Differences in Definitions of Non-regular Employees in Government Statistics  

Oleh:

Kambayashi, Ryo

Jenis: Article from Journal - ilmiah internasional
Dalam koleksi: Japan Labor Review vol. 10 no. 4 (2013), page 55-66.
Topik: Labor Issues; Non-regular Employees; Different Trends; Employment Status; Labor Contract
Fulltext: JLR40_kambayashi_open.pdf (910.5KB)

Ketersediaan

Perpustakaan Pusat (Semanggi) Nomor Panggil: JJ130.10 Non-tandon: 1 (dapat dipinjam: 0) Tandon: tidak ada

Lihat Detail Induk

Isi artikel

For anyone involved in labor issues in Japan, it must already be common knowledge that there are several definitions of non-regular employees. What may be less well-known, however, is that different definitions will produce different trends for historical increases in this category. Figure 1 shows trends in the ratio of non-regular employees to employees in general, based on two typical definitions found in the Labour Force Survey by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC). In Panel (A), the definition of non-regular employees is based on “employment status,” determined according to the length of the labor contract. It shows the ratio of “Temporary employees” (with labor contracts of up to 1 year) and “Daily employees” (contracts of less than 1 month) to all employees. As the maximum length of labor contract was one year by 2005, these categories show the whole of fixed-term contracted workers at least by 2005. In Panel (B), the definition is based on the “type of employment,” determined according to descriptions and/or titles used in the workplace. It calculates the ratio of employees not described as “full” or “regular” employees. The resultant figure is normally quoted in expressions like “non-regular employees have passed the 30% mark.” While both Panels show the same general trend in the share of non-regular employees, one cannot fail to notice a clear difference between the two. For example, while the share of non-regular employees in Panel (A) is between around 10% and 15%, in Panel (B) the share is much larger, between 15% and 35%. Of course, although these two figures are based on the same sample, it should not be surprising that the two show different ratios just because they are based on different definitions. What is more noteworthy is that they also differ in the time-series trend for increases in non-regular employees. Under the definition in Panel (A), the ratio of non-regular employees only increased for a relatively short period from around 1996 to 2002; it did not continue to rise throughout the “Lost Two Decades.” By contrast, the increase in non-regular employees according to Panel (B) had already started in the 1980s, long before the “Lost Two Decades,” and the trend remained relatively constant over a quarter of a century. According to the former definition, the increase in non-regular employees is seen as related to temporary economic change, such as deregulation. Under the latter definition however, it is suggested that the increase in non-regular employees should rather be understood as longer term and more continuous changes in economic structure.

Opini Anda

Klik untuk menuliskan opini Anda tentang koleksi ini!

Kembali