to 2002 (when 80 per cent of the population was in this situation) and 2005 (55 per cent being below the subsistence minimum). Nevertheless the situation remained difficult, even before the current economic crisis. Despite their progressive increase, minimum wages did not seem to be sufficient to ensure minimum living standards to the workers and their families. In 2007, 13.2 million persons were still below the subsistence minimum. The minimum wage was also still below the subsistence minimum or poverty line which means that the percentage of working poor certainly remained significant in the country. The World Bank report shows that employees account for 30.2 per cent of all poor people 4, thus showing that working poor remains a worrying phenomenon in Ukraine. Data from the SSCU confirm that the share of the working poor, according the relative poverty line used in Ukraine, remained stagnant at around 20 percent throughout the decade. The economic crisis aggravated the situation (see chapter on ‘Economic and social context for decent work’). For the first time in seven years, the minimum wage did not increased in line or above the rate of inflation in 2008, and actually declined by 10.6 per cent in real terms. As a result, minimum wages fell further in comparison to average wages (at 28 per cent the average wage), and also to 80 per cent the poverty line. Although the minimum wage was again increased in 2009 (to UAH 625 from 1 April onwards, and UAH 630 from 1 July onwards),5 this failed to lift the minimum wage to its 2007 level in real terms. Average wages continued to rise in the first half of 2008, but stagnated in nominal terms from July 2008 onwards. Compared to the previous year, real wages rose only modestly in 2008 (6.8 per cent) and started to fall significantly in 2009. According to the SSCU, average wages in the first semester of 2009 were 10.1 percent below those in the same period in the previous year. 6 The decline was particularly abrupt for public administration, where average nominal wages fell by almost one third 2 Ukraine: Poverty Update, Report No. 39887-UA (Washington, D.C., World Bank, June 2007), page 2. Ibidem. 4 Unemployed people account for 18.1 per cent, students for 20.4 per cent and retirees for 16.4 per cent of the poor population; see World Bank, op. cit. 5 See Law on the State Budget of Ukraine for 2009. 6 See SSCU, Table ‘Indices for real wages by region, 2009’. 3 18
  • 19. 19 between the last quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009 (within a general objective to reduce public sector deficit).7 At the same time, the number of workers who have seen their incomes decline because of administrative leaves or shorter hours has rapidly grown (see chapters on ‘Decent hours’ and ‘Stability and security of work’), Wage arrears (which had been contained and also reduced since 2002) have also rapidly re-emerged with the economic crisis. Their total amount nearly doubled in nominal terms from UAH 669 million in the beginning of 2008 to nearly UAH 1,189 million in the beginning of 2009. 8 In June 2009, wage arrears had reached UAH 1,507 million 9 and represented nearly 8 per cent of the labour remuneration fund. It is significant to report that such wage arrears in 2009 did not only affect bankrupted or inactive enterprises, but also those that are still economically active that represented 64 per cent of total wage arrears in 2009 (compared to 36 per cent the previous year). The combined effect of declining wages, a rising proportion of workers on administrative leave or short hours, and growing wage arrears has clearly made workers more vulnerable and weakened their bargaining position. If the trend continues further, its first direct impact would be to further reduce workers’ purchasing power with negative repercussions for aggregate demand, a general fall in consumption and effects on output. The second impact is to place an increasing proportion of the working population below the subsistence minimum or poverty line, thus automatically leading to a radical increase in the percentage of working poor. In this context, wage policy responses would be required from national authorities to face the global financial and economic crisis. It would be essential to discuss current policy orientations – notably through the memorandum agreement with the IMF – to analyze their expected impact on wages, notably in the public sector, and on minimum wage earners. The overall impact of wage on enterprises’ operations, and on their capacity to pay wages in a context of restrictive credit policy should also be analyzed. While labour costs and wage developments do not seem to have been significant causes of the recession, the proposed reforms to face the economic crisis seems to impose a heavy burden on wages in the public sector, pensions and minimum wages. In the current crisis, maintaining workers’ purchasing power could have a positive impact on the economic recovery. Such a wage policy could be facilitated by strengthening the tripartite consultation process on wages and incomes policy. At the same time, it is urgent to protect those most vulnerable to the impact of the crisis, i.e. those at the bottom of the wage scale. Increases in the minimum wage could be a tool to achieve this objective and tripartite dialogue could be employed to reach a consensus on this issue, despite unsuccessful first attempts in 2008 (see chapter on social dialogue in this report). The problems of wage arrears should also be properly and urgently addressed, with a clear identification of the causes of the phenomenon and a list of consequent policy recommendations. Finally, wage policy should also be seen in a more general context, in relationship with labour market developments, and taxation policy reforms. 2. Income and benefits from employment (QE) In our opinion, the following analysis of the Quality of Employment dimension Income and benefits from employment, which is linked with the DW dimension under review, can enrich the relevant decent work profile of Ukarine. An obvious component of quality of employment is the income that people receive. Income must be taken broadly. The assumption of this dimension is that the higher the pay and other pecuniary benefits of the job, the higher the quality of employment. In addition to income and earnings, the benefits that an employer might provide (and pay for) are an important aspect of quality of work that should not be ignored. (a) Income from employment The following core indicators are proposed by the framework for this sub-dimension: 7 See SSCU, Table, ‘Average wages, by types of economic activity (monthly information), 2008 [2009’]’. Average nominal wages were UAH 3020 in the last quarter of 2008 (average of October to December) and UAH 2079 in the first quarter of 2009 (average January to March). 8 See SSCU, table ‘Wage arrears, by region’. The increase in real terms is about 45 %. 9 See SSCU, table ‘Wage arrears by region, 2009’. 19
  • 20. 20  Average weekly earnings of employees  Low pay (Share of employed with below 2/3 of median hourly earnings) Regarding the first indicator, the State Statistics Committee does not produce it. A number of additional indicators currently used the State Statistics Committee to measure different qualitative aspects of the income form employment are illustrated below. Nominal and real wage growth After a dramatic fall occurred in 1995, the nominal wages showed timid but generally steady growth followed but a less pronounced growth of real wages (see Figure 1). Figure 1. Nominal and real wage growth (in % to prior year)) 580 530 480 430 380 nominal 330 real 280 230 180 130 80 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Source: Statistics Committee of Ukraine. Population differentiation by income and wage Since 1999, there have been several changes in Gini-coefficients ratio dynamics (see Figure 2). Figure 2. Population differentiation by income and wage, Ginicoefficient 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 income wage 30 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Source: Statistics Committee of Ukraine. The economic revival, which was observed in some economic branches (mainly metallurgy, chemistry, mining and construction) during 2000-2006, lead to the growing inter-sectoral wage imbalances between women and men. Notably, while the wage increase took place mostly among employees of more successful 20
