Third European survey on

working conditions 2000

EUROPEAN FOUNDATION
for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions
 Third European survey
on working conditions 2000
 Third European survey
on working conditions 2000

Pascal Paoli and Damien Merllié

EUROPEAN FOUNDATION
for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions

Wyattville Road, Loughlinstown, Dublin 18, Ireland. Tel: +353 1 204 3100 Fax: +353 1 282 6456/282 4209 E-mail: postmaster@eurofound.ie
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2001

ISBN 92-897-0130-7

© European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 2001

For rights of translation or reproduction, applications should be made to the Director, European Foundation for the
Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Wyattville Road, Loughlinstown, Dublin 18, Ireland.

Printed in Ireland

The paper used in this publication is chlorine-free and comes from managed forests in Northern Europe.
For every tree felled, at least one new tree is planted.
Foreword

This report presents the main findings of the Third European survey on working conditions. The survey was carried out
simultaneously in each of the 15 Member States of the European Union in March 2000. The previous surveys were carried out
in 1990/91 and in 1995/96. Hence it is now possible to establish time series, at least for those variables which have remained the
same and the report highlights these time series wherever possible.

These surveys aim to provide an overview of the state of working conditions in the European Union, as well as indicating the
nature and content of changes affecting the workforce and the quality of work. Since they are of a general nature, obviously
they cannot address all the issues in detail. However, they do indicate the need for more detailed research, including qualitative
research, on specific issues.

This report is limited to a straightforward presentation of the results. It is planned to carry out more detailed statistical analysis
at a later stage and to produce separate reports on specific areas. Some of the issues which will be analysed in more detail are:
gender and work; age and work; employment status; sector profiles; work organisation and working conditions; time.

The surveys were designed with the support of national and European experts, as well as representatives of the European
Commission and employers’ and workers’ organisations (see list in Annex 4). The Foundation is grateful to all the members of
this expert group for their valuable contribution.

Raymond-Pierre Bodin Eric Verborgh

Director Deputy Director

v
 Third European survey on working conditions 2000

Abbreviations
ESWC European survey on working conditions

Foundation European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions

INRA International Research Associates (Belgium)

INSEE Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques (France)

(National institute for statistics and economic studies)

ISCO International standard classification of occupations

LFS Labour Force Survey (Eurostat)

NACE Nomenclature générale des activités économiques dans les Communautés européennes
(General industrial classification of economic activities within the European Communities)

NUTS Nomenclature des unités territoriales statistiques

(Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics)

Countries
B Belgium

DK Denmark

D Germany

EL Greece

E Spain

F France

IRL Ireland

I Italy

L Luxembourg

NL Netherlands

A Austria

P Portugal

FIN Finland

S Sweden

UK United Kingdom

vi
Contents

Foreword v

List of figures and tables viii

Chapter 1 Methodology 1

Chapter 2 Context and structural variables 4

Chapter 3 Nature of work 8

Chapter 4 Physical work factors 10

Chapter 5 Work organisation 12

Chapter 6 Time 20

Chapter 7 Information and consultation 26

Chapter 8 Psychosocial factors 28

Chapter 9 Outcomes 31

Chapter 10 Income and payment systems 36

Chapter 11 Work and family life 39

Chapter 12 Norway 41

Summary of working conditions – EU average percentages 43

Annex 1 Questionnaire 45
Annex 2 NACE codes 63
Annex 3 ISCO codes 64
Annex 4 Expert working group 65
Annex 5 INRA technical specifications and national correspondents 67

Index 71

The detailed tables on which this report is based are available on request in printed format.
Please contact information@eurofound.ie

vii
 Third European survey on working conditions 2000

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1 Those working with computers (by sector) 8

Figure 2 Those working with computers (by country) 8

Figure 3 Those teleworking from home (by country) 8

Figure 4 Those teleworking from home (by occupation) 9

Figure 5 Workers dealing directly with people who are not employees in the workplace (by sector) 9

Figure 6 Workers dealing directly with people who are not employees in the workplace (by occupation) 9

Figure 7 Employees well-informed about the risks in using materials, instruments or products 10

Figure 8 Workers exposed to noise in the workplace (by occupation) 10

Figure 9 Workers exposed to vibrations in the workplace (by occupation) 10

Figure 10 Workers inhaling vapours, fumes, dust, etc. (by occupation) 11

Figure 11 Workers having to work in painful or tiring positions (by occupation) 11

Figure 12 Workers having to move or carry heavy loads (by occupation) 11

Figure 13 Continuously exposed to repetitive hand/arm movements (by occupation) 12

Figure 14 Employees having no influence over their place of work (by contract) 13

Figure 15 Employees having influence over their working hours (by country) 13

Figure 16 Continuously working at high speed (by country) 14

Figure 17 Continuously working at high speed (by occupation) 14

Figure 18 Continuously working to tight deadlines (by sector) 15

Figure 19 Workers whose pace of work is induced by direct customer demand (by occupation) 15

Figure 20 Work involving monotonous tasks (by occupation) 17

Figure 21 Learning new things in the job (by occupation) 18

Figure 22 Employees unable to get assistance of colleagues when required (by contract) 18

Figure 23 Workers whose skills do not match job demands (by occupation) 18

Figure 24 Employees who have received training over the past 12 months (by contract) 19

Figure 25 Working less than 30 hours per week, 1995-2000 (by gender) 20

Figure 26 Working 45 hours or more per week, 1995-2000 (by gender) 20

Figure 27 Average weekly hours of all workers (by gender) 20

Figure 28 Average weekly hours of employees (by gender) 20

Figure 29 Average weekly hours of the self-employed and employees 21

Figure 30 Average weekly hours of employees (by contract) 21

Figure 31 Average weekly hours of all workers (by country) 21

Figure 32 Average weekly hours of employees (by country) 21

Figure 33 Working part-time – spontaneous answer (by gender) 22

Figure 34 Employees working part-time – spontaneous answer (by contract) 22

viii
List of Figures and Tables

Figure 35 Working part-time – spontaneous answer (by occupation) 22

Figure 36 Working part-time but wishing to work more or less hours (by gender) 22

Figure 37 Daily average commuting times (by country) 22

Figure 38 Daily average commuting times (by gender) 22

Figure 39 Night work – at least 1 night per month (by country) 23

Figure 40 Sunday work – at least 1 Sunday per month (by occupation) 24

Figure 41 Not working same number of hours every day (by occupation) 24

Figure 42 Not working same number of hours every week (by sector) 24

Figure 43 Working hours fitting well with commitments outside work (by gender) 24

Figure 44 Possibility for employees to discuss working conditions (by contract) 26

Figure 45 Possibility for workers to discuss organisational change (by country) 26

Figure 46 Possibility for employees to discuss change (by contract) 26

Figure 47 Information or consultation which leads to improvements in the workplace (by country) 27

Figure 48 Employees exposed to physical violence over the past 12 months (by contract) 28

Figure 49 Workers subjected to intimidation (by country) 28

Figure 50 Workers subjected to intimidation (by gender) 28

Figure 51 Workers subjected to intimidation (by sector) 28

Figure 52 Workers exposed to unwanted sexual attention (by gender) 29

Figure 53 Workers whose immediate superior is a woman (excluding ‘not applicable’) (by country) 29

Figure 54 Gender of the immediate superior 29

Figure 55 Workers whose immediate superior is a man (excluding ‘not applicable) (by occupation) 29

Figure 56 Workers who think their health or safety is at risk because of their work (by sector) 31

Figure 57 Workers reporting backache 31

Figure 58 Employees reporting overall fatigue (by contract) 32

Figure 59 Workers reporting muscular pains in neck and shoulders (by occupation) 32

Figure 60 Workers reporting injuries (by gender) 32

Figure 61 Workers reporting injuries (by occupation) 32

Figure 62 Workers reporting stress (by occupation) 33

Figure 63 Workers reporting absences over the last 12 months due to an accident at work (by occupation) 33

Figure 64 Workers reporting absences over the last 12 months due to an accident at work (by sector) 33

Figure 65 Workers reporting absences over the last 12 months due to work-related health problems
(by country) 33

Figure 66 Workers who do not think that they will be able to or want to do the same job when
60 years old – excluding ‘don’t knows’ (by occupation) 34

Figure 67 Employees satisfied with their working conditions (by contract) 34

Figure 68 Income categories of workers (by gender) 36

ix
 Third European survey on working conditions 2000

Figure 69 Income categories of managers (by gender) 36

Figure 70 Income categories of service workers (by gender) 36

Figure 71 Employees who receive piece rate/productivity payments (by occupation) 37

Figure 72 Employees paid for working overtime (by country) 37

Figure 73 Employees who receive payments based on the overall performance of the
company (profit-sharing schemes) where they work (by country) 37

Figure 74 Employees who receive payments based on the overall performance of the company
(profit-sharing schemes) where they work (by occupation) 37

Figure 75 Employees who receive an income from shares in the company where they work (by occupation) 38

Figure 76 Self-employed who receive payments based on the overall performance of the company
(profit-sharing schemes) where they work (by occupation) 38

Figure 77 Those contributing most to the household income (by contract) 39

Figure 78 Those contributing most to the household income (by gender) 39

Figure 79 Those mainly responsible for shopping and looking after the home (by gender) 39

Figure 80 Those involved in household and childcare activities (by gender) 40

Figure 81 Those involved in caring for elderly or disabled relatives (by gender) 40

Table 1 Occupational distribution of the workforce 4

Table 2 Distribution of the workforce by economic activity 4

Table 3 Sectoral distribution of the workforce 4

Table 4 Detailed sectoral distribution of the workforce 4

Table 5 Proportion of employees in the workforce, by country 5

Table 6 Employment status of employees 5

Table 7 Duration of fixed-term contracts 5

Table 8 Women in the workforce, by occupation, 1995 and 2000 5

Table 9 Women in the workforce by country, 1990-2000 5

Table 10 Distribution of the workforce by age group, 1995 and 2000 6

Table 11 Length of employment 6

Table 12 Number of workers having a second job 6

Table 13 Company status 6

Table 14 Company status, by country 6

Table 15 Company size 7

Table 16 Supervision 7

Table 17 Nature of work 9

Table 18 Physical work factors 11

Table 19 Repetitive work 12

x
List of Figures and Tables

Table 20 Job control 13

Table 21 Working at high speed or working to deadlines (variations between 1995 and 2000) 14

Table 22 Working at very high speed and its effects on health 14

Table 23 Working to tight deadlines and its effects on health 15

Table 24 Pace of work 16

Table 25 Job content 18

Table 26 Responsibility 18

Table 27 Skills, training and division of work 19

Table 28 Working hours’ duration 23

Table 29 Round the clock work 25

Table 30 Irregular time patterns 25

Table 31 Information and consultation 27

Table 32 Violence at work 30

Table 33 Average number of days of absence over last 12 months 34

Table 34 Outcomes 35

Table 35 Income categories classified by gender 36

Table 36 Payment systems 38

Table 37 Frequency of involvement in activities outside work 40

Table 38 Health outcomes, Norway and EU15 41

Table 39 Physical work factors, Norway and EU15 41

Table 40 Working time, Norway and EU15 41

Table 41 Nature of work, Norway and EU15 41

Table 42 Work organisation, Norway and EU15 42

xi
Chapter 1 Methodology

The Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working • Next, one or several starting points are selected for each
Conditions carried out its Third European survey on working sampling point and the interviewers follow the random
conditions in 2000. The two previous surveys were carried walk procedure.
out in 1990 and 1995. For the 2000 survey, a total of 21,703
workers were interviewed in face-to-face interviews, which • When several persons in a household fall within the
were conducted in their own homes. Around 1,500 workers scope of the survey, the selection is based on the first
were interviewed in each Member State, with the exception birthday method (selecting the person whose next
of Luxembourg where the number of persons interviewed birthday is closest to the interview date).
totalled 527. This survey, in common with the 1990/91 and
Individuals from the age of 15 years upward were
the 1995/96 surveys, was elaborated in close cooperation
interviewed (taking into account the fact that after the age
with national institutes which carry out this type of survey at
of 65 the number of active persons would level off rapidly).
national level and in close cooperation with Eurostat.
Retired and unemployed persons, as well as housewives and
students, etc., were excluded. Non-Europeans were included,
An expert group was set up to help the Foundation define on condition that they could be interviewed in the national
the methodology and the questionnaire. The list of members language(s) of the country where they work.
of this expert group is given in Annex 4.
Interviews were carried out in all Member States of the
The Foundation commissioned INRA-Europe to undertake European Union. The interviews were scheduled at a time of
the field work which was carried out between 1 March and the day when the employees and self-employed were
30 April 2000. available. The respondents were interviewed face to face in
their own homes.
For further technical information on the methodology,
readers are invited to refer to the technical specifications The target number of interviews was 1,500 per country (500
contained in Annex 5. They can also refer to the in Luxembourg). The actual number of interviews carried out
methodological report on the Second European Survey on in each country is given in Annex 5 (p.67).
Working Conditions (Combessie, Gheorghiu, Merllié, 1999),
carried out for the Foundation.
Weighting
Sampling The target group was ‘persons in employment’ as defined by
the Labour Force Survey (Eurostat): ‘persons in employment’
A representative sample of the total active population, i.e. refers to those who did any work for pay or profit during the
persons who were at the time of interview either employees reference week (the reference week varied from country to
or self-employed workers, was sought. country) or those who were temporarily absent from their
jobs. Family workers were also included.
The basic sample design is a multi-stage random sampling,
called ‘random walk’. As with all empirical methods, the random walk procedure
implies a weighting of the selected sample so that the
The three European surveys on working conditions use a sample is identical to the target population according to the
random walk procedure. This method, whereby interviewers selected variable.
are given precise guidelines, has the advantage of not
requiring a complete poll basis. Interviewers are provided In order to categorise the target population in relation to
with an itinerary indicating at what stages they should carry the selected variables, one has to use, if possible, a survey
out interviews. Although there might be some minor where the sample size is identical to the target population
differences between one country and another, all national (e.g. a census), or the results of a survey deemed reliable,
poll institutes have to comply with the guidelines. The generally a probability poll with a very large sample (e.g.
process can be summarised as follows: Labour Force Survey).

