Non-standard employment in Poland

Trends and worker experiences

Adam Mrozowicki, PhDadam.mrozowicki@uni.wroc.pl

European Trade Union InstituteConference “Getting Europe back to work. Alternatives to

austerity”, Brussels 6 November 2013

• LM regulation, LM performance and non standard employment: the case of Poland

• The basic characteristics of precarious/flexible employees: quantitative research

• Precarious and flexible worker experiences: qualitative investigations

• Emergent counter-movements?

Overview

Labour market reforms in 2000s• Relatively strong employment in 1990s and

social transfers in exchange for social acceptance for restructuring

• Labour code changes in 2002-2003 in the context of very high unemployment – flexibility with limited security

• Anti-crisis legislation in 2009-2011

• Labour code changes in 2013 – working time regulations

Employment contracts in PolandEMPLOYMENT FORM

EMPLOYMENT COSTS FOR EMPLOYER

High protection against dismissals

Social security contributions

Contributions to national health insurance

Minimum wage

Training, H&S costs

Limited control of employees

Standard employment contract

YES YES YES YES YES NO

Contracts of limited duration

YES/NO YES YES YES YES NO

Part time employment contracts

YES/NO YES YES YES YES NO

Employee leasing (TWA)

NO NO NO NO YES YES/NO

Self-employment

NO NO NO NO NO YES

Freelanace contract

YES YES/NO YES NO NO YES/NO

Specific-task contract

NO NO NO NO NO YES

Source: Pankow, M. (2012) Młodzi na rynku pracy, Warszawa: ISP, s. 33 (adopted)

Employment protection (I)

Employment protection – individual and collective dismissals (regular contracts) (scale 0-6) – OECD employment protection index

Source: OECD Employment Database

Non-standard employment and LM performance

Graph 1: Share of employees with contracts of limited duration and the unemployment rates in Poland in 1997-2012

Source: Eurostat, LFS

Non-standard employees: basics facts (I)

Age Total Male FemalePL DE PL DE PL DE

15-24 66,4% 53,6% 64,7% 55,1% 69% 51,9%25-49 25,2% 10,7% 25,2% 10,2% 25,3% 11,2%50 and more 18,1% 4,7% 19,6% 4,7% 16,3% 4,7%

Table 2: Employees with contracts of limited duration (% of employees) in 2012

Source: Eurostat, LFS

PL DE EU-282000 2005 2012 2000 2005 2012 2000 2005 2012

Total 9,3% 9,8% 7,2% 19,1% 23,4% 25,7% 15,8% (EU-27)

17,2% 19,2%

Male 7,0% 7,0% 4,5% 4,5% 6,9% 9,1% 5,9% 6,7% 8,4%Female 12,1% 13,3% 10,6% 37,7% 43,4% 45% 28,7% 40,5% 31,9%

Table 3: Part-time employees in the total number of employees (%)

Non-standard employees: basics facts (III)

Graph 3: Main reasons for temporary employment

Source: Eurostat, LFS

The profile of a temporary employee (I) Characteristics (as for 2008) % of the total number of employees with a

contract of limited duration in a given categoryPensioners 58,48In education 53,79

Occupational groupManagers and professionals 13,42Mid-ranked professionals 18,32Low-ranked white collar workers 29,02Clerks and service workers 41,36Skilled manual workers 30,65Unskilled manual workers 44,45

Sectors /NACESeasonal (a,b,f,h) 42,36Retail and wholesale (g) 35,13Others (c-e, i-q) 24,47

Company sizeLess than 10 employees 32,8911-49 employees 27,23More than 50 employees 22,06

Source: EU-SILC, Kiersztyn &Dzierzgowski 2012: 80-81

The profile of a temporary employee (II)

Graph 4: Wages of employees by the type of contracts

Source: EU-SILC, Kiersztyn 2012: 109

Civil law contracts • The lack of systematic official statistics and difficulties to assess

actual numbers

• Lower Silesia (Sochanska et al. 2013) – 10% of the employed

• Main Statistical Office (GUS): 546,7 thousand in 2010 1012,9 thousand in 2011 (Kowalski 2013) (companies of more than 9 employees only = underestimated)

• Ministry of Labour and Social Policy: 758,6 thousand in 2008 894,3 thousand in 2011 (overestimated?)