  • 21. 21 enterprises and sectors, female workers were concentrated in other economic sectors and could not benefit from the economic growth as their male colleague workers. As a result, income and wage inequality became more pronounced. Some improvement of the situation was observed in 2005-2006 (see Figure 3). Figure 3. Population differentiation by incom e, w age and sex, Gini-coefficient 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 m ale-incom e female-incom e m ale-w age female-w age 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Source: Statistics Committee of Ukraine However, as follows from the chart, income and wage differentiation was more significant among males. Working poor As a result of low wages and insignificant exceeding of wages over social transfers, the poverty is rather widespread among employed population. Obviously, position of families without dependants (no children and unemployed adults) is much better; they are not considered to be poor in accordance with the Ukrainian standards (see Figure 4). Figure 4. Poverty rates by type of households 40 35 w ithout dependents 30 25 w ith children and w ithout unemployed 20 15 w ithout children w ith eployed and unemployed 10 5 total 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Source: Statistics Committee of Ukraine. (b) Non-wage pecuniary benefits The Task Force framework proposes three core indicators to measure this dimension of quality of employment: (a) share of employees using paid annual leave in the previous year; (b) average number of days of annual leave used in the previous year; and (c) share of employees using sick leave. While the Ukrainian data show positive results as to the first indicator, they reveal a negative trend with respect to the second one (see Table 3). The latter may partially be explained by the growing number of persons working long hours (49 hours and more) – see Section 3. As regards the third indicator, it showed uneven behaviour during the whole period of 1998-2008. Table 3. Non-wage pecuniary benefits* 2002 Share of employees using paid annual leave in the previous year Average number of days of 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 77.9 25 77.8 24 79.0 24 81.4 24 82.2 23 84.2 23 2008 85.1 23 2009 2010 2011 2012 86.8 23 85.0 23 85.1 23 86.3 22 21
  • 22. 22 annual leave used in the previous year Share of employees using sick leave 41.8 43.1 44.7 44.5 45.9 49.2 48.6 51.1 47.8 48.6 47.2 Source: State Statistics Committee * Establishment survey data 3. Stability and security at work (DW) While the shift from wage employment to self-employment, which more than doubled between 2000 and 2008 (from 8.1 to 17.9 per cent of total employment), should not be perceived as negative per se, further analysis however shows that this shift should be mainly attributed to the expansion of subsistence farming. This was in part a result of closures of large agricultural farms and a lack of decent jobs in the non-agricultural sector in rural areas, contributing to a rising share of self-employed workers in rural areas (it grew from 18.3 to 44.4 per cent between 2000 and 2008). Another factor was the growth of self-employment in (residential) construction, transport and personal services, i.e. in sectors and activities characterized by low productivity and often non-decent working conditions 1. Also, female self-employed workers contribute more to total female employment (19.5 per cent in 2007) than is the case for men (16.5 per cent). The retreat of standard employment relationships is also evident from an indicator compiled by the SSC that closely matches the international definition of informal employment. As discussed in the chapter on employment opportunities above, it increased dramatically from 13.6 per cent in 1999 to 21.8 per cent in 2008. The bulk of informal employment, over 70 per cent, is concentrated in agriculture, further confirming the importance of subsistence farming for employment in Ukraine. 2 Other sectors with higher shares of informal employment are transport, construction, retail trade and hotels and restaurants but also research, education and other professional services. Non-agricultural informal employment is concentrated mainly in urban areas, where wage employment accounts for 69 per cent of total informal employment. Since the second half of 2008 the labour market situation has deteriorated significantly, with negative effects on the stability and security of work. This is evident from the increasing pace of job destruction that drove the unemployment rate to 10.3 per cent in the first quarter of 2009. Underemployment also increased significantly; in 2008 some 10.6 per cent of all registered employees were working short hours (with income subsidies provided by government). This is a sharp reversal of the previous trend, that brought a decline of the share of employees working short hours from 17.5 per cent in 1998 to 4.4 per cent in 2007. A similar reversal is also evident for the share of workers on administrative leave, that had fallen from 22.4 per cent to 1.1 per cent over the same period. In the first six months of 2009, 6.1 per cent of all registered employees were on administrative leave. Over the course of 2009, the situation deteriorated further, bringing even more instability to enterprises and declining job security for workers. The increasing amount of wage arrears by 38 per cent between January and June 2009 proves this negative trend. With regard to Ukrainian employment protection legislation (EPL) that regulates the hiring and firing of workers, the ILO made an assessment using the OECD methodology in 1999. 3 The overall EPL index equalled 2.3, pointing to a rather deregulated labour market, which was fully in line with the average figure for the then EU accession countries (2.4) and EU member countries (2.5). 4 In the 2000s, the Ukrainian Government and the social partners started intensive work on drafting a new Labour Code with support from the ILO. The rationale was to adapt the labour legislation to the new market economy 1 The European Training Foundation, The Black Sea Labour Market Reports: Ukraine Country Report. January 2009. In rural areas, 87 per cent of informal workers are self-employed or contributing family workers. 3 See OECD, Employment Outlook 2003, Paris 2003 and Cazes, S. and Nesporova, A., Labour markets in transition: Balancing flexibility and security in Central and Eastern Europe. ILO, Geneva 2003. 4 The EPL strictness index moves from 0 for fully liberal EPL to 6 for completely restrictive EPL. This applies to summary EPL indices as well as indices measuring the strictness of regulation of regular contracts (contracts without limit of time), temporary contracts and collective dismissals. 2 22
  • 23. 23 The overall EPL index can be broken down into three components – regulation of regular contracts (contracts without limit of time), temporary contracts and collective dismissals –, which reveals that regular contracts are more strictly regulated in Ukraine than in the EU-10. This indicates labour market segregation between better protected workers holding regular contracts and much less protected workers with temporary contracts, which could create barriers against recruitment on regular jobs. However, there is a lot of evidence of the poor enforcement of labour legislation in Ukraine which together with the high share of flexible forms of employment points to high actual labour market flexibility and low actual job security for workers, including those on regular contracts. 