• The Eurostat territorial breakdown (NUTS II) is adopted If the quota method is used, the interviewers have to control
for each country. This coding does not exist everywhere the distribution of the selected variables in the sample. They
(e.g. Denmark), in which case national institutes have to are free to interview anyone so long as they comply with the
find the most appropriate regional/local breakdown. distribution. This ensures that the distribution of the
• Population density is based on urban size. Each institute sampling will be identical to the desired distribution.
is given country tables.
If the random walk method is used, the interviewers are
• On the basis of the two points above, a list of sampling obliged to follow a compulsory itinerary and do not have the
points is established. In general, postal codes (the most freedom to interview anyone they wish. In this case, the
detailed territorial breakdown) are used to randomly structure of the sample will be different from the desired
select the sampling points. sample, due to the fact that some respondents are not as

1
 Third European survey on working conditions 2000

easy to contact or refuse to respond. Therefore the sample illustrated in the following table which gives the number of
will have to be ‘weighted’ in order to arrive at a distribution legislators and managers as a percentage of the working
which is identical to the desired one as regards the selected population in France and Italy:
variables. To achieve the weighting, a ‘weight’ is given to
each individual, which varies according to the rarity of the % 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
variable it represents (e.g. a higher weight if his/her group is
under-represented). A special computer programme is used France 12.1 2.0 2.3 7.8 7.6 7.6
to achieve the weighting as described above. On completion,
Italy 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2
the weighted sample will be identical to the desired sample.
Source: Eurostat. Labour Force Survey. Results 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997.
For the European survey on working conditions (ESWC), the
variables selected for each country are: region, city size,
gender, age, economic activity (NACE) and occupation This issue will have to be monitored closely, especially where
(ISCO). The reference used for the distribution is the 1997 the three most recent Member States (Austria, Sweden and
Labour Force Survey (LFS). The LFS is based on national Finland) are concerned.
surveys which have very large samples (therefore deemed to
be reliable) and identical categories. The ESWC weighting Response rates
was carried out on the basis of the LFS which means that its The table below shows the response rates for the 1995/96
distribution by region, locality, size, gender, age, economic and 2000 surveys.
activity and occupation is identical to that of the LFS
distribution. The response rate for Sweden was not available in 1995/96
and the methodology was different for this country (see the
The two previous European surveys (1990/91 and 1995/96) Second European survey on working conditions).
were carried out following the same methodology. However,
the 1990/91 survey covered only 12 countries and the As the table shows, the rate is stable for Belgium, Greece,
weighting was done on the basis of the 1988 LFS. Although Spain, Italy, Portugal, Finland and the United Kingdom. It
15 counties were covered in 1995/96, Austria, Sweden and improves slightly in the Netherlands (+4) Denmark (+7) and
Finland were not included in the 1993 LFS used for the Luxembourg (+8) and considerably in Germany. There is a
weighting at that time and another active population decline in France (-5), Ireland (-12) and Austria (-14).
structure was drawn on to provide the weighting basis for
these three countries. Moreover, the definitions of some
In all the countries (except Luxembourg) 1500 interviews
categories (e.g. the ‘public sector’) were different from the
were carried out. However, the response rate for contacting
ones used in the LFS. Therefore, comparison between the
the person varies from one country to another. It is always
1995 and 2000 indicators for those countries should be
difficult to assess the impact of non-responses on the results
considered with caution.
of a survey. It is probable that workers with the worst
working conditions, particularly those with ‘unsocial’
There are also limitations to be found in the job category working hours are more difficult to contact and therefore
coding used by the LFS. The ISCO (COM 88) coding is a job less likely to be interviewed. If this hypothesis is correct –
rather than a social classification and there is not always a which has yet to be borne out – a low answer rate would
clear distinction made between employees and the self- create an optimistic bias.
employed. For example, farmers and farm workers (category
6) are not differentiated, nor are independent craft workers
The changes in response rates give an idea of the bias
and craft employees in category 7. Industrial workers are
variation expected for each country. For half the countries,
categorised into 4 different categories (6, 7, 8 and 9) which
the stability of the rate between 1995/96 and 2000 allows
do not take skill levels into account.
one to think that the bias remains constant and therefore
the changes affecting the various indicators are reliable. For
This job classification can also be found in some but not all the other countries, the changes may be partly due to a
national classifications. Therefore the ‘recoding’ carried out measure effect.
by Eurostat from national classifications to a European
classification creates problems. This can be seen in the LFS
The French response rate calls for a specific mention: the
figures for category 1 (legislators and managers) in Italy and
1995/96 response rate was unrealistic; the figure for 2000
France, which show either strong variations from one year to
seems more realistic while remaining among the highest.
another in France or abnormally low rates in Italy. This is

% B DK D EL E F IRL I L NL A P FIN S UK

1995/96 58 35 67/70* 47 77 79 70 43 60 37 81 66 55 NA 58

2000 56 42 76 47 73 74 58 39 68 41 67 68 56 58 56

* covering the German Democratic Republic and German Federal Republic respectively.

2
Methodology

From the second to the third survey, the gap between It should be taken into account when reading the report that
extremes has lessened (from 30 to 96 in 1996/96 to 39 to 76 legal and cultural differences between countries may
in 2000), which indicates a relative uniformity of response influence the way the questions are understood and hence
rates across the EU and makes the results between countries determine the answers given. The level of knowledge or
slightly more comparable. awareness about working environment problems and the
attitudes and concern about such problems vary greatly from
The response rate indicates the percentage of people having one country to another. In some countries the concept of
responded among those initially selected. It does not affect working environment is well known and accepted; in other
the number of interviews carried out (1 500 per country countries the working environment is perceived to be part of
except for Luxembourg = 500). daily life and therefore problems experienced in connection
with working situations are considered to be a ‘normal’ part
Limitations of the survey of the conditions of life and as such not given special
consideration.
It is fair to say that the methodology used in the third survey
does create a number of problems which users of the data
It should be noted that the survey describes working
should bear in mind when analysing and interpreting the
conditions as perceived by the respondents. As can be seen
results.
from the questions in the questionnaire (Annex 1), people
were asked to describe their working conditions, and only
The industrial structure, as well as the sectoral distribution of
occasionally to give an opinion on them. Nevertheless, when
the workforce, differs widely between countries, therefore
considering the figures from the survey, it should be borne in
country comparisons should be made with caution. The
mind that the description of work situations is based on
report provides, where necessary, the various breakdowns
reporting from the workers themselves in face-to-face
which can help to explain, at least partly, why the results
interviews. The aim of the survey is to provide a picture of
differ from one country to the other.
working conditions as they exist. In terms of this objective
and for the reasons mentioned above, the current survey
The sample size in each country is limited to 1 500 workers. certainly has limitations. However, it does provide a picture
This means that breakdowns at country level may result in of the situation, issues and trends for the working
subgroups with an insufficient number of cases to draw population in the EU today. Of course it could, and should,
conclusions. Similarly, the number of cases in each group for be complemented by other information sources (case
each country may be too small to allow conclusions to be studies, company-based questionnaires, etc.) in order to gain
drawn. a more in-depth picture.

On some issues, the data provided by the survey is far from Survey results always need to be validated, whenever
being as detailed and possibly as reliable as the data possible. The second survey results (1995) were compared
provided by more specialised surveys. The aim, however, was with the LFS results for the same year, on the few indicators
not to provide an exhaustive and accurate comparative which were similar. Figures were very close, if not identical,
review on any issue. For example, data on working hours in some cases.
does not give a complete picture of working time in Europe,
but rather enables a link to be made between working time
and working conditions and health outcomes in particular.

3
Chapter 2 Structure of the workforce

This chapter presents a series of tables which give an Table 3 Sectoral distribution of the workforce*
overview of the structure of the workforce as drawn from %
the survey. The structural variables included in the 1995 2000
questionnaire are: occupation, sector, gender, length of time
Agriculture 5 5
in job and company size and status. While most of the data
presented is from the third survey, some comparative data Mining and quarrying and manufacturing 22 21
drawn from all three working conditions surveys (1990, 1995 Electricity, gas and water supply 1 1
and 2000) help to build a picture of trends and changes in
Construction 8 8
the employment situation and working conditions of
workers over a ten-year period. Wholesale and retail trade, repairs 15 15
Hotels and restaurants 4 4

Occupation and sector Transportation and communication 6 6

Table 1 shows the distribution of the working population Financial intermediation 5 3

analysed in the survey according to occupation, using the Real estate and business activities 5 8
ISCO- (COM 88) codes classification (see Annex 3).
Public administration 9 8
Other services 21 22
Table 1 Occupational distribution of the workforce

% Table 4 Detailed sectoral distribution of the workforce*

%
Legislators and managers 8.1
Agriculture, hunting and forestry and fishing 4.6
Professionals 12.9
Mining and quarrying 0.4
Technicians 14.2
Manufacture of food products, beverages and tobacco 2.4
Clerks 13.6
Manufacture of cloths, textile and leather 2.1
Service and sales workers 13.1
Manufacture of wood or paper products 1.1
Agriculture and fishery workers 4.1
Publishing, printing and reproduction of recorded media 1.3
Craft and related trades workers 16.1
Manufacture of minerals, chemical, plastic and rubber 3.2
Plant and machine operators 8.5
Manufacture of metal products, machinery and equipment 5.5
Elementary occupations 8.9
Manufacture of electrical, electronics and precision instruments 2.0
Armed forces 0.6
Manufacture of automobile and other transport equipment 2.0
Manufacture of furniture or recycling 1.3
Table 2 presents the occupational distribution by broad Electricity, gas and water supply 0.8
economic activity: the figures reflect the on-going transfer of
jobs from agriculture and industry towards services. Construction 7.6
Wholesale/retail trades; repair of motor vehicles,
personal and household goods 14.8
Table 2 Distribution of the workforce by economic activity
Hotel and restaurants 3.9
%
Land transport 2.6
1988 1993 1993 1997
Water, air and land transport; supporting transport
(EU 12) (EU 12) (EU 15) (EU 15)
activities, water and air sampling activities 1.7
Agriculture 7.5 6.0 6.0 5.0
Post and telecommunications 1.7
Industry 33.8 31.5 31.0 29.4
Financial intermediation and auxiliary activities, insurance 3.4
Services 58.7 62.5 63.0 65.6
Real estate activities 7.9
Source: Eurostat Public administration and defence; compulsory social security 7.5
Education 6.9
Tables 3 and 4 indicate the breakdown of the working Health and social work 9.6
population by sector of activity (one digit breakdown in
Other community, social and personnel activities 4.5
Table 3 and two digit breakdown in Table 4), using the NACE
code classification for sectors (see Annex 2). As can be seen Private households with employed persons;
from Table 3, the sectoral distribution over the five-year extra-territorial organisations and bodies 1.0
period 1995-2000 remains almost identical.
* See Annex 2 for Nace codes

4
Structure of the workforce

Employment status Table 7 shows that the average duration of a fixed-term

contract is just over three and a half years.
As can be seen from Table 5, the proportion of employed
workers (employees) in the workforce (83%) has been Activity by gender
increasing slightly over the years, not only on average but
also in most countries. This tendency counters the The distribution of the workforce by gender has remained
assumption that the future of work lies in self-employment. on average stable since the last survey period (42% of
workers are women). However, as Table 8 shows, there are
Table 5 Proportion of employees in the workforce, by country significant changes to be seen within job categories. The
number of women working in the higher occupational
%
category of ‘legislator and manager’ has increased, from
Country 1990 1995 2000 30% to 34%, and in the professional bracket from 44% to
B 83 77 83 47%. At the same time, there has been a drop in the number
of women in ‘elementary occupations’ (down 3%) and
DK 91 92 94
clerical jobs (down 4%). Significantly more women are now
D 85* 86* 87 working in sales and services (an increase of 11%), which is
EL 50 54 56 also a reflection of the growth in jobs in this area over the
five-year period in question.
E 73 77 76
F 83 87 87 Table 8 Women in the workforce, by occupation, 1995 and 2000
IRL 74 78 80 %
I 68 67 75 1995 2000
L 87 82 88 Legislators and managers 30 34
NL 88 90 93 Professionals 44 47
A - 88 86 Technicians 46 47
P 71 69 75 Clerks 71 67
FIN - 85 86 Service and sales workers 55 66
S - 92 90 Agriculture and fishery workers 35 26
UK 86 87 86 Craft related trades workers 18 12
EU 81 82 83 Plant and machine operators 23 16

* Former West Germany Elementary occupations 51 48

Armed forces 21 5
Among employees, the proportion having an unlimited
EU 42 42
contract (82%) has remained stable since the last Survey, as
Table 6 shows. However, the distribution among the Table 9 Women in the workforce, by country, 1990-2000
remaining 18% has changed: it seems that a greater
%
proportion of workers (4%) is finding it difficult to fit into
1990 1995 2000
the traditional categories, such as fixed-term contract and
temporary agency contract. B 37 40 41
DK 46 47 45
Table 6 Employment status of employees (Q4)
% D 40* 42* 42
1995 2000 EL 35 35 37
Unlimited contract 81 82 E 36 34 35
Fixed-term contract 11 10 F 42 47 44
Temporary agency contract 3 2 IRL 32 37 39
Apprenticeship 2 2 I 34 40 36
Other 3 4 L 35 36 38
NL 38 40 41
Table 7 Duration of fixed-term contracts A - 41 43
%
P 41 44 45
Less than 1 year 42
FIN - 46 47
1-2 years 26
S - 47 48
2-3 years 20
UK 43 45 45
4 years and over 12
EU 39 42 42
Average duration of contract (in years) 3.6 years
* Former West Germany

5
 Third European survey on working conditions 2000

Table 9 shows the country breakdown of the female working Table 12 Number of workers having a second job
population, which is reflective of the overall rise in the %
number of women entering the workforce in the EU over the Regular 2.5
ten-year period 1990-2000. Only two countries – Denmark Occasional 2.5
and Spain – showed a decline in the number of women
working, which perhaps reflects a decline in overall Seasonal 1.0
employment in those two countries. Ireland had the most Average number of hours per week 12.2 hours
spectacular increase in this respect, at 7%: this may be
explained by the twin factors of a high level of overall
Company status and size
employment growth in this country and a significant change
in the composition of the workforce, with more women than Table 13 shows the breakdown of the working population in
ever entering the workforce. the EU in 2000 in terms of type of company. An average of
69% of respondents work in the private sector. As can be
Activity by age group, 1995 and 2000 seen from Table 14, there are wide differences between
countries in this respect. The public sector is significantly
The gradual ageing of the workforce in the European Union larger in the Scandinavian countries while the highest
is evident from the figures presented in Table 10: there is an proportion of privately-owned companies (with both
increase of 2% in the numbers of persons in the 45-54 age employees and self-employed) is found in Italy, the
bracket, and a corresponding decline in the number of Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain.
persons under the age of 35.
Table 13 Company status
Table 10 Distribution of the workforce by age group,
%
1995 and 2000 (EF11)
% National or local government institution 18
1995 2000 State-owned company 7
15-24 years 13 12 Private company 69
25-34 years 29 27 Other 6

35-44 years 27 27
Table 14 Company status, by country
45-54 years 21 23
%
55+ years 10 11
National or local State- Private Other
government owned company
Length of employment
institution company
Table 11 shows figures for the length of employment (both
B 21 7 68 4
in the job and in the company) of the working population in
2000, where it can be seen that the vast majority of workers DK 14 19 65 2
remain in the same post and company for between one and D 19 7 71 2
10 years, the average length of time being between 10 and
EL 10 8 41 41
12 years.
E 10 7 76 7
Table 11 Length of employment F 20 10 66 5
%
IRL 14 6 58 21
Less than 1-10 years 10 years Average
1 year and over (no. of years) I 14 8 75 3

No. of years in L 14 16 63 8
present company 12 46 42 11.4 NL 18 2 74 6
No. of years in A 21 3 71 4
present job 12 49 39 10.9
P 9 6 73 12
Second job FIN 26 6 63 4
6% of all workers reported having a second job, mainly on S 31 7 60 2
an occasional or seasonal basis, and the average number of
UK 20 4 67 8
hours spent at this job is 12 hours per week.
EU15 18 7 69 6

6
Structure of the workforce

With regard to the size of company, the majority of Supervision

respondents (63%) are working in establishments of less Overall, 20% of respondents report having staff under their
than 50 workers, as Table 15 illustrates. Companies with the supervision, 24% of men and 14% of women, as shown in
self-employed owner working without other employees Table 16.
account for 10%, while 53% fit into the category of small
and medium sized enterprises (0-49 employees).
Table 16 Supervision

Table 15 Company size %

No. of workers % (Q.8) Male Female Total

Working alone 10 How many people none 75.2 85.8 79.6

work under your 1-4 12.5 8.1 10.6
2-9 27 supervision, for
whom pay increases, 5-9 4.8 2.9 4.0
10-49 26
bonuses or
50-99 10 promotion depend 10 and over 7.1 2.6 5.2
directly on you?
100-500 16 don’t know 0.5 0.7 0.6

500 + 11

7
Chapter 3 Nature of work

Working with computers (Q12.4) Figure 2 shows the level of computer use by country in 2000,
The proportion of people working with computers (at least revealing a very high level in northern European countries
occasionally) has slightly increased from 39% in 1995 to 41% led by the Netherlands and the UK and a relatively low level
in 2000. This growth is higher among the self-employed but in southern European countries like Greece and Portugal.
they still do not use computers as much as employees (33%
Teleworking (Q12.5)
compared to 43%). Among employees, the proportion of
those on fixed-term contracts using computers is catching up The survey reveals that teleworking is no longer an
with those on permanent contracts. exceptional phenomenon in 2000. One self-employed person
in ten and 4% of all employees telework for at least one-
An analysis of computer use by sector (Figure 1) reveals a low quarter of their time. Teleworking on a full-time basis is
level in areas such as agriculture and fishing, hotels and carried out by just over 1% of the working population (1.5
catering, and construction, a medium level in manufacturing million). Occasional teleworking is more widespread (5% of
and wholesale and retail trade, and more intensive use in workers), particularly among northern European countries.
financial intermediation, real estate and public As Figure 3 shows, there are wide disparities between
administration. There is little or no increase among blue- countries, with the UK having the highest number of persons
collar workers. (10%) teleworking at least one quarter of the time.