• National Labour Inspectorate: 9,5% of the employed in 2009 12,6% in 2012 (based on inspection statistics = non-representative)

• National Insurance Institution (ZUS): 399,1 thousand of social security contribution payers from freelance contracts in 2005 815,8 thousand in 2012 (without specific-task contracts)

Temporary agency workGraph 5: The number of people employed with temporary work agencies in Poland in the years 2003-2012 (in thousands)

Source: Ministry of Labour and Social Policy (2013 36)Note: The figure include employees who found a job via TWA(employed by an external employer) those directed to temporary work by the TWA (employed by the TWA)

Flexible/precarious worker experiences (I)• Heterogeneous experiences:

• Minority satisfied with working conditions – mostly self-employed or making use of flexible contracts in addition to their permanent jobs, better wages, stronger labour market bargaining power

• Majority unsatisfied with their current working conditions – civil-law contracts or temporary contracts as the only source of income, earning less, experiencing instability (Sochańska et al. 2013: 11, N=30 IDI and 10 focus group interviews)

• Various categories of employees experiencing flexible jobs in services (Kozek, Kubisa, Ostrowski 2005; N=73)• Working students (accepting junk jobs as temporary)• Young workers – precarious work as necessity • Middle-aged workers – shifted to junk jobs as result

of restructuring• Pensioners

Flexible/precarious worker experiences (II)

• Limited impact of flexible employment on the improvement of work-life balance (Sochanska et al. 2013: 192; Polawski 2012)

• Limited predictability of working hours affecting family life• Economic insecurity • Postponing decision on marriage and kids • Limited possibilities of taking out loans (mostly due to low earning, but also

the type of contract)

• The “normalisation” of flexible employment• The dominance of instrumental meanings of work (Kozek et al.2005)• The internalisation of market discourse (accumulation of skills,

permanent employment as reward) - Desperak 2010; Polawski 2012• The minimisation of differences between permanent and temporary

employment (Zalewski 2012; Polawski 2012)

Precarious work in Wroclaw’s services (I)

VOLUTARISTIC FLEXIBILITY –

‘FREELANCERS’

FORCED PRECARISATION

• Normalisation of instability •Privatisation of welfare

• Disbelief in collective voice• Fragmented class identities

• Political volatility

Source: Mrozowicki, Krasowska, Karolak 2013 (forthcoming)

Collective mobilisation – new discourses

Increase minimum wage for Poles

We are not machines! Demonstration on the anniversary of strike in Chung Hong (All-Poland Trade Union Workers’ Initiative)

I don’t like to start all over again everyday. Stop the junk contracts!

Collective mobilisation beyond work – mostly right-wing nationalist

Flexible workers and unions• Liberal criticism “They [unions] tilt at windmills, I’d say, you can’t beat market or

social mechanisms which change our reality, you can’t separate Poland from the rest of the world and economy with some kind of thick wall, we already had it” (Agnieszka,PR manager)

• Conditional support“I think that trade unions is a way to go, but simply...I don’t know. They should go for some training to the UK, or elsewhere. To organise themselves differently. Because... What I connect with a Polish trade union? O, shit...simply with moustache and Molotov cocktails, you know what I mean. And not with taking care of a worker” (Andrzej, cultural organiser)

• Lack of knowledge

Conclusion

• The emergence of flexible employment regime and related development of a new dual labour market in Poland

• Limited and/or difficult to assess positive outcomes of labour market deregulation for labour market performance and expected negative outcomes for social security system

• Negative outcomes in terms of wages, working conditions, work-life balance versus “normalisation” of precarious and instable jobs among workers

• Emergent counter-mobilisation, its prospects and limits