5 Certain additional job security is provided to workers covered by collective agreements. Data for 2008 show the overall collective bargaining coverage of workers in the formal sector reaching 83 per cent (see the chapter on ‘Social dialogue, workers’ and employers’ representation’). However, there is a large difference between state enterprises, where well over 80 per cent of workers are covered by collective agreements, privatized enterprises (covering slightly above 60 per cent) and private enterprises, where less than 10 per cent of workers are covered. The flexicurity concept calls for a good balance between labour market flexibility and employment security. Employment security means a shift from security at (current) jobs to security through higher employability of workers provided by better access to training opportunities, job search assistance, active labour market programmes, income support during job search and coverage by social security. The big discrepancy between unemployment as recorded by the labour force survey and registered unemployment (that was 7 percentage points lower in the first quarter of 2009), however, shows that many jobseekers do not turn to public employment service (PES). Contributing factors are strict eligibility criteria for registration and unemployment benefits (the average level of which is low). Nevertheless, the efficiency of the PES to place registered jobseekers in new jobs has improved significantly over the past decade. In 1999, it placed only 18.9 per cent of all registered jobseekers, but 43.4 per cent in 2008. However, vacancies reported to PES are usually of lower quality while high quality jobs are often filled through other channels. An increasing proportion of registered jobseekers have taken part in training and other active labour market policies (25.9 per cent in 2005). Nevertheless, total expenditure on labour market policies, including operational costs of the PES, remains well below 1 per cent of GDP. 4. Social Security (DW) Ukraine’ social security system covers the nine main branches of social security listed in the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102), though the country has not ratified the convention.6 These are medical care, sickness benefits (see box in this chapter), unemployment benefits (see chapter ‘Employment opportunities), old-age benefits (see box in this chapter), employment injury benefits (see chapter ‘Safe work’), family and maternity benefits (see chapter ‘Combining Work, family and personal life), invalidity benefits (see box) and survivors’ benefits. Special provisions exist for victims of the Chernobyl catastrophe and veterans of the Second World War.7 From a low base of 14% of GDP in 2000, social security expenditure has increased to 21% of GDP in 2007. This level is a higher than some other Central European countries, but below the average of the European Union (26.9 % of GDP in 2006 for the EU-27). 8 The increase over the last years was largely due to non-health care expenditure, especially pensions, which are the single larges expenditure item. 5 See e.g. Rutkowski, J., Scarpetta, S. and Banerji, A., Enhancing job opportunities : Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. World Bank, Washington, DC 2005. 6 The Government of Ukraine is considering ratification of Convention No. 102 and the European Code of Social Security. 7 See ISSA website at http://www.issa.int/aiss/Observatory/Country-Profiles/Regions/Europe/Ukraine 8 See Eurostat, figures for 2006 available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/3-02062009-BP/EN/3-02062009BP-EN.PDF 23
  • 24. 24 Health care provision in Ukraine is in the form of a universal public system, financed by the government. Expenditure fluctuated between 2.9 and 3.7 percent of GDP and did not increase substantially during the decade. 9 The households pay only voluntary contributions and pay for medicine. In 2006, only every 3rd household in the country spent money on medical service. 10 With an increasing share of old population, pension spending is expected to rise further in the future to accommodate the larger number of pensioners. According to the ILO projections, the share of the population above the pension age (55 for women and 60 years for men), rose from 21.5 % at independence (1991) to 24.5 % in 2009. By 2020, it is set to reach 28.4 %. 11 The share of the population above the pensionable age (55 years for women and 60 years for men) who received a pension increased from 89.4% in 1999 to 95.0% in 2008. While pension coverage is almost universal, there are still people above pensionable age who are not fully covered (in particular those, who do not have enough ofv working years and contribution to the pension scheme). The vulnerability of many pensioners can be detected from the still relatively low level of pensions. The ratio of average pensions to average wages fluctuated considerably over the past decade. Starting at 34.1% in 1998, the ratio reached a low 29.6 % in 2001; thereafter it started rising and average pensions amounted to 41.6% of average wages in 2008.12 Without supplementary income from employment or savings, pensioners thus have incomes that are far below those of employed persons. 13 The Institute of Demography and Social Research also reports that 59.9% of households that consists only of pensioners were spending more than 60% of their income on food in 2007.14 Especially noticeable is the vulnerability of single women pensioners. Increasing the normal retirement age from the current level of 55 years for women and 60 years for men is currently an important issue of debate in Ukraine. According to data of Pension Fund, some 2.8 million pensioners (or 20 % of all retirees) still worked in 2008. Most of these received old-age benefits (80 %),15 while the remainder was on early retirement due to invalidity or hazardous working conditions.16 Analysis of employment by age shows that the employment-to-population ratio for the general working age population is lower than in most European countries, but that a far larger share of the retired population is still employed. Explanations are both the low pension age and the often inadequate level of pensions. Another issue of debate is the inter-generational inequality regarding the pension system. The current generation of retirees, who used to finance the old pension system during their working life, receive a pension of much lower purchasing power than it was the norm in previous years. At the same time, the current working population realize that in case the current pension system is maintained, they will most likely not have an opportunity to receive an appropriate pension, which leads to increasing reluctance of the taxpayers to finance this system. 17 9 Unless stated otherwise, all data are from the State Statistics Committee of Ukraine (http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/). 10 E. Libanova. Poverty of population in Ukraine, monograph (Institute of Demography and Social Research of Ukraine), 2008 ILO Estimates and projections of the economically active population: 1980-2020, see LABORSTA database at http://laborsta.ilo.org/STP/guest 11 12 Calculated on the basis of State Statistics Committee data 13 Private pension institutions are not common in Ukraine, and only 0.5 million people (2% of the employed population) have a private pension plan. 14 E. Libanova. Poverty of population in Ukraine, monograph (Institute of Demography and Social Research of Ukraine), 2008, p. 184 15 (According to Ukrainian law Article 42 of the Law of Ukraine «On Compulsory State Pension Insurance», working retirees keep receiving pensions) 16 Україна на шляху до п’ятнадцятої річниці Міжнародної конференції з народонаселення та розвитку: Стан реалізації Україною Програми дій МКНР протягом 1994-2009 рр. - К.: International Conference on Population and Development, UN Organization, 2009, p.102 17 See also A. Dobronogov, System Analysis of Social Security in a Transition Economy: the Ukrainian Case, International Institute for Applied System Analysis Report, 1998 24