Figure 1 Those working with computers (by sector) Telework is often carried out under a ‘particular type of
contract’: around half of these are self-employed; among
% employees who telework 10% have fixed-term contracts and
86
11% have ‘atypical’ contracts (classified ‘other’). As can be
77 seen from Figure 4, teleworking is more common in certain
occupations and higher professional categories: 15% of
64 managers, 12% of professionals and 8% of technicians
55
engage in teleworking at least one quarter of the time,
48
52
compared to only 1% of craft workers and machine
42
operators. Teleworking is also common in the financial
41
38
36 37 intermediation and real estate sectors.
33
30

22
25 Direct contact with clients (Q12.7)
19
17
15 14
The proportion of workers stating that they are in contact
13
10 10 with people outside their workplace has fallen (from 69% in
4 3 1995 to 64% in 2000). For the self-employed, this decrease
could be the result of structural changes, arising from the fall
ing
e

de
tion

rs
min g
def on

ns

lth

ing
d
dia l

ly

atio d

ts
and ation

fish e
nd

d
rme ncia

enc
tat

ctio
and cturin

ret le an

and ltur
mu rt an

rke
res els an
upp

ran
tra
and strati

in the number of those working in small shops and the

hea
wa gas a
l es
inte Fina

wo
stru

ricu
tau
c
s

ail
nic
ocmanspo

sa

Edu
a
ter
Rea

increase in the number of self-employed professionals. This

t
ini

nuf

Ho
ole

All
,

Ag
Con
city

dm

Wh
Ma

hypothesis is reinforced by the fall in the number of self-

Tr
ctri

lic a
Ele

employed whose work rhythm is dependent on outside

Pub

demands (see Chapter 5).

At least one quarter of the time All the time

Figure 2 Those working with computers (by country) Figure 3 Those teleworking from home (by country)

% 10 %
60
9
54
51 8
48 47 47
44 7
41 41 40 41
39
6 6 6
35
33
5 5
29 28
26 25
24 4 4 4 4
23 23
20 20 19 19
17 17 18 3 3 3
15 14
11 10 2 2 2 2 2 2

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 0

NL UK FIN S B L DK D IRL FR A I E P EL EU 15 UK L FIN NL A B DK S E F IRL D EL P I EU 15

At least one quarter of the time All the time At least one quarter of the time All the time

8
Nature of work

Figure 4 Those teleworking from home (by occupation) Figure 6 Workers dealing directly with people who are not
employees in the workplace (by occupation)
15
%
83 83 82
%

73 73 72
12

64

58
55
All the time
48
45
8 43
42 41 41
At least one quarter of the 40
time 37
26
5 23
19
4 4 17

3
8
2 2

1 1 1 1 1 1

ors

rs
ers

ces
ers
als
rs

rks

ers

tion
cian
0 0 0 0 0

rke
rke

sion
nag

ork

rat
Cle

for
ork

upa

wo
wo

hni
ers
rs

ors

s
ers

als

rks

rs

rs
wo ral

ope chine

upa ry

ope
tion
cian

al w
ft w

ed
Ma

fes
rke
rke

rke
occ enta
sion

ork
ltu

Tec
nag

Cle

rat

All
occ
vice

Arm
Pro

ne
hni

wo

wo

ltur
Cra
ricu

Ma
ft w

m
Ma

fes

ry
Ser

chi
Tec

Ele
vice

All

ricu
nta
Ag
Pro

Cra

Ma
me

Ag
Ser

Ele
At least one quarter of the time All the time At least one quarter of the time All the time

For employees, the decrease is smaller but more difficult to Gender differences are evident here, a high proportion of
interpret as their pace of work is even more dependent on women report contact with people outside the workplace:
outside demands than in 1995. However, these two over one in two women (54%) have contact all of the time
indicators are not necessarily contradictory. The policy of and almost three-quarters (71%) part of the time, compared
‘lean production’ (i.e. the reduction in the workforce) and to 34% and 59% of men. This may be accounted for by the
the introduction of ‘just in time’ practices in companies could fact that women tend to occupy certain types of jobs, such as
be an explanation: while a smaller number of employees are sales and services, medical and teaching professions, and
affected by tasks in contact with the public, the pressure clerical posts, which have a high degree of contact with
from external demands is greater for all employees, external persons, as Figure 6 shows.
including and increasingly in industry. This phenomenon
shows up clearly in some national surveys on working
conditions. Table 17 Nature of work
%

Figure 5 Workers dealing directly with people who are not All Workers 1990 1995 2000
employees in the workplace (by sector) Working with - 18 19
computers (Q12.4) (38) (41)
82 %
79 78
76 Teleworking (Q12.5) - - 1
71 71 (5)
67 66
63 64 64
Direct contact with - 49 43
59
clients (Q12.7) (69) (64)
52
50
48
Working at home - - 3
42 43
38 37
(Q12.6) (8)
35

29
24 Figures between parentheses: ≥ 25% of the time
19
15

Working at home
Working at home varies greatly between occupations:
ing
lth

ts

te

rs
tion

ing

min g
de

ns

ply
dia l

fish e
def n
tra e

atio d

ter and
rme ncia

enc

ctio

and cturin
and cultur
o
ret lesal

ran

rke
mu rt an

farmers, managers and professionals report a higher rate.

a
hea

and strati
t

sup
l es

wo
inte Fina
tau

stru
, ga
and Who
ail

nic
comanspo
and

Rea

a
ri
ini
res

nuf

All
Ag
Con
city
wa
dm
ion

and

Ma
Tr

ctri
lic a
cat

Ele
tels
Edu

Pub
Ho

At least one quarter of the time All the time

9
Chapter 4 Physical work factors

The results from 2000 confirm the trends previously observed

in 1995, mainly that there are no improvements reported on Figure 8 Workers exposed to noise in the workplace
these issues. While in general workers’ perceptions of their (by occupation)
health and safety being at risk have shown an improvement
%
during the past ten years, exposure to physical hazards at the 60 59

workplace and conditions such as musculo-skeletal disorders

and fatigue caused by intensification of work and flexible
employment practices are on the increase. When changes
occur there is a balance between slight improvements 39
(exposure to cold, inhalation of vapours/fumes) and slight 37
33
deteriorations (exposure to high-level noise, carrying of 30 29
heavy loads, working in painful positions).
24
20
18
The main area of improvement has to do with coping with 15
17 17

these work situations: information on possible risks has 13

11
9
improved (from 72% to 78% — see also Chapter 7)) and the 6 6 7
5 4
use of protective equipment has increased (from 16% to 2

21%), although this does not in itself reduce the source of

ers

ces

rs
ors

ers

ers
s

rs

als

rks
upa ry
tion

cian

rke
rke
the problem. Information has improved for all types of

occ enta

sion
ork

ork

nag

Cle
for
rat

wo
hni

wo
ope
ft w

al w

ed

Ma

fes
employment status except for temporary workers (down

Tec
Ele

All
vice
Arm

Pro
Cra

ne

ltur

8%).

Ser
chi

ricu
Ma

Ag

Gender differences At least one quarter of the time All the time
They remain important as reported in previous surveys (men
are more exposed on all issues except painful/tiring positions
where the rates are identical). Sectors
A significant deterioration in painful positions and the
Status carrying of heavy loads is reported in both manufacturing
Non-permanent workers (temporary agency and fixed-term and construction between 1995 and 2000.
contracts) are significantly more exposed to carrying heavy
loads and to working in painful positions. There is no pattern Occupations
with regard to other indicators, with the exception of Blue-collar workers are significantly more exposed to all risk
apprentices, who are more exposed to dangerous factors. The increase in exposure to painful positions is
substances, air pollution and vibrations.

Figure 9 Workers exposed to vibrations in the workplace

(by occupation)

Figure 7 Employees well-informed about the risks in using %

59
materials, instruments or products
52

% 47
80 79
77

71

62 31 32

25 24
21

14 15
12 13
11 10
8
4 5 5 5
2 3
1
ers
rks

rs

s
als

rs
ces

ers

ors

ers
upa ry
cian

tion
rke

rke
nag

occ enta
sion
Cle

ork

ork
for

rat
wo

hni

wo
Ma

ope
al w

ft w
ed

m
fes

Tec

Ele
vice

All
Arm
Pro

ne

Cra
ltur
Ser

chi
ricu

Apprenticeship Indefinite Fixed-term Temporary All

Ma
Ag

contract contract agency employees

contract
At least one quarter of the time All the time

10
Physical work factors

significant for sales/service workers and for technicians Table 18 Physical work factors
between 1995 to 2000. There has also been a significant rise %
in the figures for carrying heavy loads for elementary
occupations, plant operators, craft workers and technicians Question All workers 1990 1995 2000
and a rise in the number of craft workers and plant number
operators exposed to noise. There is a slight decrease for all Q11.2 Noise 10 10 11
occupations with regard to exposure to heat. Improvements (27) (28) (29)
for breathing in vapours/fumes, etc. are reported for Q11.1 Vibrations - 11 10
elementary occupations (+4). (24) (24)
Q11.3 Heat 5 6
Figure 10 Workers inhaling vapours, fumes, dust, etc 13 (20) (23)
(by occupation)
Q11.4 Cold (33) 5 4
(23) (21)
%
47
Q11.5 Inhalation of vapours, 10 11 9
42
fumes, etc. (27) (23) (22)

34 Q11.6 Handling dangerous 5 5 5

substances (14) (14) (16)
28
Q11.7 Radiations - 2 2
22 22
19 20 (5) (6)
15 15
12 12 13 Q12.1 Painful positions 16 18 18
11 11
7
9 (43) (45) (47)
5 6 5
3 2 Q12.2 Heavy loads 9 11 12
(31) (33) (37)
ors

als

rks
s

ces

rs

s
ers

ers

rs
ers
ion

cian
rke

rke
sion

Cle
ork

ork
rat

nag
for
pat

Q12.8 Wearing protective - 16 21

wo

hni

wo
ope
ft w

al w

ed

fes
Ma
ccu

Tec
vice

All

equipment (25) (30)

Arm

Pro
ne
Cra

ltur

ry o

Ser
chi

ricu

nta

Q13 Informed about risks - 72 76

Ma

Ag

me

(well and quite well)

Ele

At least one quarter of the time All the time Figures between parentheses: ≥ 25% of the time

Figure 11 Workers having to work in painful or tiring positions Figure 12 Workers having to move or carry heavy loads
(by occupation) (by occupation)

77
75 % %

65
60 60
58
56
51
49
47
44
39
37 38 37

32
29 30 29
27 27 27 27
25
23 22
21
19
18 17
14
12 12 12
10 10 10
8 7 7
6
4 3
2
ors
ers

rs

ers

ces

als

rks

rs
s
upa ry
rs
wo ral
s
rs

ers

ors

rs

ces

als

rks

ers

rs
upa ry

cian
wo ral

tion
tion

cian

rke

rke
rke

occ enta
rke

rke

rke

sion
occ nta

ork

nag

Cle
rat

for
ltu
sion
ltu

ork

Cle

nag
rat

for

wo

hni

wo
wo

hni

wo

ope
ricu
me

ft w
ricu

ope

ed
m

Ma

fes
ft w

ed

fes

Ma

Tec
Ele

vice

All
Tec

Arm
Ele

vice

All

Pro
Ag
Arm
Ag

Pro

ne
Cra
Cra

ne

Ser
chi
Ser
chi

Ma
Ma

At least one quarter of the time All the time At least one quarter of the time All the time

11
Chapter 5 Work organisation

Repetitive work Table 19 Repetitive work

This was assessed through 2 indicators: repetitive movements %
(arm/hand) and repetitive tasks (time scale from 5 seconds to Question All Workers 1990 1995 2000
less than 10 minutes). number
Q12.3 Repetitive movements - 57 57
Repetitive movements
(33) (31)
Averages remain the same from 1995 to 2000. Distribution
among occupations has changed slightly: whereas in 1995 Q21 Short repetitive tasks 51
skilled blue-collar workers were more exposed (compared to < 10 min - 37* 32**
unskilled blue-collar workers), the situation is reversed now.
< 5 min - 29
Female and male workers’ scores are identical (whereas in
1995 female workers were reporting more repetitive Repetitive tasks < 1 min - 23
movements). Temporary workers remain significantly more < 30 sec - 18
exposed.
< 5 sec - 15

Figure 13 Continuously exposed to repetitive hand/arm

* Frequency scale (≥ 25% of time)
** Time scale
movements (by occupation)

%
Job control
54
Job control was assessed through indicators which have
46
remained identical over the years. While in the period 1990
to 1995, there was a dramatic increase in the proportion of
41
workers exercising autonomy over their work, in the next
37
period, to 2000, this has stabilised. However, there was a
31 31 sharp decline in the level of control among some
28
occupations in the later period: for example, among plant
and machine operators, service workers, and workers in the
20
transport and communications sector. Table 20 shows the
17 17
14 figures for workers having a negative perception of their
work autonomy in 1995 and 2000.

