Journal for Labour Market Research最新文献

This paper comparatively analyzes strategies of German Jobcenters to bring native and immigrant job seekers into employment. It focuses on clients who receive means-tested basic income for the unemployed, based on data from the Panel Study Labour Market and Social Security (PASS) from year 2015 to 2020. By way of logistic regression, the study identifies the impact of being an immigrant on the clients' probability of reporting different kinds of offers like job referrals or courses, controlling for a number of other influential factors. The study also looks deeper into the effects of immigrant-specific attributes, such as heterogeneous German language skills. We found that the likelihood of offers by Jobcenters largely depends on the amount of time since immigration. Recent immigrants have the lowest chance of reporting most of the studied measures of active labor market policies. For immigrants having stayed more than 4 years in Germany, however, we do not find a disadvantage, and some measures out of Jobcenters' toolbox are even more often offered to the longer-settled immigrants than to native clients. A possible explanation for the moderately under-average support of recent immigrants in terms of Jobcenters' measures could be an institutional focus on improving German language skills prior to approaching the labor market.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12651-022-00313-8.

Establishment surveys around the globe have measured the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on establishments' conditions and business practices. At the same time, the consequences of the pandemic, such as closures, hygiene standards, or remote work arrangements, may have also altered patterns of survey participation and introduced nonresponse bias, threatening the quality of establishment survey data. To investigate these issues, this article examines fieldwork outcomes, nonresponse bias, and predictors of survey participation in the IAB-Job Vacancy Survey. As comparisons with previous survey years show, it became more difficult to successfully interview establishments during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using linked administrative data, we show that nonresponse bias was higher in 2020 compared to previous years, even after applying the standard weighting adjustment. However, general patterns of survey participation in 2020 were similar to previous years and COVID-19 related measures were not strong predictors of survey participation in 2020. Further, we provide evidence that nonresponse bias during the pandemic can be reduced by incorporating additional administrative variables into the weighting procedure relative to the standard weighting variables. We conclude this article with a discussion of the findings and implications for survey practitioners.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12651-022-00321-8.

The COVID-19 pandemic has focused public attention on occupational groups that ensure the maintenance of critical infrastructure, provision of medical care and supply of essential goods. This paper examines the working conditions in critical jobs based on representative data from the German BAuA Working Time Survey 2019. Our analyses reveal that essential workers are more likely to perform unskilled or semiskilled activities and work in cleaning, transport and logistics, health care occupations as well as IT and natural science services. Regarding the working conditions, essential workers are paid comparatively less and are more physically proximate to others at work than nonessential workers. They more often work atypical hours, such as day and night shifts and on weekends, and have less autonomy in their working time. Additionally, critical jobs are characterised by muscular and skeletal strain due to working positions and carrying heavy loads significantly more often. Thus, our findings strongly suggest that work-related risks accumulate in critical jobs.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12651-022-00315-6.

Employment relationships are embedded in a network of social norms that provide an implicit framework for desired behaviour, especially if contractual solutions are weak. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought about major changes that have led to situations, such as the scope of short-time work or home-based work in a firm. Against this backdrop, our study addresses three questions: first, are there social norms dealing with these changes; second, are there differences in attitudes between employees and supervisors (misalignment); and third, are there differences between respondents' average attitudes and the attitudes expected to exist in the population (pluralistic ignorance). We find that for the assignment of short-time work and of work at home, there are shared normative attitudes with only small differences between supervisors and nonsupervisors. Moreover, there is evidence for pluralistic ignorance; asked for the perceived opinion of others, respondents over- or underestimated the consensus in the (survey) population. Such pluralistic ignorance can contribute to the upholding of a norm even if individuals do not support the norm, with potentially far-reaching consequences for the quality of the employment relationship and the functioning of the organization. Our results show that, especially in times of change, social norms should be considered for the analysis of labour markets.

Short-time work (STW) in Germany allows for a lot of flexibility in actual usage. Ex ante, firms notify the Employment Agency about the total number of employees eligible, and, up to the total granted, firms can flexibly choose how many employees actually use STW. In firm-level surveys, which provide timely information on STW in Germany, over-reporting of the number of employees on STW is prevalent. This study explores reasons for STW over-reporting based on a high-frequency and low-cost survey initiated during the Covid-19-pandemic (BeCovid) and a low-frequency and high-cost long-running survey (BP). Merging administrative records on actual use of STW, firms that use STW prove more likely to participate in the BeCovid survey. Multi-establishment firms over-report STW because they tend to report STW for all subfirms. The BP uses more interview time and confirms the over-reporting of STW use in the survey month, while-crucially-the over-reporting drops sharply with a few months of retrospection.