  • 25. 25 One of the largest shares of insurance payments is related to employment injuries, directly caused by conditions of health and safety at workplaces (see chapter on ‘Safe work’). The contribution of enterprises varied from 0.86% for enterprises belonging to the first class of professional risk, up to 13.8% for enterprises belonging to the 67 th class in 2006 (the largest number of the last ones is in the Eastern part of Ukraine, where the high percentage of employment is in coal mining). 18 The rate of payment to injured workers increases much faster than rates for other benefits and sometimes reaches the level of an average wage. 19 In 2007, cash and non-cash social benefits made up 24.2% of household income and thus had a significant influence on households’ income and overall income distribution. While income inequality is primarily a result of wage inequality, especially the uneven distribution pensions benefits contributed to income inequality in Ukraine. Although other components such unemployment benefits, family benefits and state social assistance had a dampening effect on inequality, the overall effect of social transfer payments was still to increase inequality. This is in contrast to other countries, where transfer payment generally moderate income inequality. 20 Contributions to the social security are directly proportional to a size of an enterprise and paid mostly by employers. Moreover, employers pay benefits on temporary incapacity to work during the first 5 days, while employees take a smaller part of contribution to insurance. The share of contributors to the pension system in the working-age population was 43.5% in 2007 which did not change much during the years.21 5. Security of employment and social protection (QE) In our view the analysis of DW dimensions Stability and security at work and Social Security can be complemented with the QE dimension Security of employment and social protection, as illustared below. Most workers would like to know that they can count on stable, regular employment, with little or no period of lay-off. Should the job either by its nature or type of contract be insecure, it would be important to know that there is some social protection for the worker. Therefore, social protection offered to workers is also an important aspect of quality of employment. Unemployment insurance coverage, pension coverage, and paid leave for maternity or parental leaves are examples of such social protection. The quality of employment framework includes the following core indicators to measure this dimension:  Percentage of employees 25 years of age and older with temporary jobs  Percentage of employees 25 years of age and older with job tenure (< 1 yr, 1-3 yrs, 3-5 yrs, >= 5yrs)  Share of employees covered by unemployment insurance  Public social security expenditure as share of GDP  Share of economically active population contributing to a pension fund Based on the above premise, and using additional country-specific indicators, the authors have come up with the following analysis of this dimension in Ukraine. 18 Article 47 of the Law "On obligatory state social insurance of employees on the case of occupational injuries or diseases” 19 E. Libanova, Decent Work Country Report – Ukraine (ILO, Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia, March 2008), p.41 20 Calculated on the data from E. Libanova. Poverty of population in Ukraine, monograph (Institute of Demography and Social Research of Ukraine), 2008, p. 135 21 ILO Social Security Department, Old age demographic protection ratio, August 6th, 2009 25
  • 26. 26 (a) Security of employment A labour agreement or a contract without limit of time is the main form of employment organisation in Ukraine. Usually, only pensioners are employed with temporary labour agreements (with a possible extension of up to 1-2 years). Depending on a character of work, temporary labour agreements can vary by their duration. According to date of 2008, the total number of persons with temporary contracts was some 268.2 thousand persons; and they were mostly employed in secondary temporary jobs (see Figure 5). It should be noted that the decrease in the number of persons employed with temporary contracts took place mostly at the expense of agriculture where the number of such persons shrunk from 104.3 thousand persons in 2002 to 39.7 thousand persons in 2006, and public administration – from 31.9 to 17.2 thousand persons respectively. In contrast, there was growth of the number of persons with temporary contracts in trade (from 15.3 thousand to 19.1 thousand persons) and in financial intermediation (from 10.4 thousand to 18.1 thousand persons). Figure 5. Employed with temporary contracts, thousand persons 345,5 301,4 267,6 317,2 316,3 291,3 292,3 277,6 268,2 204,9 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Source: Statistics Committee of Ukraine. (b) Social protection In 2006, monthly social security expenditures per employee made HUA 462.9 (about 63 euros). The highest expenditures (HUA 735.9) were observed in mining industries, which was due to the fact that a high share of contributions were allocated for social insurance on occupational injuries (HUA 125.9, i.e. 17.1% of the total expenditures on social security), the lowest expenditures (HUA 284.1) were found in hotels and restaurants (see Figure 6). Figure 6. Monthly social security expenditures by industry and per person, 2006 (HUA) 26
  • 27. 27 Community, social and personal services Health care and social aid Mining 800 600 400 Manufacturing Production and distribution of electricity, gas and w ater 200 Education Construction 0 Public administration Wholesale and retail trade Real estate, renting and business activities Financial intermediation Hotels and restaurants Transport and communication Source: Statistics Committee of Ukraine Social security expenditures per employee were proportional to the size of an enterprise. While at enterprises with 10-49 employees, the monthly average social security expenditures were HUA 282.3, the corresponding expenditures at enterprises with 250-499 employees constituted HUA 458.7, and at enterprises with 1,000 and more employees they rose to HUA 610.8. According to the national legislation, there are the following four 4 types of social insurance of employees: (i) unemployment, (ii) temporary disability; (iii) pension; and (iv) occupational injuries/accidents (see Figure 7). It should be noted that the highest share of contributions to the Social Security Fund is paid by employers. In addition, employers pay benefits on temporary disability during the first 5 days of sick leave. Conversely, employees pay a small share of contributions: between 5.0% - 8.5%, depending on their salaries and wages. Figure 7. Structure of social security expenditures, 2012, % 2,4 7,4 3,3 Pension insurance Unemployment insurance 5,2 Occupational accidents insurance Insurance for temporary disability to work 3,4 78,3 Assistance during the first 5 days of disability to work Other Source: Statistics Committee of Ukraine During 2000-2006, the average unemployment benefits increased in both nominal and real terms. However, their ratio in the average wage dropped during the same period from 23.3% to 21.3% (see Figure 8). In 2001-2006, , there was increase of subventions to employers for creating new jobs, which triggered the increase of their share from 1.1% in 2001 to 8.8 in total expenditures of the Fund in 2006. As a consequence to the decrease of unemployment rates, the share of expenditures directly related to pecuniary support of unemployed fell from 63.4% in 2001 to 54.5% in 2006 (see Figure 15). 27
  • 28. 28 Figure 8. Expenditures of Unemployment Isuarance Fund 100% 90% 17,8 19,2 1,1 8,8 56,0 49,7 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2001 2012 Administrative expenses Creation of new jobs for employees dismissed due to closing of mines Compensations to the Pension Fund related to early retirement of unemployed Development of information netw ork for unemployed Information services and consultancies related to job placement Subventions to employers for creating additional jobs Public w orks Professional training and re-training Banking services Welfare Allow ances during professional training or re-training Single-paid unemployment allow ances to start ow n business activity Standards unemployment allow ances 6. Safe work (DW) For Ukraine, the non-fatal injury rates have been decreasing over the past ten years, while only gradual progress has been made on fatal occupational injuries. The occupational fatality rates start from a very high base22 (10.2 deaths per 100,000 workers in 1998) and, while decreasing moderately, also show fluctuations from year to year rather than a consistent improvement (and even an increase to 9.3 deaths per 100,000 workers in 2007). Moreover, it is not clear how far this reflects an actual improvement in working conditions or is due to sectoral shift in employment. The general reduction in the rates of occupational injuries and fatalities may reflect a de crease in the “traditional” risks associated with a shift from employment in high risk sectors to services – as Ukraine has experienced over the past years 23. A large number of coal mines, for example, have been closed down, and the number of workers in coal mining, who work in harmful conditions, has fallen from 322,400 in 1999 to 251,800 in 2006 24. It could also indicate an increased awareness and better organisation of control over occupational safety and health conditions, leading to prevention of occupational accidents. In this case, it would be expected that the decline in occupational injuries and fatalities would be steady and not fluctuate from year to year. However, the statistics show that there are increases in the fatal injury rates in some years, notably in 2000, 2001 and 2007, caused by a series of particularly deadly explosions in the coal mining sector in those years. 