Control over order of tasks, work methods and pace of

work (Q25)
s
als

ces

ers

rs

rks

rs
rs

ers

ors
upa ry
wo ral

tion
cian

rke

rke
rke

occ enta

These three indicators have remained remarkably stable

sion

ltu
nag

Cle

ork
for

rat
hni

wo

wo
ricu

ope
ft w
ed

m
fes

Ma

between 1995 and 2000. Almost two-thirds (64%) of

Tec

Ele
vice

All
Arm

Ag
Pro

Cra

ne

respondents, male as well as female workers, and 60% of

Ser

chi
Ma

employees are able to decide on the order of their tasks;

70% and 64% have control over their methods of work, the
same figures in 1995 and in 2000. The percentage of those
Repetitive tasks who can influence their pace of work diminishes (-1),
The questions have changed which makes comparison more respectively at 70% and 66% in 2000.
difficult. In 1990 no time limit was set (23% of workers
reported permanent repetitive work); in 1995 a 10-minute
The 1995 figures already indicated a clear hierarchy between
time limit was introduced (16% of workers reported
the various employment status. This hierarchy remains and
permanent repetitive work); in 2000 the frequency scale was
increases in 2000. The situation worsens for temporary
replaced by a time scale. A high rate of ‘don’t knows’ was
agency workers: they were already the least autonomous in
reported (5%) which possibly indicates that the question was
1995 (48%, 57% and 55%) and are even less so in 2000 (37%,
somewhat misleading (confusion between repetitive
49% and 48%). The situation remains identical for
movements and repetitive tasks, as exemplified by the fact
permanent and fixed-term contracts.
that 13% of managers report repetitive tasks of less than 5
seconds). Therefore, results have to be considered with
caution although the same countries top the list for With regard to occupations, in 1995 autonomy increased
repetitive tasks in 1995 and in 2000 and both temporary with skills and social hierarchy, with the exception of
agency workers and fixed-term contracts report higher elementary occupations where the situation was slightly
repetitive work. Differences between men and women are better than that of plant workers. In 2000, the hierarchy
small both in 1995 and 2000. remains and inequalities increase: the three most qualified
categories remain at the same level or improve slightly, the

12
Work organisation

Figure 14 Employees having no influence over their pace Figure 15 Employees having influence over their working
of work (by contract) hours (by country)

% %
58
56
51
53
52
51
48
47 47 47
42 45
44
43
42 42
41
35
33
32

30

Apprenticeship Indefinite Fixed-term Temporary All DK S NL UK FIN EL A B IRL F I L P D E EU 15

contract contract agency employees
contract

other categories either remain stable or deteriorate where no big difference is discernible, except in the case of
(particularly for plant operators and service workers). Spain which has a relatively low degree of control.

With regard to sectors, evolutions are not clear cut except Table 20 Job control
for transport and communication workers where a strong %
deterioration can be seen.
Question All workers 1990 1995 2000
number
Control over breaks and holidays (Q26.2/3)
The liberty people have to take a break or holidays when Q25.1 No control over task order - 35 35
desired slightly decreases between 1995 (63% and 57%) and Q25.2 No control over work methods 38 28 29
2000 (61% and 56%). The difference between men (64% and
59%) and women (55% and 52%) remains. Q25.3 No control over speed 35 28 30
Q26.2 No break when desired - 37 39
There is a noticeable distinction in the level of control over Q26.3 No possibility to choose when - 41 43
breaks and holidays between self-employed workers and to take holidays
employees, the former having significantly more freedom
(86% and 84%) than the latter (56% and 50%). Among Q26.4 No influence on working hours - - 55
employees, the hierarchy between the various status Q26.6 No access to telephone - - 29
prevalent in other aspects of autonomy increases here also.

Among occupations, the situation for service workers Pace of work

deteriorates. Among sectors the situation also disimproves in Work intensity
hotels and restaurants, transport and communication and in Three indicators provide information on this issue, two since
other services. It improves in financial intermediation and 1990 (‘very high speed’ and ‘tight deadlines’) and one since
public administration. 1995 (‘enough time to do the job’). They show an
intensification of work over the last decade, although not as
Control over working hours (Q26.4) marked over the last five years.
The 2000 survey shows that 44% of workers have an
influence over their working hours. The difference between There is a very strong link between the degree of intensity
the self-employed and other employees in this respect is on the one hand and reported health problems and absence
striking: almost double the number of self-employed (84% due to accidents on the other. Workers exposed to high
compared to 36%) have the freedom to choose their intensity are also more likely to report tiring and painful
working hours. The differences among other categories are positions (see Tables 22 and 23).
less marked but still significant: men 47% against women
41%; employees on permanent contracts 38% against those Time to do the job (Q26.5)
on fixed-term contracts 29% and temporary agency 77% of all respondents and 76% of employees report that
contracts 23%. they have enough time to do the job, both in 2000 as in
1995. The proportion increases for self-employed (from 81%
As with other facets of job autonomy, the higher skilled and to 84%). Among employees, the figure for those on
better qualified the worker, the greater the level of control permanent contracts remains at 70% while for those on
over working hours. Figure 15 shows the country breakdown fixed-term contracts it increases (from 75% to 77%) and for

13
 Third European survey on working conditions 2000

Figure 16 Continuously working at high speed (by country) Figure 17 Continuously working at high speed (by occupation)

% %

36

32
35
28
27
25 25 25 28 28
24 24 24
23 23 24
21 23 23 23
21 21
20 20
18 18
16

ors
rs
rks

ces

ers

als

ers

rs
rs

upa ry
wo al

tion
cian
rke

rke
rke
ltur

occ enta
sion
Cle

nag

ork

rat
for

hni

wo
wo
ricu

ope
ft w

m
ed

Ma

fes

Tec

Ele

All
vice
Arm

Ag
Pro

ne
Cra
S NL EL FIN D F UK L P A I DK B IRL E EU 15

Ser

chi
Ma
those on temporary agency contracts it decreases (from 78% Table 22 Working at very high speed and its effects on health
to 71%). %

Working at very high speed (Q21.2) Health problems due to All the time Almost never
56% of all respondents (58% of men and 54% of women) high speed work or almost all or never
report working at very high speed for at least one quarter of of the time
their time in 2000 and one in four (24%) reports working at Health affected by work 73 50
high speed all the time or almost all the time.
Backache 46 25

Increases are similar (+1) for both the self-employed and Headache 22 11
employees. Among employees, those on indefinite contracts Muscular pain in shoulders and neck 35 15
(54% to 57%) and those on temporary agency contracts
Muscular pain in upper limbs 20 9
(53% to 59%) show an increase, whereas those on fixed-
term contracts show a decrease (58% to 54%). With regard Muscular pain in lower limbs 18 8
to occupations, the changes between 1995 and 2000 are Stress 40 21
shown in the Table 21.
Overall fatigue 33 18

Table 21 Working at high speed or working to deadlines Sleeping problems 11 6

(variations between 1995 and 2000) Anxiety 11 6
% Irritability 15 8
Occupation Working at Working to Injury 11 5
high speed deadlines Trauma 3 1
Legislators and managers -7 (-5) -2 (id) At least 1 day’s absence due 10 6
Professionals +4 (+4) +1 (+2) to accident at work
Technicians +8 (+3) +8 (+2) Painful or tiring position 61 35
Clerks +0 (+4) +3 (-3) at least 1/4 of the time

Service and sales workers +3 (id) -2 (-1)

Tight deadlines (Q21.3)
Agriculture and fishery workers -1 (-5) +4 (id) Almost two in three workers (60%) have to contend with
Craft related trades workers +5 (+1) +7 (+3) tight deadlines for at least one quarter of their time in 2000
(male 64%, female 54%), up four points from 1995 (56%,
Plant and machine operators +0 (-2) +5 (-2)
men 61%, women 50%). The proportion of those having to
Elementary occupations -2 (-2) +6 (+3) meet tight deadlines all the time or almost all of the time
Armed forces +0 (-4) -1 (+3) remains stable at 29%.
Figures between parentheses: all the time and almost all the time
Among employees, temporary agency workers report the
strongest increase (+8). In fact, the figure for non-permanent
workers (temporary and fixed-term contracts) is now
catching up with that for permanent workers.

14
Work organisation

Pace of work dependent on the direct control of the boss is

Figure 18 Continuously working to tight deadlines (by sector)
decreasing (-2), in favour of demands from colleagues (+6).
%
Pace induced by colleagues (Q22.1)
This is the factor which has seen the biggest increase (from
37% to 43%), mainly due to the increase among employees
(from 41% to 48%) and male workers (from 42% to 52%).
40
38
37
36
33
35
Among employees, disparities between the various status
29
categories are tending to diminish: indefinite contracts from
27
40% to 48%, fixed-term contracts from 43% to 49%, and
24
21
22 temporary agency workers from 48% to 53%. The pace of
20
work induced by colleagues has increased throughout all
countries and all occupations (except agriculture and
elementary occupations).

Pace induced by external demand (Q22.2)

This factor has increased from 67% in 1995 to 69% in 2000.
n

e
ing

ns
ing

min g

atio d
and ulture

lth

tion

ts
nce
e

n
tail and

EU
ply
sup d

tat
ctio
rad

and urin

mu rt an
and stratio

ran
hea

wa gas a
fish

This is mainly due to the increase for female workers (from

All
efe

l es
dia
sale
t

stru
tau

act

nic
com nspo
ric

and

Rea
rme
ter
ini

71% to 75%) while the proportion for male workers remains

nuf
res
ole
Ag

Con
city
e
dm
r

Tra
inte
ion
Wh

Ma
and
ctri

stable (64%).
lic a

cat

ial
Ele

tels
Pub

Edu

anc

Ho
Fin

Self-employed workers report a reduction from 80% to 76%.

This is probably due to structural changes in this category.
Table 23 Working to tight deadlines and its effects on health
%
Figure 19 Workers whose pace of work is induced by direct
Health problems due All the time Almost never customer demand (by occupation)
to high speed work or almost all or never
of the time %
86
Health affected by work 69 53 81
83

76 77
Backache 42 27
69
Headache 21 11
Muscular pain in shoulders and neck 31 17 57
53
Muscular pain in upper limbs 18 10 50
45
Muscular pain in lower limbs 16 10
38
Stress 40 20
Overall fatigue 31 19
Sleeping problems 12 5
Anxiety 11 5
Irritability 16 7
ors
s
upa tary
rs

ces

ers

rks

als

ers

rs

rs
wo ral

tion

cian
rke

rke

rke

Injury 10 5
rat

sion
ltu

ork

Cle

nag
for
n

hni

wo

wo
me

ope
ricu

ft w
ed

fes

Ma
Tec

Trauma 3 2
Ele
occ

vice

All
Arm
Ag

Pro
ne

Cra

Ser
chi

At least 1 day’s absence due 9 6

Ma

to accident at work
Painful or tiring position 57 37
at least 1/4 of the time Among employees, workers on all types of contract are
affected by the increase, particularly temporary agency
Correlation between health and intensity workers (from 53% to 60%).
As shown in Tables 22 and 23, those having to work at high
speed or to tight deadlines report more stress.
There are opposing trends among countries: from a
reduction in Portugal (–7), to increases in Greece (+10) and
Factors of pace Finland (+12).
Since 1995 the survey includes five factors of pace. On the
one hand, ‘industrial/normative’ factors (production targets, Among occupations, opposing trends are also reported: an
machines) are decreasing, even more so for female workers increase for all white-collar workers and a slight decrease for
than for male workers. On the other hand, ‘market’ factors blue-collar workers.
(external demands) are on the increase, again particularly for
female workers.

15
 Third European survey on working conditions 2000

Pace induced by numerical production targets (Q22.3)1 Interruptions (Q23)

The proportion of workers whose pace is induced by the Over one quarter (28%) of workers report several
speed of machines or the moving of a product has declined interruptions every day to perform unplanned tasks and 19%
from 22% to 20%, essentially for female workers (from 17% report that this happens a few times a day.
to 14%) as the rate for male workers remains identical
(25%). The decrease applies to both the self-employed and These interruptions are more likely to affect female workers
all categories of employed workers. and white-collar workers in general (managers, technicians
and clerks). In two-thirds of these cases, these interruptions
Among countries, diverging trends can be observed. Sweden are seen as being part of the job and linked to ‘its nature’.
remains a remarkable case with very low rates both in 1995 Other reasons reported are: external demands (43%, mostly
(12%) and 2000 (8%). reported by female workers), internal demands (39%), poor
functioning of machines and equipment (10%, mostly
Pace induced by the direct control of the boss (Q22.5) reported by male workers), poor work organisation (10%,
The proportion of workers whose pace is induced by direct mostly reported by men) and design of workplaces (4%). For
hierarchical control falls from 34% to 32% in 2000. This 33% of workers reporting such interruptions they are
mainly affects employed workers and more so those with disruptive, for 12% they are positive.
fixed-term contracts (from 51% to 44%) than those with
indefinite contracts (from 37% to 36%). The decrease applies Job content
to all countries and all occupations except clerks and craft The indicators on ‘complex tasks’ and ‘having to solve
workers. unforeseen problems’ are difficult to interpret and it is
therefore difficult to assess the reality they cover.

Table 24 Pace of work

%
Question All Workers 1990 1995 2000
number
Q26.5 Enough time to do job (yes) - 77 77
Q23 How often do you Several times a day - 28
have to interrupt
your work? A few times a day - - 19
due to nature of work - - 66
due to bad organisation - - 10
due to requests from colleagues/superiors - - 39
Are these interruptions … due to customer requests - - 43
due to machines/equipment - - 10
due to bad design - - 4
disruptive - - 33
without consequence - - 47
positive - - 12
Q21.b.1 High speed 47 54 56
(18) (25) (24)
Q21.b.2 Tight deadlines 49 56 60
(23) (29) (29)
Q22.1 Colleagues - 37 43
Q22.2 External demands - 67 69
Q22.3 Pace dependent on: Numerical production targets* - 35 31
Q22.4 Speed machine - 22 20
Q22.5 Boss - 34 32

Figures between parentheses: all the time and almost all the time

* Question modified: ‘production targets’ in 1995; ‘numerical production targets’ in 2000

1
Please note that the question was modified from ‘production targets’ in 1995 to ‘numerical production targets’ in 2000

16
Work organisation

Nevertheless they are extremely stable over time and appear

Figure 20 Work involving monotonous tasks (by occupation)
to reflect more the respondents’ social position than the
exact content of their work. %

The other indicators are less coherent. There is an inherent 57 57

contradiction in the fact that decreases are reported in both
monotonous work and learning opportunities and across all
job categories. This makes it hard to draw any conclusions 43 44 45

with regard to job enrichment. 39 39 40

36

Meeting precise quality standards (Q24.1) 28

The proportion of male workers having to meet such 25

standards remains identical from 1995 to 2000 (74%), while

female workers report a decline (from 66% to 64%). The
decrease for the self-employed is greater than that for
employed workers over the five-year period, both categories
attaining 70% in 2000. There are variations among types of
employees: this kind of work has decreased for fixed-term

s
upa ry
als

ers

ces

rs

rks

ers

ers

ors

rs
tion
cian

rke

occ nta

rke
workers (from 67% to 65%), increased for temporary agency

sion

nag

Cle

ork

ork
for

rat
hni

wo

wo
me
ope
ft w

al w
ed
fes

Ma
workers (from 66% to 70%) and is the same in 2000 as in

Tec

Ele
vice

All
Arm
Pro

Cra

ne
ltur
1995 for permanent employees.

