1. Facilitating flexibility ánd security for older workers: HRM-arangements in 4 European countries CEDEFOP (Thessaloniki, 30 sept. 2008) Frank Tros Hugo Sinzheimer Instituut University of Amsterdam F.H.Tros@uva.nl

2. Agenda 1.Flexicurity-concept and older workers 2.Comparative survey on 50+ workers in workplaces in the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Belgium. 3.Problem & questions:  Do reflect workplaces European and national policy (- shifts)?  Are there ‘flexicurity’-approaches?  Is there cross-national (sectoral) variances in degree/ forms of HRM-activities that facilitate (different forms of) flexibility and security for the older workers?

3. Why flexicurity? Basics flexicurity-debate: 1.flexibility and security are mutually supportive /complementary 2.Flexibility not monopoly of employers; security not monopoly of workers 3.Focus on new forms of security (activating) Older workers good test case for this concept:  Modernizing old fashioned passive HRM-practises  Need for new combinations for flexibility ánd security  Can broaden bargaining on early retirement issues

4. Security: Flexibility: IncomeJobEmploy- ment Combin ation (Work- life balance) External numerical Internal numerical Internal functional Wage

5. Income security Job securityEmployment security Combination security External numerical flex Early retirement benefits Outplacement; Selfemploy- ment Recruitment Internal numerical flex Part time retirement Reduced working hours Variable working hours Part time retirement Flexible working hours Internal functional flex Relieve work load; Retraining Task roulation In/external jobmobility; Education; Senior jobs Wage flexFlexible payDemotion

6. Employment rates 55-64 yrs

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

8. Stratified samples (n=3085 workplaces) Metal- electro industry Trans- port Edu- cation Public admini- stration Total Nether- lands 200 150200750 Germany174177179186716 Denmark201163168198730 Belgium194114274307889 Total7696547718913085

9. Arrangements facilitating working time flexibility for 50+ (% workplaces, weighted) Nether- lands DenmarkBelgiumGermanyTotal Part time retirement6878573359 Part-time contracts5583674663 Reduced working hours7268692960 Dispensation from inconvenient working hours 4845152633

10. Arrangements facilitating functional flexibility for 50+ by (% workplaces, weighted) Nether- land DenmarkBelgiumGermanyTotal Job-rotation and horizontal career movements 4484253947 Adaptation tasks to relieve workload 6434263038 Plans/programmes for Education 4148292636 ‘Senior-jobs’191510713 Demotion towards less paid jobs 222417

11. Arrangements facilitating external numerical flexibility for 50+ (% workplaces, weighted) Netherla nd DenmarkBelgiumGermanyTotal Mediation/support outplacement to other employers 27411412 Support for self-employment93244

12. Number of flex arrangements

13. Inititiators in most facilities for 50+ (n=3085 workplaces)

14. Multiple regression analysis ‘number of arrangements’ Standardised coefficient Beta Adj R square.245 Netherlands Germany Denmark Metalektro Transport Education Size (4 cat) Collective bargaining HRM-department Share 50+ (4 cat) Recruitment 50+ Workscouncil +.251 ** -.083 ** +.287 ** -.042 -.091 ** +.052 * +.103 ** +.073 ** +.105 ** +.040 * +.057 ** ** stat. Sign. 0.01 level * stat. Sign. 0.05 level

15. Adj. R Square: NL.216 Ger.026 Den.109 Bel.123 Metalectro sector Transport sector Education sector Size organ. (4 cat) CLA Workscouncil HRM departm. Share 50+ (4 cat) Share female 50+ Edu-level 50+ (3 cat) Recruitment 50+ -.224 -.324.091.144 -.099 -.093 - -.192 -.117 -.097 - -.146 -.157 -.233 -.097 -.097.162.124 -.090.148 -

16. Intensity of activity/use of arrangements

17. Intensity of use among 50+ (total 4 contries, in case of availability) Early retirement++ Flexible reirement age+ Part-time retirments- Part-time contracts- Reduction working hours+ Relieve inconvenient working hours+/- Training/education programmes+ Internal job mobility-- Reservation senior jobs- Relieve workload- Outplacement/external job mobility-- Support self employment-- Demotion towards less paid jobs-- Flexible pay++ ++ > 50% often used; + 40- 50% often used; +/-30-40% often used; - 20-30% often used; --< 10% often used.

18. Overall picture 4 countries  Hierarchy of flex-forms in HRM-practises: 1.Working hours flex 2.Internal funtional flex 3.External/wage need for more external flex - job-job mobility and education - in relation to employment security (?)  The intensity in which some arrangements are used is low.

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

20. ApproachBackground variables Netherland s Relief (in greater range of HRM-instruments) Sectoral variance; CLA initiative DenmarkDevelopment (in greater range of HRM-instruments) Initiatiative workplaces/H RM dept.; BelgiumFocus on working hours (in small range of arrangements) Legislative intitiative; Local variances GermanyLow activity in all ?

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