22 The equivalent figure for a group of Northern European countries is 1.7 per 100,000 workers (2005) and 3.9 per 100,000 workers in a group of central European countries. See ILO, Delivering decent work in Europe and Central Asia, Report of the Director-General, Volume 1, Part 2, 8th European Regional Meeting. Geneva: ILO, 2009, page 82. See also the section on working injuries in Ella Libanova, Decent Work Country Report – Ukraine, background report for the 8th European Regional Meeting. Geneva: ILO, 2008, page 37ff. Both reports are available at http://www.ilo.org/public/english/region/eurpro/geneva/what/events/lisbon2009/index.htm. 23 See the chapter on “Economic and social context for decent work” for the evolution of employment by economic branch in Ukraine. 24 See Ella Libanova, op. cit., p. 37. 28
  • 29. 29 The fluctuation in occupational fatality rates is also evident for women workers. The rates are much lower than for men, reflecting a highly segregated labour market and concentration of women in such sectors as services, agriculture and light production work. If prevention measures were consistently implemented and a safety culture promoted, it would be expected that women’s rates of occupational injuries and fatalities would show a steady decline. However, the occupational fatality rates for women have not declined at all over the past ten years. This has serious repercussions for prevention and decent work as a whole, as it may signify a general lack of gender perspective, which leads to exclusion of women and their concerns in the area. This potentially affects priority-setting (focusing on traditionally hazardous sectors and highly visible accidents suffered mainly by men), standard-setting, research on occupational safety and health, and even in recognition and compensation of occupational accidents and diseases. Furthermore, the emphasis that Ukraine assigns to protection of women through its legislative and regulatory base seeks to exclude women from dangerous work 25 and thus effectively legitimises the gender divide and side-steps the issue of making the workplace safe for all workers. Of particular interest in Ukraine is that the severity of injuries has significantly increased over the past decade. This is indicated by the average number of days of absence from work per injured worker, which rose from 28.9 days in 1998 to 37.6 days in 2007. The severity of occupational injuries in a country can also be determined by the number of fatalities resulting from occupational injuries. Ukraine has an extensive legislative and regulatory base which governs safety and health at work. The main responsibility for inspecting occupational safety and health conditions rests with the State Committee of Health and Safety at Work. At the same time, the State Work Accident Insurance Fund (SWAIF), introduced in 2001, is responsible for promoting safety at work. Several other agencies issue regulations and conduct inspections to enforce them, precluding any coherence in State activities towards improving occupational safety and health in practice. This is the case in spite of requirements for coordination of activities and cooperation26 in the field of occupational safety and health. Of particular concern is the focus of regulations on technical details, and the lack of a modern approach to prevention promotion. For example, Ukraine still relies on a classification of occupations to determine harmful conditions and attestation of workplaces 27, rather than promoting risk assessment to determine preventive measures and improving actual working conditions in all workplaces. This lack of a preventive approach is also reflected in the allocation of expenditures by the State Work Accident Insurance Fund: In 2006, only 2.4 percent of the Fund’s budget was foreseen for preventive measures. While this was significantly higher than in previous years, the resources devoted to prevention still remain low and do not allow the Fund to effectively pursue its preventive tasks, even though these are acknowledged as a priority. In effect, the Fund serves mainly as a payment processing institution for compensation of work accident victims. 28 7. Safety and ethics of employment (QE) 25 For example, the “List of heavy-duty works and works with harmful and dangerous working conditions where the use of women’s labour is prohibited”, approved by the Ministry of Health, Order No. 256 of 1993. Also see ILO, National Profile on Occupational Safety and Health in Ukraine, Budapest: ILO, forthcoming 2009. 26 Coordination and cooperation is effected through the National Council for Safe Conditions for Activities of the Population, established pursuant to the Law on Labour Protection. It is headed by the Deputy Prime Minister. See the “National Profile on Occupational Safety and Health in Ukraine”, 2009 (ILO, forthcoming). 27 Order No. 528 of 2001 of the Ministry of Health on the “Hygienic classification of work types based on harmful and hazardous occupational factors and work stress”. 28 “Reforming the work accident insurance in Ukraine: Introducing economic incentives and private sector competition.” Institute for Economic Research and Policy Consulting in Ukraine, German Advisory Group on Economic Reform. http://ierpc.org/ierpc/papers/v20_en.pdf For more details on contributions and expenditures of the SWAIF see “Decent Work in Ukraine: The economic and social context”. A country report prepared for the 8th European Regional Meeting, February 2009, as well as the above reference. 29
  • 30. 30 As in the above illustrated examples, we believe that indicators of the QE dimension Safety and ethics of employment can contribute to a more comprehensive analysis of decent work qualitative profile of Ukraine. The dimension on safety and ethics of employment can be defined as a group of indicators that provides general information on workplace injuries and deaths, and unacceptable forms of labour, such as forced labour or child labour, as well as unfair treatment like discriminatory or harassing work situations. This quality of employment framework suggests the following sub-dimensions and core sets of indicators underpinning them. (a) Safety at work “Hazardous” conditions It should be noted that the number of persons whose working conditions do not satisfy the required sanitaryhygienic norms is steadily decreasing. However, this happens not due to higher investments of employers to the improvement of working condition of their workers but because recent years have witnessed shut-down of a large number of coal mines which resulted in the notable reduction of coal miners from 322.4 thous. in 1999 to 220.3 thous. in 2008. At the beginning of 2008, the largest number of work places with hazardous condition of work was concentrated in metal processing industries (695.9 thous.) - in particular in metallurgy and metal works (241.5 thous.); however the highest proportion of hazardous work places fell on the coal mining and peat (76.3%), and 55.5% of such work places in metallurgy. Females are much less prone to work in hazardous working conditions. In 2008, the share of women working in hazardous conditions was 16.8% and that of men 34.2%. However, the following hazardous factors have revealed to be similar for women and men: noise, infrasound and ultrasound, hazardous chemical substances and adverse microclimate of the work place. Occupational injuries Occupational injuries are largely influenced by conditions of work. Since 1997, there has been a steady decrease of occupational injuries in Ukraine. However, while the number of persons with occupational injuries has been decreasing, the number of days lost due to occupational injuries has been growing with similar proportion (see Figure 9). Figure 9. Number of persons with occupationla injuries and days lost due to occupational injuries 2012 2011 0 2010 0 2009 10 2008 20 2007 disability duration 2006 20 2005 40 2004 injured 2003 30 2002 60 2001 40 2000 50 80 1999 100 Source: Statistics Committee of Ukraine. The fatal occupational injury rates were also decreasing from 21.0 in 1995 to 7 per 100.000 employees in 2008. The majority of occupational injuries occurred in mining and processing industries. The following industries are considered to be the most dangerous in Ukraine: coal mining, tobacco and textile industries (see Figure 5). 30