Ser

chi
ricu

Ma
Ag
This relative stability masks differing trends among job
categories: an increase for craft workers between 1995 and
2000 (from 83% to 87%) and for plant operators (from 72% (40%). The improvement applies to all categories of
to 77%), while rates fall for all other job categories. employees while status hierarchy remains. As Figure 20
illustrates, there is a wide variation between the different
The proportion of those with indefinite contracts remains occupations, professionals and managers being the least
stable at 71%, it falls for fixed-term contracts (from 67% to concerned by this kind of work (only a quarter of workers)
65%) and increases for temporary agency workers (from and workers in elementary occupations and machine
66% to 70%). operators being the most concerned (over half of these
workers). Over the five-year period 1995-2000, monotonous
Assessing quality (Q24.2) tasks decrease in all job categories, except for sales and
In 2000, three-quarters of all workers (75%) reported having service workers, and in all sectors except for the construction
to evaluate the quality of their work themselves, a figure just industry.
slightly lower than in 1995 (76%). This relative stability hides
the steep shift between the self-employed and employees Complex tasks (Q24.5)
(from 77% to 84%). Among the latter, the decrease is Over half of all workers (56%) report carrying out complex
significant for temporary agency workers (from 68% to 57%) tasks in 2000, substantially more women (62%) than men
and slightly less for those on indefinite contracts (from 77% (50%). As for the other types of work mentioned above, the
to 74%). rates reflect the hierarchical status which exists between
employment categories. The situation in 2000 was similar to
Solving unforeseen problems (Q24.3) that in 1995, except for a significant fall among sales and
The proportion of workers having to solve unforeseen service workers (from 47% to 38%).
problems that arise in the course of their work remains
identical between 1995 and 2000 at 82%. The gender Learning new things (Q24.6)
breakdown in 2000 was 82% men and 79% women, the In 2000, 71% of workers report learning new things in their
same as in to 1995. work, male workers (72%) more than female workers (70%),
employed workers (71%) more than self-employed (70%).
Among employees, the situation for workers on indefinite
contracts remains identical over the period (82%) while In 1995, these proportions were higher for male than for
workers on fixed-term contracts show an increase (from 71% female workers (+3), for self-employed (+7) than for
to 76%); conversely, those on temporary agency contracts employees (+3). Among employees, learning opportunities
report a decline in this kind of work (from 70% to 60%). decrease for indefinite contracts (from 75% to 72%) and
These levels reflect the possibility to solve unforeseen increase for fixed-term contracts (from 69% to 73%) and
problems among occupational groups: 97% of managers temporary agency contracts (from 58% to 60%).
compared to 66% of workers in elementary occupations
have work of a problem-solving nature, an identical Figure 21 shows the breakdown by occupational group,
situation in 1995 and 2000. where a very high degree of learning opportunities can be
noted among professionals (92%) and a low level among
Monotonous tasks (Q24.4) service and elementary workers (a decrease of 10% for both
The proportion of those having to perform monotonous since 1995).
tasks drops significantly between 1995 (45%) and 2000

17
 Third European survey on working conditions 2000

Teamwork (Q27.b.2)
Figure 21 Learning new things in the job (by occupation)
56% of respondents (60% of employees) report doing all or
% part of their work in a team. Among employees, men (62%)
91 92 work in this way more often than women (58%). Team work
85 is a difficult concept to use. Responses show a clear line
76
78 between northern and southern Europe and it is not clear
72 72 whether this reflects organisational or cultural differences.
63
59
56
Support from colleagues (Q26.1)
In 2000, 82% of workers can rely on colleagues in case of
38
problems, women (81%) less so than men (83%). The
situation for employees (89%) has not changed since
between 1995 and 2000.

Figure 22 Employees unable to get assistance of colleagues

s

ers

rs

ers

rks

ers

ces

als

rs
ors
upa ry
tion

cian

when required (by contract)

rke

rke
occ enta

sion
ork

ork

Cle

nag

for
rat

wo

hni

wo
ope

al w

ft w

ed
m

Ma

fes
Tec
Ele

vice

All
Arm

Pro

%
Cra
ne

ltur

Ser
chi

ricu
Ma

17
Ag

In 1995, these proportions were similarly higher for male

than for female workers (+3); in contrast to 2000, a higher 11
10
number of the self-employed (+7) reported learning
opportunities than employees (+3). 8
7

Table 25 Job content

%

Job content – all workers 1990 1995 2000

Meeting quality standards - 71 70
Apprenticeship Indefinite Fixed-term Temporary All
Assessing quality - 76 75 contract contract agency employees
contract
Solving problems - 82 82
Monotonous tasks - 45 40
Complex tasks - 57 56
Learning - 74 71
Figure 23 Workers whose skills do not match job demands
(by occupation)
Skills, training and empowerment
%
Responsibilities with regard to production planning,
staffing and working times and shifts
These three indicators provide information on the level of
responsibilities. There are significant gender differences:
21
20% of employees have planning responsibility (24% of men
19
and 15% of women); 16% have staffing responsibilities (19% 18

of men and 13% of women); 15% have working time 16

15
responsibilities (16% of men and 13% of women). The 14 14 14
13
hierarchy between the various employment status reflects 12

the degree of responsibility. Among job categories, those

9
responsibilities are concentrated on managers.

Table 26 Responsibility
%
Responsibility – all workers 1990 1995 2000
rks
s

ors

ers

als

ers

ers

ces

rs
upa ry

rs
tion

cian

rke
rke
occ enta

sion
Cle

ork

ork

nag
rat

for
hni

wo
wo

For production planning (Q27.1) - - 27

ope

ft w

al w

ed
m

fes

Ma
Tec
Ele

All
vice

Arm
Pro
ne

Cra

ltur

For staffing (Q27.2) - - 21

Ser

chi

ricu
Ma

Ag

For time schedules (Q27.3) 23

18
Work organisation

Skills (Q28) Table 27 Skills, training and division of work

The proportion of those who think that their skills match the %
demands of their job has increased slightly between 1995
Question 1990 1995 2000
(82%) and 2000 (83%). The feeling of over-skilling is
number
decreasing (from 10% to 7%) at the same rate for men and
women and for all status categories of employees. The Q27.b.1 Task rotation (yes) - 55 44
feeling of under-skilling remains identical. Q27.b.2 Teamwork (yes) - - 56
Q28 matching - 81 82
Among employees there are still important disparities
between status of employment (14% of over-skilling demands too high - 7 8
Skills
reported by temporary agency workers in 2000, 18% in 1995) demands too low - 10 7
but with a tendency towards a reduction in these disparities
don’t know - 2 2
through a general reduction in ‘over-skilling’.
Q29 No training over last 12 months - 71 69
Over-skilling falls for all job categories except for service Q26.1 Assistance (yes) - 83 83
workers.

Training (Q29) Figure 24 Employees who have received training over the
31% of respondents benefited from training provided by past 12 months (by contract)
their company between March 1999 and March 2000 (29% in
1995) with an average duration of 4.4 days per person. %
40

Among employees, inequalities in access to training are 35

34
decreasing. If workers on indefinite contracts remain stable
31
at 35% (in 1995 and in 2000), those on fixed-term contracts
increase from 22% to 31% and those on temporary agency
contracts from 12% to 23%. Furthermore, in 2000 the length 23

of time spent in training is twice as long for fixed-term and

temporary agency workers as it is for permanent workers.
This seems to indicate a real effort to improve skills for this
segment of the labour market and would merit further Apprenticeship Indefinite Fixed-term Temporary All
investigation. contract contract agency employees
contract

19
Chapter 6 Time

Working hours duration (Q14) Status

A slight increase in the proportion of people working shorter Figure 29 points to wide disparities in terms of categories of
hours and a slight decrease in the proportion working longer workers: there is still a big difference in the average weekly
hours is reported in 2000. The number of workers working working hours of employed workers (36.7 hours) and the
more than 45 hours per week has decreased from 16% in self-employed (46 hours). While the average weekly working
1995 to 14% in 2000. Men have decreased their working hours for employees stands at almost 37 hours, permanent
hours by 4% since 1995 and women by 2%. workers and apprentices work slightly more hours than the
average, while workers on fixed-term and temporary agency
contracts work less (Figure 30).
Women’s weekly working hours are in general nine hours
less than men’s; part-time work remains a female
phenomenon. The difference is less among employees than Long working days (Q16e) and long working hours
among all workers (see Figures 27 and 28). One third of workers are affected at some stage by long
working days (more than 10 hours per day), mainly male
workers and self-employed workers (especially in agriculture

Figure 25 Working less than 30 hours per week, 1995-2000 Figure 26 Working 45 hours or more per week, 1995-2000
(by gender) (by gender)

% %

31
30

27
26

23

20

16
15
13
11

6
5

1995 2000 1995 2000

Men Women All Men Women All

Figure 27 Average weekly hours of all workers (by gender) Figure 28 Average weekly hours of employees (by gender)

41.5
40.0
38.2
36.7

33.5
32.5

Men Women All Men Women All

20
Time

Figure 29 Average weekly hours of the self-employed Figure 30 Average weekly hours of employees (by contract)
and employees
%
%
37.9 37.3
46.0 36.7
34.6
33.4

38.2
36.7

Apprenticeship Indefinite Fixed-term Temporary All

contract contract agency employees
contract
Self-employed Employees All

Figure 31 Average weekly hours of all workers (by country) Figure 32 Average weekly hours of employees (by country)

Average weekly working hours (by country) %

39.6

39.1

39.1

38.4

37.9

37.7

37.7

37.5

36.7
36.7

36.6

36.5

36.3

35.3

35.3
42.4

41.5

32.5
40.5

40.4

40.4

39.8

39.5

39.0

38.2

38.2
38.0

37.9

37.5

37.4

36.1

32.9

EL P FIN IRL E L A I F S B D UK DK NL EU 15 P FIN S E L A I IRL EL UK F D B DK NL EU 15

and in managerial and professional jobs). Both long days and one country to another, a second indicator was used: this was
long weeks (more than 45 hours) are a classic feature of self- ‘Yes/no’ responses given spontaneously to the question: ‘Do
employment (52% work on average more than 45 hours per you work part time?’. While nearly one fifth (17%) of all
week). workers work part time, the survey reveals that considerably
more women work part time than men: 32% women
Countries compared to 7% men (Figure 33).
Some of the differences in weekly national averages are
linked to the extent of part-time work (highest rates in the There are wide gender differences (higher rate of female
Netherlands). Figure 13 shows the average number of workers) and also wide disparities between countries (the
weekly hours of all workers by country, where variations are Netherlands and the United Kingdom score high on both
as wide as 10%, from the Netherlands at 32.9 hours to indicators) and between status (temporary agency workers
Greece at 42.4 hours, with the average being around 38 and workers with fixed-term contracts work more part-time
hours. For employees, the range extends from 32.5 on both indicators). Figure 35 illustrates the proportion of
(Netherlands) to 39.6 (Portugal) hours. persons working part time by occupation, showing that the
highest proportion of part-time workers come from the sales
Part-time work (Q17) and service professions.
The survey used 2 indicators of part-time work. The first one
defined part-time as working less than 30 hours per week Part-time work is not always desired, in particular by non-
and therefore workers saying they worked this amount or permanent workers (half of them would like to work
less were deemed to be part-time workers. However, in order different hours, generally longer hours). Among those
to account for variations in the definition of part time from working part-time, 23% say they would like to work more

21
 Third European survey on working conditions 2000

Figure 33 Working part-time – spontaneous answer (by gender) Figure 34 Employees working part-time – spontaneous answer
(by contract)
%
%
28

32
25

18
17 16

Apprenticeship Indefinite Fixed-term Temporary All

Men Women All contract contract agency employees
contract

Figure 35 Working part-time – spontaneous answer Figure 36 Working part-time but wishing to work more
(by occupation) or less hours (by gender)

% %
33
31
24

22 22

23
17

17 17
15
10

7 7
6
5
4
ces

ors

ers

ers

ers

als

rks

rs
upa ry

rs

more hours less hours

cian

tion

rke
rke
occ nta
sion
ork

ork

nag

Cle
for

rat

hni

wo
wo
me
ope

ft w

al w
ed

Ma

fes

Tec

Ele

All
vice
Arm

Men Women All

Pro
ne

Cra

ltur

Ser
chi

ricu
Ma

Ag

Figure 37 Daily average commuting times (by country) Figure 38 Daily average commuting times (by gender)

% minutes
46.5

42.1

41.4

40.5

38.5
38.3

37.5
37.6

37.5
37.5

37.3

36.1
36.2

36.2

34.9

34.7

31.7

30.4

29.2

NL D B FIN DK S E UK F IRL A L EL I P EU 15
Men Women All

22
Time

hours and 9% that they would like to work less hours. There
Figure 39 Nightwork – at least 1 night per month (by country)
is a difference between men and women: while only 8% of
women say they wish to work less hours, 17% of men state a
%
preference for working less.
26

Commuting (Q15) 23
22
21
Average commuting time has remained almost identical: 20
19 19 19
37.5 minutes in 2000 compared to 38 minutes in 1995. 18 18 18 18

Variations between countries are high with the longest 16 16

15 15
commuting times in the Netherlands. The category ‘not
relevant’ (7%) is almost identical to the percentage of
‘homeworkers’ (8%) in Question 12.6. It might be assumed
that those working but not commuting are in fact working
at home.

Working time patterns

Round the clock work FIN EL UK B IRL A E D F NL S DK L I P EU 15
Nightwork (Q16.a)
There is a slight decrease in nightwork which seems to affect
all occupations except skilled blue-collar workers and service
and sales workers. The decrease is mainly due to
Shiftwork (Q18)
independent workers. Figure 39 shows the proportion of
The survey found that one fifth (20%) of workers work
workers in each Member State who work at least one night
shifts, men and women in equal numbers, and among
a month – one fifth of the workforce – and here wide
employees a higher proportion of non-permanent workers
variations between countries are evident.
(25% of fixed-term and 26% of temporary agency workers).
A comparison with previous surveys is not possible as the
Weekend work (16c and 16d) question was modified in the 2000 survey: the question in
Sunday work has declined marginally in the five years since 1995 concerned the number of rotas while the question in
1995 for all occupations except service and sales workers, 2000 asked respondents to specify the type of shifts worked
where a sizeable increase (from 34% to 46%) was found. The (e.g. morning, afternoon or night). Table 29 gives the
same applies to Saturday work: a general decline apart from breakdown of types of shift, showing that alternating
sales workers who now work more often on Saturdays. As models were the most prevalent.
with night work, the decrease is mainly due to independent
workers working less frequently at weekends.