  • 31. 31 Figure 10. Occupational injury rate by industries (per 100,000 employees) Community, social and personal services Health care and social aid Education Agriculture 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Mining Manufacturing Production and distribution of electricity, gas and w ater Public administration Construction Real estate, renting and business activities Wholesale and retail trade Financial intermediation Hotels and restaurants Transport and communication Source: Statistics Committee of Ukraine. The main causes of occupational injuries are: violation of labour and production discipline (17.1% of total injuries, in particular 22.8% in mining and 20.1% in processing industries), violation of safety requirements during exploitation of equipment, machines and mechanisms (15.1%, in particular 25.5% in processing industries) and violation of technological process (8.9%, in particular 18.5% in mining industries). The majority of fatal injuries (56.1%) take place at private enterprises – 13.7 thous. in 2006, including 1.2 thous. fatal injuries, i.e. 8.9% of the total fatal injuries. While there were 21.1 fatal injuries per 100,000 employed at private enterprises, there were 16.3 such injuries at the state enterprises and 7.0 – at the communal enterprises. The main causes of occupational injuries at private enterprises are similar to those, which determine occupational injuries in the economy as a whole: violation of labour and production discipline (18.0%), violation of safety requirements during exploitation of equipment, machines and mechanisms (20.3%). VII. Conclusions and recommendations 1. DW and QE frameworks: convergence, overlap and similarities The framework for the measurement of Decent Work developed by the ILO, combines statistical decent work measures with information on the legal framework. In other words, the ILO framework covers all elements of the Decent Work Agenda and therefore goes beyond employment. The QE framework does not have DW Employment opportunities dimension - under the proposed framework the qualitative aspects of work are the subject of study. As a result, the DW dimension employment opportunities was a dimension considered, but determined to be outside the scope of the framework. However, the UNECE Task Force report highlights that one cannot forget the general labour market conditions when using the framework to produce analysis of the state of quality of employment in a country. 29 Consequently, the Task Force recommended that to get a full picture of the labour market situation of a 29 Statistical Measurement of Quality of Employment: Conceptual framework and indictors. Report of the UNECE Task Force on the Measurement of Quality of Employment. Geneva, December 2009 (mimeographed). 31
  • 32. 32 country, the framework on quality of employment should always be accompanied by regular indicators on employment and unemployment such as unemployment and labour force participation rates, etc. In spite of the above fundamental differences, the findings of this report demonstrate a remarkable degree of convergence between a number of the Decent Work and the Quality of Employment dimensions. Thus, five out of seven Quality of Employment dimensions (Safety and ethics of employment; Income and benefits from employment; Working hours and balancing work and non-working life; Security of employment and social protection; Social Dialogue) overlap with the ILO Decent Work framework. A number of similar indicators are found in both frameworks. Apart from trends in the number of employed a combination of indicators from the two frameworks will better reflect changes in kinds of employment. For instance, in cases of economic downturn it would be useful to know how the labour market adapts: through changes in the quantity of work or through changes in the quality of employment, or both. Furthermore, the use of the two groups of indicator may be especially useful to identify groups with a good or bad labour market situation or compare the quality of employment in different sectors of economic activity. The examples of the combined use of the DW and QE frameworks for a more comprehensive and in-depth analysis of relevant dimensions of and progress on decent work in Ukraine illustrate their largely complementary nature. 2. Recommendations The comparative study of the two frameworks revealed that Ukraine can produce 50% of the core Quality of Employment indicators and 90% of the main, additional and legal Decent Work indicators. However, following from a restrictive nature of the QE framework, in our opinion the above ratio of available indicators is quite favourable good for Ukraine and opens a promising perspective for developmental and experimental work on the measurement of qualitative aspects of work and labour. In any event, this is fully in line with the following October Meeting conclusions and recommendations: (a) Some suggested indicators may not give correct or useful information on the (sub) dimension, or an important indicator may be missing. If the subject of the indicator is in principle correct, the accuracy can be improved further by adopting the best definition. Finally, for each indicator the source that gives the most accurate and precise results should be found. (b) More work and analysis needs to be carried out in country-specific quality of employment profiles. It is hoped that countries will take this up as a follow-up to the fifth UNECE/ILO/EUROSTAT Meeting on the Measurement of Quality of Employment so that the currently suggested list of indicators could be refined and extended accordingly wherever possible. Stemming from the findings of the report, we would like to make the following two general recommendations: 1. The quality of employment indicators developed by the UNECE Task Force be used for an in-depth analysis of relevant Decent Work dimensions for country decent work profiles and reports on progress towards decent work. 2. A full range of decent work indicators be used to help better fathom and analysis all aspects of the quality of employment, encompassed in the UNECE Task Force framework. 32
  • 33. 33 * * * 33