Table 28 Working hours’ duration

%

Question All Workers 1990 1995 2000

number
Q14 Weekly working hours (self-employed) 47 46.1
Weekly working hours (employees) 38 36.7
Weekly working hours (average) 38.2
-30h per week (%) 15 16
30-39h per week (%) 36 35
+40h per week (%) 49 48
Q15 average (in minutes) 38 37.5
< 20 min (%) 25 25
Daily commuting: 20-39 min (%) 31 32
≥ 40 min (%) 38 32
not relevant (%) 5 7
Q17a Do you work part time? (%) - - 17
Q17b If yes, would more hours ? (%) - - 22
you like to work: less hours ? (%) - - 10
Q16e Working more than never (%) - - 67
10 hours per day: once every 4 days or more (%) - - 10

23
 Third European survey on working conditions 2000

Figure 40 Sunday work – at least 1 Sunday per month Figure 41 Not working same number of hours every day
(by occupation) (by occupation)

% %

56

61

46 55

42 50
46
42
34 40 40
32
29
28 32
27 31
29
26
20

15

9
ers
rks

ers

ors

als

ers

rs

ces

rs

rks

ers

ors

ces

rs

ers

als

rs
ers
tion

cian

tion

cian
rke

rke

rke

rke
sion

sion
ork
Cle

ork

nag

Cle

ork

ork

nag
rat

for

rat

for
upa

hni

wo

wo

upa

wo

hni

wo
ope

ope
al w
ft w

ft w

al w
ed

ed
fes

Ma

fes
Ma
Tec

Tec
vice

All

vice

All
occ

occ
Arm

Arm
Pro

Pro
ltur
Cra

ne

Cra

ne

ltur
Ser

Ser
ry

ry
chi

chi
ricu

ricu
nta

nta
Ma

Ma
Ag

Ag
me

me
Ele

Ele

Irregular time patterns Overall, the vast majority (81%) of workers say their working
Irregular time patterns were identified as a major issue in the hours fit in well with their family and social commitments.
1995 survey. Therefore a number of new indicators were Female workers express more satisfaction with their working
introduced in 2000 to help assess the nature and extent of time arrangements in relation to their social and family life
‘time flexibility’. than male workers (78% versus 84%): this may be because a
greater proportion of women choose to work part time.
Similarly, employed workers (82%) express a greater degree
The 2000 survey revealed that time schedules fluctuate on a
of satisfaction about their working hours than self-employed
weekly basis for one out of four workers (27% of men and
workers (72%).
22% of women) and on a daily basis for 40%, as is shown in
Table 30. In general, male workers have slightly more often
flexible time patterns than female workers, and self- A considerable proportion of the working population, over
employed workers have significantly more flexible time 50% of the managerial and professional classes, experience
patterns than employees. Over one third of all workers a variation in the number of hours worked every day, as is
(35%) have fixed starting and finishing times. illustrated in Figure 41. Clerical and blue-collar workers
report the least variation in their working day.

Figure 42 Not working same number of days every week Figure 43 Working hours fitting well with commitments
(by sector) outside work (by gender)

% %
37 37

84
79 80

29 29
27
26
25

22
21
19 19
18
lth
de

ing
e

n
ing

ts

ns
ply

hea n
ail and

fish e
def on

min g

tau d

nic nd
tion

sup d
andistrati ic

EU
dia l
enc

rme ncia

ctio

tat

and cultur
and catio
and cturin

res els an
n

ran
in Publ

atio
tra

mu rt a
wa , gas a

All
l es
sale

stru
inte Fina

Edu

comanspo
ter

ri
t
a

Rea
Ho
ret
ole
nuf

Ag
Con
city
adm

Men Women All

Wh
Ma

Tr
ctri
Ele

24
Time

Table 29 Round the clock work

%

Question number 1990 1995 2000

Q16.a4 Nightwork 18 21 19
Q16.b Evening work - - 46
Q16.c Sunday work - 29 27
(8) (7)
Q16.d Saturday work - 55 52
(25) (22)
Q18.a4 Working in daytime 88
Q18.b Working shifts* 13 20
Q18.c1 Split 6
Q18.c2 Permanent night 8
Q18.c3 For Permanent afternoon 2
those
Q18.c4 Permanent morning 3
working
Q18.c5 shifts: Alternating morning and afternoon 36
Q18.c6 Alternating day and night 7
Q18.c7 Alternating morning, afternoon and night 32

* Question changed from 1995 to 2000.

Table 30 Irregular time patterns

%
Question 1990 1995 2000
number
Q18.a.1 Not working same number - - 40
of hours every day
Q18.a.2 Not working same number - - 25
of days every week
Q18.a.3 Having fixed starting/finishing times - 34 35
Q19 No changes in working time schedules - - 76
Q20 Working hours fit Well - - 81
family/social commitments Not well - - 19

25
Chapter 7 Information and consultation

Information on risks (Q13) remain identical to 1995. Nevertheless, temporary agency

The proportion of workers who think they are ‘well’ and workers remain, as in 1995, the least informed about risks.
‘very well’ informed about risks has increased from 71% in
1995 to 76% in 2000. However, the proportion of those who The fact that workers are more aware of risks might explain,
think they are ‘badly’ and ‘very badly’ informed remains the at least partly, why the figures for those reporting exposure
same (10%). The proportion of those who declared not to be to physical risks have not decreased (see Chapter 4).
affected decreased from 17% to 13%. The ‘don’t know’
category has also decreased (from 2% to 1%). Possibilities to discuss working conditions and
organisational change (Q30)
These figures seem to indicate an improvement in risk Around three-quarters (73%) of workers are able to discuss
awareness for both male and female respondents and for their working conditions at their workplace and 71% can
both employed and self-employed and among employees for discuss the organisation of work when changes occur. For
all employment status categories. All occupational groups employees the rates are 78% and 75% respectively. There
and sectors also report this improvement with the exception are no gender differences.
of the transport and communications sector where rates
Figure 11 gives the breakdown by country for the discussion
of organisational change, where a marked difference is
Figure 44 Possibility for employees to discuss working found between the country reporting the least possibility to
conditions (by contract) discuss such change (Portugal at 46%) and the countries with
the greatest possibility (Denmark, Finland and the
%
Netherlands).
80
76
78
Among employees, exchanges are more frequent when
73
respondents belong to a qualified occupation and have a
permanent job. Unskilled workers are the least involved in
58
these exchanges. Figure 47 gives the employee breakdown
by contract, showing that temporary agency workers have
the least opportunity to discuss either working conditions or
organisational change.

The survey reveals that the majority of these exchanges take

place with colleagues (92%) and superiors (90%), without
gender differences; the next group involved in the
exchanges are staff representatives (46%) and outside
Apprenticeship Indefinite Fixed-term Temporary All experts (23%), male workers being more involved in these
contract contract agency employees exchanges.
contract

Figure 46 Possibility for employees to discuss

change (by contract)
Figure 45 Possibility for workers to discuss organisational
change (by country) %

%
87 77 76
85 84

78 78 69
77
75 74 65
72 71
70 69 68
65 55
62

46

Apprenticeship Indefinite Fixed-term Temporary All

contract contract agency employees
NL FIN DK L S B UK IRL F D I A EL E P EU 15 contract

26
Information and consultation

For one worker in two (51%), these exchanges take place on

Figure 47 Information or consultation which leads to
a regular basis; almost an equal number (46%) report that
improvements in the workplace (by country)
they occur on a formal basis. Skilled manual workers (60%)
% are the group most likely to have their discussions with staff
81 81
79 79 79 78 78 78 77
representatives. Managers and professionals are more likely
73 72 71
75
to have exchanges on a regular and formal basis than other
69
job categories.
64 64

Three-quarters (75%) of workers think that these exchanges

lead to improvements at the workplace and almost two-
thirds (60%) believe that they lead to improvements in the
organisation as a whole.

D IRL A EL UK FIN P S DK B NL I E F L EU 15

Table 31 Information and consultation

%

Question number All workers 1990 1995 2000

Q13 Informed on risks very and fairly well - 71 76
quite and very badly - 10 10
not applicable - 17 13
don’t know - 2 1
Employees only
Q30.a Possibility to working conditions - - 73
discuss organisational changes - - 71
Q30.b colleagues - - 91
superiors - - 83

If discussions take place, staff representatives - - 43

do they take place with: outside experts - - 25
on regular basis - - 51
on formal basis - - 45
Q30.c at personal workplace - - 75
Do they lead to
improvements?: in office or factory - - 58
in organisation as a whole - - 60

27
Chapter 8 Psychosocial factors

Violence (Q31 and Q32) Professionals and managers are more exposed to violence
There is a great disparity from country to country where emanating from the outside; service and sales workers are
violence from people belonging to the respondents’ more exposed to both types of violence.
workplace is concerned (ranging from 1% to 5%). The same
applies to violence from people outside the workplace Harassment (Q31 and Q32)
(ranging from 1% to 9%). Two types of harassment are considered: intimidation
(bullying/mobbing) and sexual harassment (‘unwanted
Female respondents tend to report slightly more violence sexual attention’).
(+1). Similarly, marginally more violence is reported among
employed workers (+1) than self-employed workers. Intimidation
Almost one in ten workers (9%) report being subject to
Among employees, permanent workers are more exposed intimidation in the workplace in 2000, a slight increase since
than temporary agency workers to violence emanating from 1995 (+1). As Figure 49 illustrates, there are wide variations
outside the workplace. between countries, ranging from 15% in Finland to 4% in
Portugal. Such differences most probably reflect awareness
of the issue rather than the reality. Women are more

Figure 48 Employees exposed to physical violence over Figure 49 Workers subjected to intimidation (by country)
the past 12 months (by contract)
%
15
% 14 14

5
12
11
4 4
10 10
9

3 8
7 7
6
2 2 2 2 2 5 5
4 4

FIN NL UK S B F IRL DK D L A E EL I P EU 15
Apprenticeship Indefinite Fixed-term Temporary All
contract contract agency employees
contract

from other people from people in the workplace Figure 51 Workers subjected to intimidation (by sector)

%
14
Figure 50 Workers subjected to intimidation (by gender)
12 12 12
%

10
9 9
9

6
7
5 5

3 3
ing

e
n

tion

ts

lth
fish e

def on

EU
ply

ing

de

s
e
sup d

min g

d
tion

enc
and cultur

ctio

tat
n

and urin

ret le an

mu rt an

ran
tra

and trati
hea
wa gas a

All
dia

l es

a
stru

tau
act

ail

nic
comanspo
sa

inis
and
ri

ter

rme

Rea

res
ole
Ag

nuf
Con
city

dm
inte

ion
Wh

and
Ma

Tr
ctri

lic a
cat
ial
Ele

tels

Pub
Edu
anc

Men Women All

Ho
Fin

28
Psychosocial factors

Figure 52 Workers exposed to unwanted sexual Figure 53 Workers whose immediate superior is a woman
attention (by gender) (excluding ‘not applicable’) (by country)

% 28 28 28 28 %

4 20 20 20
19
18
17 17 17
16 16

13

DK FIN S UK F IRL NL P B I L A D E EL EU 15

Men Women All

Figure 55 Workers whose immediate superior is a man

(excluding ‘not applicable’) (by occupation)
Figure 54 Gender of the immediate superior
%
% 97
95
93

82 82
74 77
74
71 72 72

61

51

36

ers
rs

als

rks

ers

ors

ers

ces

rs
cian

tion
rke

rke
ork

7
sion

Cle

nag

ork
rat

for
wo

hni

upa

wo
al w
ope

ft w

ed
fes

Ma
Tec
vice

All
occ

Arm
ltur
Pro

ne

Cra

Male boss Female boss

Ser

ry

chi

ricu
nta

Ma

Ag
me

Men Women
Ele

exposed (+2) than men. Employees (9%) are more exposed Discrimination (Q31 and Q32)
than the self-employed (5%). There are no significant Discrimination has been assessed in several areas: gender,
differences according to status of employment. Among ethnic background, age, nationality, disability and sexual
occupations, service/sales workers are more exposed (13%), orientation.
occupations with high self-employment (agriculture, craft)
are less exposed.
Gender discrimination
This is reported to be as high as 3% in some countries
Sexual Harassment (Netherlands, United Kingdom) and among female
This is reported by 2% of respondents and is higher in Nordic respondents (3%), sales/service workers (3%) (and generally
countries (up to 4%) and lower in southern Europe (down to in jobs where female workers are dominant) and temporary
1%). Female workers report more sexual harassment (+2) agency workers (3%).
than male workers. The rate is identical for employed and
self-employed but it is higher for temporary agency workers.
Ethnic discrimination
Some countries report high rates (2% in France and
Figures 50 and 52 presents the gender breakdown for Luxembourg).
intimidation and unwanted sexual attention, showing that
women are subjected to these issues to a much greater
degree than men.

29
 Third European survey on working conditions 2000

Age discrimination Whereas 54% of women reported a man as their boss in

This is reported to be 3% on average, varying between 1% 1995, 51% do so in 2000. In contrast, 7% of men report a
and 4% according to country. There are no significant woman as their boss in 2000 (6% in 1995). Segregation is
differences between occupations. Non-permanent workers lowest in Nordic countries and in the United Kingdom and it
reported a higher rate of discrimination. is highest in Germany and southern Europe. In occupations
dominated by women, e.g. clerical and sales/services jobs
Discrimination against nationality, disability and sexual (67% and 66% respectively), men are more likely to be in a
orientation hierarchical position (68% of clerks and 55% of sales/service
On these issues response rates are low (1% or less) and workers have a male boss).
therefore differences are difficult to assess.
Men are more likely to have people under their supervision
Gender segregation (Q33 and Q8) (24%) than women (13%).
Horizontal gender segregation is highlighted in Chapter 2:
men and women do not occupy the same jobs.

Vertical segregation can be assessed via two indicators in the

Survey (Q33: ‘Is your immediate boss a man or woman?’ and
Q8: ‘How many people work under your supervision?’).

Table 32 Violence at work

%
Question All Workers - subjected to … 1990 1995 2000
number
Q31.1 Physical violence from 2
people within workplace
4*
Q31.2 Physical violence from 4
people outside workplace
Q31.3 Intimidation 8 9
Q31.4 Sexual discrimination 2 2
Q31.5 Unwanted sexual attention 2 2
Q31.6 Age discrimination 3 3
Q31.8 Ethnic discrimination 1 1
Q31.9 Disability discrimination 1 1
Q33 Is your immediate boss: a man 66 64
a woman 17 19
not applicable 17 17

* The two questions were combined in 1995

30
Chapter 9 Outcomes

Health risks (Q34) rates remain identical. The increase affects more female (+4)
27% of workers consider that their health and safety are at than male workers (+2).
risk because of their work, a further decrease since 1990
(30%) and 1995 (28%). This slight decrease affects both self- The health problems which are most prevalent are backache,
employed and employees and, of the latter, temporary stress, overall fatigue and muscular pains. Increases in
agency workers are the least likely to consider their health backache (+3) and overall fatigue (+3) are reported. The
and their safety at risk (22%), a marked decrease since 1995 question regarding muscular pains distinguished between
(28%). five types in the 2000 survey.