  • 34. 34 Annex 1 ILO Decent Work Measures* Substantive element of the Decent Work Agenda Numbers in brackets refer to ILO strategic objectives: 1. Standards and fundamental principles and rights at work; 2. Employment ; 3. Social protection ; 4. Social dialogue. Statistical indicators Selection of relevant statistical indicators that allow monitoring progress made with regard to the substantive elements. M – Main decent work indicators A – Additional decent work indicators F – Candidate for future inclusion / developmental work to be done by the Office C – Economic and social context for decent work (S) Indicates that an indicator should be reported separately for men and women in addition to the total. Information on rights at work and the legal framework for decent work Description of relevant national legislation in relation to the substantive elements of the Decent Work Agenda; where relevant, information on the benefit level; evidence of implementation effectiveness and the coverage of workers in law and in practice; complaints and representations received by the ILO; observations by the ILO supervisory system and cases of progress; information on the ratification of relevant ILO Conventions (1, 2, 3 + 4) L – Subject covered by information on rights at work and the legal framework for decent work See Appendix table 4 of the discussion paper for full discussion of information on rights at work and the legal framework for decent work. Employment opportunities (1 + 2) M – Employment-to-population ratio, 15-64 years (S) M – Unemployment rate (S) M – Youth not in education and not in employment, 15-24 years (S) M – Informal employment (S) A – Labour force participation rate, 15-64 years [to be used especially where statistics on Employment-to-population ratio and/or Unemployment rate (total) are not available] A – Youth unemployment rate,15-24 years (S) (A – Unemployment by level of education (S) A – Employment by status in employment (S) A – Proportion of own-account and contr. Family workers in total employment (S) [to be used especially where statistics on informal employment are not available] A – Share of wage employment in non-agricultural employment (S) F – Labour underutilization (S) Memo item: Time-related underemployment rate (S) grouped as A under “Decent hours” L – Government commitment to full employment L – Unemployment insurance * See: ILO, Measurement of decent work, Discussion paper for the Tripartite Meeting of Experts on the Measurement of Decent Work. TMEMDW/2008, Geneva 2008. Source: ILO compilation on the basis of the Discussion paper for the Tripartite Meeting of Experts on the Measurement of Decent Work (Geneva, 8 -10 September 2008). Note: Decent Work strategic objectives: (1) Standards and fundamental principles and rights at work (2) Employment (3) Social protection (4) Social Dialogue 34
  • 35. 35 Substantive element of the DWA Statistical indicators Information on rights at work and the legal framework for decent work Adequate earnings and productive work (1 + 3) M – Working poor (S) M – Low pay rate (below 2/3 of median hourly earnings) (S) A – Average hourly earnings in selected occupations (S) A – Average real wages (S) A – Minimum wage as % of median wage (n.a.) A – Manufacturing wage index A – Employees with recent job training (past year / past 4 weeks) (S) L – Statutory minimum wage Decent hours (1 + 3) M – Excessive hours (more than 48 hours per week; ‘usual’ hours) (S) (14) A – Usual hours worked (standardized hour bands) (S) (14a) A – Annual hours worked per employed person (S) A – Time-related underemployment rate (S) F – Paid annual leave (developmental work to be done by the Office; additional indicator) L – Maximum hours of work L – Paid annual leave Combining work, family and personal life (1 + 3) F – Asocial / unusual hours (Developmental work to be done by the Office) F – Maternity protection (developmental work to be done by the Office; main indicator) L – Maternity leave (incl. Weeks of leave, replacement rate and coverage) L (additional) – Paternity and parental leave Work that should be abolished (1 + 3) M – Child labour [as defined by draft ICLS resolution] (S) A – Hazardous child labour (S) (n.a.) F – Other worst forms of child labour (S) (n.a.) F – Forced labour (S) (n.a.) L – Child labour (incl. Public policies to combat it) L – Forced labour (incl. Public policies to combat it) Stability and security of work (1, 2 + 3) M – Stability and security of work (developmental work to be done by the Office). A – Number and wages of casual/daily workers (S) Memo item: Informal employment grouped under employment opportunities. L – Employment protection legislation (incl. Notice of termination in weeks) Memo item: Unemployment insurance grouped under employment opportunities; needs to be interpreted in conjunction for ‘flexicurity’. Equal opportunity and treatment in employment (1, 2 + 3) M – Occupational segregation by sex M – Female share of employment in ISCO-88 groups 11 and 12 A – Gender wage gap (n.a.) A – Indicator for Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (Elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation) to be developed by the Office (n.a.) A – Measure for discrimination by race / ethnicity / of indigenous people / of (recent) migrant workers / of rural workers where relevant and available at the national level. F – Measure of dispersion for sectoral / occupational distribution of (recent) migrant workers F – Measure for employment of persons with disabilities (n.a.) Memo item: Indicators under other substantive elements marked (S) indicator should be reported separately for men and women in addition to the total. L – Anti-discrimination law based on sex of worker L – Anti-discrimination law based on race, ethnicity, religion or national origin 35
  • 36. 36 Substantive element of the DWA Statistical indicators Information on rights at work and the legal framework for decent work Safe work environment (1 + 3) M – Occupational injury rate, fatal A – Occupational injury rate, non-fata A – Time lost due to occupational injuries (n.a.) A – Labour inspection (inspectors per 10,000 employed persons) L – Occupational safety and health insurance L – Labour inspection Social security (1 + 3) M – Share of population aged 65 and above benefiting from a pension (S) M – Public social security expenditure (% of GDP) A – Health-care exp. Not financed out of pocket by private households (n.a.) A – Share of population covered by (basic) health care provision (S) F – Share of econ. Active population contributing to a pension scheme (S) F – Public expenditure on needs-based cash income support (% of GDP) F – Beneficiaries of cash income support (% of the poor) F – Sick leave (developmental work to be done by the Office; additional indicator) [Interpretation in conjunction with legal framework and labour market statistics.] L – Pension (public / private) L – Incapacity for work due to sickness / sick leave L – Incapacity for work due to invalidity Memo item: Unemployment insurance grouped under employment opportunities. Social dialogue, workers’ and employers’ representation (1 + 4) M – Union density rate (S) M – Enterprises belonging to employer organization [rate] M – Collective bargaining coverage rate (S) M – Indicator for Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining) to be developed by the Office A – Strikes and lockouts/rates of days not worked [interpretation issues] L – Freedom of association and right to organize L – Collective bargaining right L – Tripartite consultations Economic and social context for decent work C – Children not in school (% by age) (S) C – Estimated % of working-age population who are HIV positive C – Labour productivity (GDP per employed person, level and growth rate) C – Income inequality (percentile ratio P90/P10, income or consumption) C – Inflation rate (CPI) C – Employment by branch of economic activity C – Education of adult population (adult literacy rate, adult secondary-school graduation rate) (S) C – Labour share in GDP C (additional) – Real GDP per capita in PPP$ (level and growth rate) C (additional) – Female share of employment by industry (ISIC tabulation category) C (additional) – Wage / earnings inequality (percentile ratio P90/P10) (n.a.) Developmental work to be done by the Office to reflect environment for sustainable enterprises, incl. Indicators for (i) education, training and lifelong learning, (ii) entrepreneurial culture, (iii) enabling legal and regulatory framework, (iv) fair competition, and (v) rule of law and secure property rights. Developmental work to be done by the Office to reflect to reflect other institutional arrangements, such as scope of labour law and scope of labour ministry and other relevant ministries. 36