Figure 56 gives the breakdown by sector, illustrating that the Backache

perception of risk is felt most keenly by construction and The increase affects self-employed and employed workers
agricultural workers, as well as those in the fishing and and men and women equally (both at 34%). Among
transport industry. In terms of occupations, the only category employees, those on fixed-term contracts reported a higher
indicating a greater awareness of risk in 2000 is managers incidence of backache (36%). In 1995 there were no
(+3), all other categories showing either very similar rates or significant differences between categories. The highest
a slight decrease since 1995. increases among occupations are for professionals (from
18% to 24%) and technicians (from 23% to 31%). Figure 57
Responses show great disparities between countries (ranging gives the breakdown by occupation for 2000, showing a very
from 5% to 48%) and need to be considered with caution as high level (57%) reported among agricultural workers.
they are closely connected to socio-cultural national
backgrounds. Overall fatigue
The increase is mainly evident for self-employed workers
Female workers report lesser awareness of risks (23%) than (from 23% in 1995 to 29% in 2000). Big differences between
male workers (31%). countries are reported with higher rates in Greece, Spain and
France. Among employees, those with fixed-term contracts
reported more fatigue in 2000 (26%) than in 1995 (23%).
Health problems (Q35)
Among occupations, the increase affects mainly
60% of respondents consider that their work affects their professionals (+4), technicians (+4), sales/services workers
health compared with 57% in 1995. The increase affects self- (+4) and craft workers (+4).
employed and employed workers equally. Among
employees, temporary agency workers are the least likely to Muscular pains
report negative health effects (49%), a marked decrease One quarter of respondents report neck and shoulder pains.
from 1995 (56%). The increase affects all occupations except There are no significant differences between men and
manual workers (both skilled and unskilled) for whom the

Figure 56 Workers who think their health or safety is at Figure 57 Workers reporting backache (by occupation)
risk because of their work (by sector)
%
% 57

43
41

45
44
34
39
30
33
27 27
26 26 31 31

21 24
23
19 22 22
17

13
ers

ces

rks

als

rs

ors

ers

ers

rs
cian

tion
rke

rke
e

ing

n
th
de

ply

def on
e
tion

rs
ing
ail nd

nd

ts
dia l

ns
min g

atio d

sion
nag
rme ncia

Cle

ork

ork
for

rat
enc
tat

ctio
and cturin

mu rt an

rke
ran
l
tra

and strati

hea
a

wa gas a

hni

wo

upa

wo
sup

fish

ope
l es

ft w

al w
ed
sale

Ma

fes
inte Fina

stru

wo
tau

Tec
nic
comanspo

vice

All
occ
and
ter

Arm
nd
Rea

Pro
ini

ne

Cra
ret
ole

ltur
,

res

nuf

All
Con
city

ea
dm

Ser

ry

chi
ion
Wh

ricu
and

Ma
ctri

nta
Tr

ltur
lic a

Ma
cat
Ele

Ag
me
tels

ricu
Pub

Edu

Ele
Ho

Ag

31
 Third European survey on working conditions 2000

Figure 58 Employees reporting overall fatigue (by contract) Figure 59 Workers reporting muscular pains in neck and
shoulders (by occupation)

% %
35

26
30 30
24
23 28
22

23
22
17 20
18
17
16
15

ers

als

ces

rks

rs

ors

ers

ers

rs
cian

tion
rke

rke
sion
nag

Cle

ork

ork
for

rat
wo

hni

upa

wo
ope

ft w

al w
Apprenticeship Indefinite Fixed-term Temporary All

ed
Ma

fes

Tec
vice

All
occ
Arm
contract contract agency employees

Pro

ne

Cra

ltur
Ser

ry
contract

chi

ricu
nta

Ma

Ag
me
Ele
Figure 60 Workers reporting injuries (by gender) Figure 61 Workers reporting injuries (by occupation)

% %
16
10

13 13 13

7
9

7
6
5
4
4
3

1
rks

als

ers

rs

ors

ces

ers

ers

rs
cian

ion
rke

rke
sion
Cle

nag

ork

ork
rat

for
pat
hni

wo

wo
ope

al w

ft w
ed
fes

Ma

ccu
Tec

vice

All
Arm
Pro

ne

Cra
ltur
ry o
Ser

chi

ricu
nta

Ma

Ag
me

Men Women All

Ele

women except in the case of upper limb pains (female countries were reported. Top of the list were and still are:
workers: +3). Figure 59 shows that blue-collar and Greece, Sweden, Finland, Italy and Luxembourg. France has
agricultural workers are most susceptible to muscular pains. now joined this group.

Other health problems Among employees, as in 1995, those with indefinite

Men are more likely to suffer from occupational injury (10%) contracts are reporting more stress (28% in 1995, 30% in
than women (4%) and among employees the figure for 2000) than non-permanent workers.
apprentices is higher (11%). Among occupations the figure is
highest among craft workers (16%), skilled blue-collar Since 1995 variations between occupations can also be seen,
workers (13%) and farmers (13%). in particular a decrease for managers (from 37% down to
32%) and increases for technicians (from 29% up to 35%)
Stress and clerks (from 22% up to 25%). Figure 62 shows stress
Female workers (29%) have overtaken male workers (28%) levels for different occupations in 2000, which are highest
in the case of stress. In 1995, 27% of women and 28% of men among the higher qualified workers such as managers,
reported stress. As in 1995, big differences between technicians and professionals.

32
Outcomes

Figure 62 Workers reporting stress (by occupation) Figure 63 Workers reporting absences over the last 12 months
due to an accident at work (by occupation)
%
%

11

40
10

35
32
8
29
28
27 7
25
23 6 6 6

18 18
17

3 3 3 3
ces

ers

ers

rks

rs

als

rs
s

ors
upa ry

ers

cian
tion

rke

rke
occ enta

sion
ork

ork

Cle
for

als
s

ers

rks

rs

ces

ers

ors

ers

rs
rat

nag

cian

tion
rke

rke
wo

hni

wo

sion

nag

Cle

ork

ork
for

rat
ope
al w

ft w
ed

fes
m

Ma

hni

wo

upa

wo
Tec
vice

All
Ele

ope
Arm

al w

ft w
Pro

ed
fes

Ma
Cra
ltur

ne

Tec

vice

All
occ
Arm
Ser

Pro
chi

ne

Cra
ltur
ricu

Ser

ry

chi
Ma

ricu
nta
Ag

Ma
Ag
me
Ele
Figure 64 Workers reporting absences over the last 12 months Figure 65 Workers reporting absences over the last 12 months
due to an accident at work (by sector) due to work-related health problems (by country)

% %
18
17

10
13
12 12
8 8 8 11

7
9 9 9
6 6 8 8
7 7
5 5

4 5 5

3 3 4

FIN NL S A L D B DK E F I UK EL IRL P EU 15
ing
e

n
de

ing

rs
lth

ts

min g
def on
ail and
e

ply
s
tion

ter s and
d
ion
enc

ctio
tat

and cturin

rke
mu rt an

ran
tra

and trati
hea

sup

fish
l es

cat
dia

sale

wo
stru
tau

, ga
comanspo
inis
and

nd
Rea

rme

n
ret
ole

res

nuf

All
Con
city

ea
wa
dm
inte

Wh
ion

and

Ma
Tr

ctri

ltur
lic a

Absences due to occupational accidents

cat

Ele
ial

tels

ricu
Pub
Edu
anc

6% of respondents reported absences (3% under 10 days).

Ho

Ag
Fin

Manual workers and male respondents report above average

absences (+4).
Absenteeism
The question regarding absenteeism in the 1995 Survey Absences due to occupational health problems
(‘number of days of absence for health reasons caused by the 9% of respondents reported absences (4% under 10 days).
main job over the last 12 months’) was split into three There are great differences from country to country (ranging
questions for the Survey in 2000 (‘absences due to an from 17% to 5%). Blue-collar workers are more exposed.
occupational accident’, ‘absences due to health problems There are no gender differences.
caused by work’, ‘absences due to other health problems’).
These changes render comparisons more difficult. Table 33
Absences due to other health problems
gives the breakdown for the number of days’ absence by
One third (33%) of respondents reported absences. There
type of worker according to the different reasons for the
are great differences from country to country (ranging from
absence.
53% to 29%). Female respondents are more likely to report
absences (+4).

33
 Third European survey on working conditions 2000

Table 33 Average number of days of absence over last 12 months

Employed workers
Reason for absence All workers Self-employed All Indefinite Fixed-term Temporary
workers contracts contracts agency workers
Occupational accidents (Q36.a) 1.26 0.76 1.36 1.43 0.94 1.13
Work-related health problems (Q36.b) 1.80 0.86 1.99 2.17 1.04 2.09
Non-work-related health problems (Q36.c) 4.20 2.24 4.58 4.96 2.96 1.81

Satisfaction with working conditions (Q37 and Q38) Figure 66 Workers who do not think that they will be able to
Two indicators were selected. The first one addresses the or want to do the same job when 60 years old - excluding
respondent’s ability (‘I don’t think so’) or unwillingness (‘I ‘don’t knows’ (by occupation)
would not want to’) to keep doing the same job until 60
years of age. These indicators can be seen as a measure of %
the ‘sustainability’ of work.
68

On the ability issue, 31% responded that they did not think
that they could do the same job at 60. On the willingness 53
55
51
issue, 11% responded negatively: altogether this represents 48
42% of negative answers. The highest rates of negative 42
40
answers are to be found among women (44%) and among
35
employees (68% of self-employed give a positive answer, 31
34
30
56% of employees). The rates of negative answers among
employees are highest for temporary agency workers (64%)
and fixed-term contracts (50%).

Among occupations, the highest negative responses come

from manual workers and service workers. More positive
als
rks

ers

ers

ers

rs

ors

ces

rs
responses come from professionals, clerks and managers.
cian

ion
rke

rke
sion
Cle

nag

ork

ork

rat

for
pat
hni

wo

wo
ope
al w

ft w

ed
fes

Ma

ccu
Tec

vice

All
Arm
Pro

The second indicator used in the questionnaire addressed

Cra

ne
ltur

ry o
Ser

chi
ricu

nta
the issue of satisfaction with working conditions in the
Ma
Ag

me

respondent’s main job. In this respect, over four-fifths of all

Ele

workers expressed satisfaction. Averages have not changed

significantly. Positive answers reach 84% (as in 1995)
although the question was changed (satisfaction with Figure 67 Employees satisfied with their working conditions
‘working conditions’ in 2000; satisfaction with ‘job’ in 1995). (by contract)
Overall, self-employed workers were more satisfied than
employees and, among these, temporary agency workers %
(28%) and fixed-term contracts (20%) are the most 85 84
dissatisfied. 81 80

72

Apprenticeship Indefinite Fixed-term Temporary All

contract contract agency employees
contract

34
Outcomes

Table 34 Outcomes
%
Question All Workers 1990 1995 2000
number
Q34 Yes 30 28 27
Health and safety at risk
Don’t know 4 5

Q35.1 Work affects my health - 57 60

Q35.5 Backache - 30 33
Q35.14 Stress - 28 28
Q35.15 Overall fatigue - 20 23
Q35.8/9/10 neck and shoulders - - 23
upper or lower limbs - 17 17
Muscular pains in … upper and lower limbs - - 8
upper limbs - - 13
lower limbs - - 12
Q35.6 Headaches - 13 15
Q35.19 Irritability - 11 11
Q35.16 Sleeping problems 7 8
Q35.3 Vision problems 10 8
Q35.2 Hearing problems 6 7
Q35.13 Injury - 7
Q35.18 Anxiety 7 7
Q35.4 Skin problems 6 6
Q35.11 Respiratory problems 4 4
Q35.7 Stomach problems 5 4
Q35.17 Allergies 4 4
Q35.20 Trauma - 2
Q35.12 Heart disease 1 1
Other - 2 2
Q36a Absences due to accident over last 12 months 6
Q36b Absences due to work-related health problems 23* 9
Q36c Absences due to other health problems 34
Q37 Yes - - 54
Will you be able to do No - - 29
the same job when
Will not work - - 11
60 years old?
Don’t know 7
Q38 Are you satisfied with (the Very and fairly - 84 84
working conditions in) your job?** Not at all and not very - 15 16

* Question changed.
** Question changed. In 1995 it was ‘Are you satisfied with your job?’ whereas in 2000 it was:
‘Are you satisfied with the working conditions in your job?’

35
Chapter 10 Income and payment systems

Income levels (EF21) addition, several income categories were added (profit-
These have been reported on a 12-level income scale for sharing schemes, group performance payments, income
each of the 15 EU Member States. The scales were specific to from shares).
each country. A harmonised income scale (4 levels and
refusals) was designed. Table 36 gives the comparative breakdown for the different
sources of income among employees in 1995 and 2000,
The income scales reflect the link between occupation and where an overall decrease in all payments can be observed
income, hours worked and income. When controlled with over the five-year period, the decrease being sharpest for
part-time work, the differences remain but are reduced. Sunday work payments which reduced almost by 50%.

Figure 68 gives the gender breakdown of income in 2000, Employed workers (EF22)
showing that almost three times the proportion of women Piece rate payments
to men are situated in the low income bracket, and twice the Higher rates for craft workers (13%) and skilled manual
proportion of men to women are in the high income workers (11%).
bracket. The gap between the sexes is less wide in the low-
medium and medium-high brackets. It is significant that a
quarter (26.4%) of the total workforce were uncertain as to Figure 68 Income categories of workers (by gender)
which bracket their income corresponded. Figures 68 and 69 %
show the income scales breakdown by gender for all workers
and managers. 34
32
31
30
Table 35 Income categories classified by gender
26
%
22
Income categories Men Women Total
Lowest 9.1 25.8 16.1
Low-medium 18.7 24.4 21.1 13 13

Medium-high 21.9 16.6 19.7

Highest 21.7 10.0 16.8
Refusals 28.6 23.2 26.4

Payment systems Low Low-intermediate Intermediate-high High

Comparisons with 1995 are difficult as the questions were

Men Women
changed. In 2000, there was one question specific to
employees and another one to self-employed workers. In

Figure 69 Income categories of managers (by gender) Figure 70 Income categories of service workers (by gender)

% %
64
49

32

28 28

28 28 27 22 22

21
17 14

8
6 5

Low Low-intermediate Intermediate-high High Low Low-intermediate Intermediate-high High

Men Women Men Women

36
Income and payment systems

Figure 71 Employees who receive piece rate/productivity Figure 72 Employees paid for working overtime (by country)
payments (by occupation)
%
%
34

31
30

24
13 23 23
22
21 21
20
11 19
10
16
14
8 13 13
7 7
10
6
5
4
3 3

A I S L FIN UK IRL NL D DK F E B EL P EU 15
rks
als

rs

ers

ces

ers

ors

ers

s
cian

tion

yee
rke
sion

Cle

nag

ork

ork
for

rat

plo
wo

hni

upa

ope
al w

ft w
ed
fes

Ma

em
Tec
vice

occ

Arm
Pro

ne

Cra
ltur

All
Ser

ry

chi
ricu
nta

Ma
Ag

Figure 74 Employees who receive payments based on the

me
Ele

overall performance of the company (profit-sharing schemes)

where they work (by occupation)

Figure 73 Employees who receive payments based on the %

overall performance of the company (profit-sharing
schemes) where they work (by country)

% 13

8 8 8

6 7 7

5 5 5 5 5 5
4
4 4 4 3 3
2
3 3 3

0
2
rs

ers
ces

ors

ers

rks

als

ers

s
upa ry
tion

cian

yee
rke

occ nta

sion
ork

ork

Cle

nag
for

rat

plo
wo

hni
me

ope
al w

ft w
ed

fes

Ma

em
Tec
Ele
vice
Arm

Pro
ne

Cra
ltur

All

0
Ser

chi
ricu

Ma

F FIN S NL UK A L D E I B DK EL IRL P EU 15
Ag

Payment for overtime Extra payments compensating for Sunday work

There are wide differences between countries. In Austria The highest rates are to be found in Sweden (29%) and
34% of employed workers report overtime payments, 31% Finland (19%), the lowest in Portugal (2%) (but Portugal has
in Italy and 30% in Sweden but only 10% in Portugal, 13% the lowest rate for Sunday in Europe). Skilled manual
in Belgium and 14% in Spain. workers (15%) and technicians (14%) report the highest
rates.
With regard to occupations, skilled manual workers (35%)
and craft workers (31%) have the highest rates and Profit sharing schemes (based on the overall performance
managerial staff have the lowest (13%). of the company)
Above average rates are reported for France, Sweden and
As for status, temporary agency workers report the highest Finland in 2000 (8%), while Ireland has the lowest rate of
rates (26%) and fixed-term contractors the lowest (14%). employees who receive payments from this kind of scheme
Part-timers also benefit from overtime payments (15%). (see Figure 73). Figure 74 shows that managerial staff (13%)
are the most concerned while unskilled and sales workers
report only 3% and staff on unlimited contracts report 6%.