  • 37. Annex 2 Quality of Employment Indicators Suggested indicators Dimension 1. Safety and ethics of employment (a) Safety at work      (b) Child labour and forced labour Fatal occupational injury rate (Workplace fatalities per 100,000 employed people) Non-fatal occupational injury rate (Workplace accidents per 100,000 employed people) Occupational disease contraction per 100,000 employed persons Share of employed persons working in "hazardous" industries and occupations (as defined by ILO) Share of employed persons who feel significant levels of stress on the job  Share of employed persons who are below the minimum age specified for the kind of work performed.  Share of employed persons below 18 years of age in “hazardous” industries and occupations (as defined by ILO). Share of employed persons below 18 years working hours which exceed a specified threshold    Share of employed or recently-employed migrant population who were deceived during recruitment to/by an employer (i.e. deceived by broken promises related to salary and deductions, working conditions, type of work, working place, living conditions, or employer)  (c) Fair treatment in employment Share of children working in household chores which exceed a specified threshold of hours Share of employed or recently-employed migrants who felt they were forced or coerced during their employment (i.e. coerced by salary retention, unwilling provision of services, threat or application of violence, threat of denunciation to authorities, document confiscation, debt dependence) FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF FAIR TREATMENT, STATISTICS SHOULD BE PRODUCED ACROSS ALL DIMENSIONS, FOR AS MANY INDICATORS OF QUALITY OF EMPLOYMENT AS POSSIBLE, FOR THE FOLLOWING GROUPS DEPENDING ON THEIR RELEVANCE In A COUNTRY: - Sex - Ethnic groups - Immigrants - Indigenous population - Persons with disabilities - Age groups - Geographic Regions  2. Income and benefits from employment (a) Income from employment    Average weekly earnings of employed people. Low pay (Share of employed with below 2/3 of median hourly earnings) Distribution of weekly earnings (quintiles)
  • 38. 38 (b) Non-wage pecuniary benefits      Share of employees entitled to annual leave Average number of days of annual leave employees are entitled to use per year Share of employees entitled to sick leave Average number of days of sick leave employees are entitled to use per year Share of employees with supplemental medical insurance plan 3. Working hours and balancing work and non-working life (a) Working hours    (a) Security of employment   Average actual hours worked per week per person Share of employed persons working 49 hrs and more per week Share of employed persons working less than 30 hours per week involuntarily  Distribution of actual hours worked (quintiles)  Share of employed persons working more than one job (b) Working time arrangements  Share of employed persons who usually work at night/evening  Share of employed persons who usually work on weekend or bank holiday  Share of employees with flexible work schedules (c) Balancing work and non Share of employed persons receiving maternity/paternity/family working life leave benefits  Average actual hours worked per week per household  Ratio of employment rate for women with children under compulsory school age to the employment rate of all women aged 20-49  Average duration of commuting from home to work  4. Security of employment and social protection  (b) Social protection      Share of employees 25 years of age and older with temporary jobs Share of all employed persons who are unincorporated selfemployed without employees Shares of employed persons 25 years of age and older with job tenure < 1 yr, 1-3 yrs, 3-5 yrs, >= 5yrs Share of employees covered by unemployment insurance Average weekly unemployment insurance payment as a share of average weekly wage Public social security expenditure as share of GDP Share of economically active population contributing to a pension fund 5. Social dialogue   Share of employees covered by collective wage bargaining Share of enterprises belonging to employer organisations  Share of employees who received job training within the last 12 months Share of employees who received job training by type of job training (e.g. job-related, done on one's own initiative) Share of employed persons in high skilled occupations Share of employed persons who have more education than is normally required in their occupation Share of employed persons who have less education than is normally required in their occupation 6. Skills development and training     38
  • 39. 39 7. Workplace relationships and work motivation (a) Workplace relationships    (b) Work motivation       Share of workers who feel they have a strong or very strong relationship with their co-workers Share of employees who feel they have a strong or very strong relationship with their supervisor Share of workers who feel they have been a victim of discrimination at work Share of workers who feel they have been harassed at work Share of workers who are able to choose order of tasks or methods of work Share of employees who receive regular feedback from their supervisor Share of workers who feel they are able to apply their own ideas in work Share of workers who feel they do "useful" work Share of workers who feel satisfied with their work 39
  • 40. 40 References International Labour Organization. Decent work: Report of the Director-General. International Labour Conference, 87th Session, ILO, Geneva, 1999. International Labour Office. Enterprise Labour Flexibility and Security Surveys (ELFS): A technical guide. ILO, Geneva, 2004. _____ . Economic security for a better world. Geneva, ILO, Geneva 2004. _____ . People’s Security Surveys (PSS): A Manual for training and implementation. ILO, Geneva, 2004. _____ . Socio-economic security and decent work in Ukraine: A comparative view and statistical findings, Working paper No. 76 by Igor Cherynashev. Geneva, October 2005. _____ . Measurement of decent work: Discussion paper for the Tripartite Meeting of Experts on the Measurement of Decent Work, Geneva, 8–10 September 2008, ILO, Geneva, 2008; _____ . Chairperson’s report, Tripartite Meeting of Experts on the Measurement of Decent Work. Geneva, 810 September 2008; at: http://www.ilo.org/stat/Publications/lang--en/docName--WCMS_099981/index.htm _____ . Resolution on further work on the measurement of decent work. Report of the 18th International Conference of Labour Statisticians. Geneva, December 2008. _____ . Guide to Communicating Decent Work, International Labour Office. Geneva 2009; at: http://www.ilo.org/intranet/libdoc/announcements/guide.english.pdf ____ . Decent Work Country Profile: Ukraine. Policy Integration Department (mimeographed). Geneva 2010. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Quality in work and employment in the European Working Conditions Survey, UNECE/ILO/Eurostat Seminar on the Quality of Work, Geneva, May 11 to 13, 2005. UNECE. Joint UNECE/ILO/EUROSTAT Seminar on the Quality of Work. Towards an International Quality of Employment Framework: Conceptual Paper of the Task Force on the Measurement of Quality of Work. Working paper No. 1, Geneva 7 February 2007. _____ . Statistical Measurement of Quality of Employment: Conceptual framework and indictors. ECE/CES/GE.12/2009/1 Geneva, 2 September 2009. _____ . Statistical Measurement of Quality of Employment: Conceptual framework and indictors. Report of the Fifth UNECE/ILO/EUROSTAT Meeting on the Measurement of Qualit y of Employment. UNECE/CES/GE.12/2009/12 September 2009. _____ . Statistical Measurement of Quality of Employment: Conceptual framework and indictors. Report of the UNECE Task Force on the Measurement of Quality of Employment. Geneva, December 2009 (mimeographed). Lozano, Esteban. Quality in work: Dimensions and Indicators in the Framework of the European Employment Strategy, UNECE/ILO/Eurostat Seminar on the Quality of Work, Geneva (11-13 May, 2005). Mantsurov. I. and Senyk.I Quality of Employment: Country Profile for Ukraine. UNECE/ILO/EUROSTAT Meeting on the Measurement of Quality of Employment; Research and Scientific Institute of Economics, Ministry of Economy of Ukraine, and the State Statistics Committee of Ukraine. Kyïv 2009; .at: http://www.unece.org/stats/documents/ece/ces/ge.12/2009/zip.27.e.pdf 40
  • 41. 41 State Statistics Committee of Ukraine. Statiystychny Shchiorichnyk Ukrainy za 2000 (Statistical Yearbook of Ukraine, 2000). Kyiv, “Technika”, 2001 State Statistical Committee of Ukraine. Statystychni Shchiorichnik Ukraïny za 2008 (Statistical Yearbook, 2008). Kyïv, “Technika”, 2009. 41

×