37
 Third European survey on working conditions 2000

Figure 75 Employees who receive an income from shares in the Figure 76 Self-employed who receive payments based on the
company where they work (by occupation) overall performance of the company (profit-sharing schemes)
where they work (by occupation)
%

%
7

14

9
8 8 8
3
7
6 6
2 2 2 2
5

1 1
3

0 0 0
ers

als

rks

ors

ers

ers

ces

rs

s
s
upa ry
cian

yee
tion

rke

0
occ nta
sion
nag

Cle

ork

ork
rat

for

plo
hni

wo

s
ces

ers

rs

ers

ors

rks

als

ers

yed
me
ope

al w

ft w

tion

cian
ed
Ma

fes

rke
em

sion
Tec

ork

ork

Cle

nag
for

rat
vice
Ele

plo
Arm
Pro

ne

Cra

upa

wo

hni
ltur

All

ope
ft w

al w
ed

fes

Ma

-em
Ser
chi

Tec
ricu

vice
occ
Arm

Pro
Ma

Cra

ne
ltur

self
Ag

Ser
ry

chi
ricu
nta

All
Ma
Ag
me
Ele

Table 36 Payment systems Payments based on the overall performance of a group

% The rates are low (2% on average), with highest rates found
in the United Kingdom (4%) and in managerial jobs (7%).
Question All workers 1990 1995 2000
number
Income from company shares
EF.21 Net monthly income* - - - The rates are low (2%), with highest rates found in France,
(harmonised levels) Germany and the United Kingdom and in managerial jobs
Employees (7%).
EF22.1 Basic salary - 94 92
Self-employed workers (EF23)
EF22.2 Productivity payments - 10 7
Profit-sharing schemes based on the overall performance of
EF22.3 Overtime - 27 21 the companies where the self-employed work (8% on
EF22.4 Compensation for bad - 4 3 average) hide wide differences between countries (Sweden
working conditions 16% and Greece 2%). Income is mostly generated by the
business activity (83%), even though there are wide
EF22.5 Compensation for Sunday work - 17** 9
differences between countries (92% in Greece or in the
EF22.6 Other extra payments - - 13 Netherlands versus 75% in Sweden or 76% in Germany). The
EF22.7 Profit-sharing scheme - - 5 same differences can be found between occupations (blue-
collar workers are less likely to receive an income emanating
EF22.8 Group performance payments - - 2
from their own business) and between sectors (the highest
EF22.9 Income from shares - - 2 rates are to be found in agriculture).
EF22.10 Other - - 5
Self-employed
EF23.1 Overall business income - - 83
EF23.2 Profit-sharing scheme - - 8
EF23.3 Group performance payments - - 2
EF23.4 Income from shares - - 2

* Precise figures for this item are to be found in the detailed tables
on which this report is based (available on request).
** The question included Sunday work, nightwork and other ‘non-
social’ working hours.

38
Chapter 11 Work and family life

The 2000 survey provides a series of household variables of female respondents are divorced, separated or widowed
including several new ones. Some have provided valuable as opposed to 7% of male respondents.
information in the past (for example, the link between
working time and family structure). Gender inequality Number of people living in the household (EF12)
appears sharply in focus when the figures concerning time Whilst an average of 15% of the respondents are one-person
spent caring for children and taking responsibility for households, differences between countries are important:
household chores are examined. The double workload ranging from 29% (Sweden) and 24% (Netherlands) to 5%
remains a feature of women at work, due to their more (Portugal) and 8% (Spain).
active participation in the home and family.
Number of paid jobs in the household (EF13b)
Marital status (EF7) 39% of the respondents were the sole household income
There are important differences between countries: from earners. Among employees, 36% of temporary agency
48% of married respondents (Sweden) to 67% (Greece); workers and 37% of workers on fixed-term contracts are the
from 5% of divorced, separated or widowed (Spain) to 15% sole income earners in the household.
(Austria). There are also important gender differences: 13%
Main contributors to household income (EF19a)
Figure 77 Those contributing most to the household income 83% of male respondents are the main income earners in
(by contract) their household and 40% of female respondents. With
respect to status, 49% of temporary agency workers and
%
53% of fixed-term contractors are the main income earners.
67
65
Main contributors to shopping and household duties
(EF19b)
53
86% of female respondents compared to 25% of male
49
respondents are the main contributors in this area.
Responses show a strong gender segregation, with a low
level of male involvement in such activities as cooking,
30 housework, and participating in children’s education. Figure
80 gives the male-female breakdown, showing that over
three-quarters of women (85%) compared to just one
quarter of men (25%) take responsibility in these areas.

Involvement in activities outside work (EF20)

Apprenticeship Indefinite Fixed-term Temporary All
Responses show a strong gender segregation, with low male
contract contract agency employees involvement in such activities as cooking, housework, and
contract
participating in children’s education.

Figure 79 Those mainly responsible for shopping and looking

Figure 78 Those contributing most to the household income
after the home (by gender)
(by gender)
%
%
85
83

65

50

40

25

Men Women All

Men Women All

39
 Third European survey on working conditions 2000

Figure 80 Those involved in household and childcare activities Figure 81 Those involved in caring for elderly or
(by gender) disabled relatives (by gender)
64 63 % %

16

41 41

36 11
33 33

8
24

13 12
3
4 2
3
r or one

cati for in

hou y for oork

ing
hou y for ing

hou ery d g

ry d sew n

rk
in c volved

re
for hildre educ ring
re

ous ved
re

chil and

r or ne
r or ay
one n ev atin

eve hou lved i

dre

ewo
mo
mo

mo

edu caring olved

every day for 1 hour or more at least once or twice a week

ook
ry d ook

in h invol
c and n ca
n

Invo
eve ed in c

v
er i

for lved i

ng
a

er
a
er i
Nev

Nev

Men Women All

Nev
lv

Invo
Invo

Men Women

Table 37 Frequency of involvement in activities outside work (Question no. EF20)

%
Activity Frequency Male Female All

Voluntary or Never 72 69 71
charitable Once/twice per week 6 6 6
Never 41 36 87
Political or trade union
Once/twice per month 4 2 3

Caring for and Never 41 36 39

educating children Every day for 1 hour or more 24 41 31
Never 33 4 21
Cooking
Every day for 1 hour or more 13 64 34
Never 33 3 20
Housework
Every day for 1 hour or more 12 63 33
Never 73 64 69
Caring for elderly/ Every day for 1 hour or more 2 6 3
disabled relatives
Once/twice per week 5 8 6

Training/ educational Never 65 62 64

courses Once/twice per year 20 20 20
Never 41 49 45
Sports
Once/twice per week 29 25 27
Never 7 46 48
Cultural activity
Once/twice per week 49 12 12
Never 17 19 18
Leisure
1 hour or more per day 11 8 10

There are also strong national differences on such issues as On time spent in education, Nordic countries and the
caring for elderly or disabled relatives (low involvement in Netherlands score higher than average. This is also reflected
countries such as France or Denmark compared with Italy or in Q29 (in-house professional training).
Portugal), which could be attributed to national
characteristics such as family dispersion, care systems, etc.

40
Chapter 12 Norway

In comparison to the EU 15, the Norwegian workforce is Time

characterised by: The situation is characterised by shorter working hours with
a lower proportion of workers doing long hours and a
• a higher proportion of employees (91% of workers are higher proportion doing short hours. The number of part-
employees and 9% are self-employed, compared to 84% timers is also above the EU average.
and 16% in the EU);
More irregular time patterns are also reported, as well as
• identical activity rates for women and men (50/50),
more shift and night work, more evening work and more
whereas the EU ratio is 42/58;
Sunday work.
• a lesser proportion of workers employed in industry
(and particularly in manufacturing: 25% against EU
21%), and a higher proportion in health and education Table 40 Working time, Norway and EU15
services (28% against EU 17%); %

• a higher proportion of employees in temporary agency Norway EU 15

work (7% in Norway) and a lesser proportion in fixed- Workers working 30 hours per week 24 16
term contracts.
Workers working > 45 hours per week 14 21
Health problems Night work 23 19
Workers in Norway consider their health and safety to be less Evening work 59 47
at risk than the EU average. They report less fatigue and less
Sunday work 40 27
backache, and are in general more satisfied with their
working conditions. However, they report more stress and Saturday work 51 52
more muscular pains. Part-time work (spontaneous) 23 17
Shift-work 23 20
Table 38 Health outcomes, Norway and EU15

%
Norway EU 15
Work organisation
The pace of work is noticeably higher in Norway than in EU
Health considered at risk 20 27
15, and workers also report having less time to do the job.
Stress 32 28 This should be considered in the light of a pace of work more
Backache 27 33 induced by external demands from clients and by demands
from colleagues, rather than by technical or normative
Muscular pains in neck and shoulders 33 23
demands.
Satisfied with working conditions 90 84
Not able or not willing to do the same job at 60 38 40
Table 41 Nature of work, Norway and EU15

Physical work factors %

There is less exposure overall to all physical work factors. This Norway EU 15
has to be considered in the light of a comparatively lower Dealing with external people 73 64
percentage of workers employed in manufacturing.
Pace of work depending on clients 75 69

Table 39 Physical work factors, Norway and EU15 Pace of work depending on colleagues 54 43

% Pace of work depending on machines 16 20

Norway EU 15 Telework 11 (2) 5 (1)

Noise 31 (8) 29 (11) Figures are for 25% of the time or more. Figures between parentheses: all/almost all the
time
Handling dangerous substances 14 (2) 16 (5)
Heavy loads 41 (7) 37 (12)
Repetitive movements 53 (16) 57 (31)
Painful positions 39 (6) 47 (18)

Figures are for 25% of the time or more.

Figures between parentheses: all/almost all the time

41
 Third European survey on working conditions 2000

Table 42 Work organisation, Norway and EU 15 The responsibilities exercised are generally higher, with less
monotonous and more task rotation reported.
%
Norway EU 15 Job control is also above the EU average: workers are more
Working at high speed 85 57 likely to control the organisation of their tasks and the pace
of their work and to have a say in the work methods.
Working to tight deadlines 73 60
Monotonous work 28 40
Finally, opportunities to learn new things in the job are
Learning new things 86 72 above average, as well as training provided to workers over
Not able to choose order of tasks 17 35
the last 12 months.

Not able to choose pace of work 22 29

Not having enough time to do the job 70 79
Having received training over the last 12 months 50 31

42
Summary of working conditions – EU average percentages

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT FACTORS WORK RHYTHMS

Exposure to*: Working at very high speed* 56%

• high level noise 29% Working to tight deadlines 60%

• vibrations 24% Not having enough time to do the job 21%

• radiation 6% Work rate dependent on**

• high temperatures 22% • colleagues 43%

• low temperatures 21% • customers, clients etc. 69%

Breathing in vapours* 23% • production norms 31%

Handling dangerous substances* 15% • automatic speed of machine 20%

Wearing protective equipment* 30% • direct control of boss 32%

DESIGN OF WORK STATIONS JOB CONTROL AND AUTONOMY

Working in painful positions* 47% Not able to choose or change**:

Moving heavy loads* 37% • rate of work 29%

INFORMATION ON RISKS • methods of work 29%
‘Well’ and ‘very well’ informed 76% • order of tasks 35%
PLACE OF WORK Not able to take a break when wanted** 39%
Working at home* 9% Not free to decide when to take holidays or days off** 42%
Teleworking 5% On flexitime** 44%
Work with a PC 41% JOB CONTENT
WORKING TIME Job involving:
Weekly hours: • complex tasks** 57%
• less than 30 16% • monotonous tasks** 40%
• 30 - 39 35% • assessing the quality of own work** 76%
• more than 40 49% • precise quality standards** 70%
Average working hours per week (in hours) 38.2 • problem solving** 82%
Working part-time 17% • short repetitive tasks (less than 10 minutes)* 32%
Working shifts at least 25% of their time 22% • repetitive hand/arm movements* 57%
Working at night 19% Possible assistance from colleagues** 82%
Working Saturdays 47% Demands too high in relation to skills 8%
Working Sundays 24% Demands too low in relation to skills 7%
Average commuting time per day (in minutes) 37.5 Job involving learning new things** 71%

Having undergone training in the last 12 months 31%

Working with computers* 41%

* 25% of the time or more.

** Yes or no answer.

43
 Third European survey on working conditions 2000

PAY SYSTEMS OCCUPATIONAL RISKS AND HEALTH PROBLEMS

Remuneration includes: Work affects health 60%

• basic fixed salary/wage 92% Stress 28%

• piece rate/productivity payment 7% Backache 33%

• payment for overtime 21% Overall fatigue 23%

• payment for special working hours 10% Headaches 15%

• compensation for poor working conditions 4% Muscular pains in upper limbs 13%
PARTICIPATION AND CONSULTATION Muscular pains in lower limbs 12%
Able to discuss working conditions in general** 73% Sleeping problems 8%
Able to discuss organisational changes** 71% Allergies 4%
Discussion of work related issues (over the last 12 months)** Heart disease 1%
• with staff representatives 43% Anxiety 7%
• with boss 83% Irritability 11%
• with colleagues 90% Trauma 4%
• with outside experts 25% Respiratory difficulties 2%
EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES Stomach ache 4%
The boss is a man 64% Skin problems 6%
The boss is a woman 20% Eye problems 9%
Subjected to** : Ear problems 7%
• sexual discrimination 1% Work improves my health 1%
• nationality discrimination 1% HEALTH RELATED ABSENTEEISM (over the last 12 months)
• disability discrimination 1% No absence 84%
• racial discrimination 1% Less than 5 days 5%
• age discrimination 3% 5 - 20 days 9%
VIOLENCE AT WORK More than 20 days 3%
Subjected to**: PERCEPTION OF RISK
• physical violence 4% Think their health at risk because of work** 27%
• unwanted sexual attention 2% JOB SATISFACTION

• intimidation 9% Satisfied with their job 84%

** Yes or no answer.

44
Annex 1 – Questionnaire

Your Survey Number

Country Code

Our Survey Number

Interview Number

INTERVIEWER: INTERVIEW ONLY PEOPLE AGED 15+ IN THE HOUSEHOLD

1) WHOSE BIRTHDAY IS NEXT

2) WHO ARE EMPLOYED OR SELF-EMPLOYED

Q.1 What is your nationality? Please tell me the country (or countries) that apply. (MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE)

Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1
Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Greece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Luxembourg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Portugal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
United Kingdom (Great Britain, Northern Ireland) . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Austria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Other countries [Which one(s)] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
DK [‘Don’t know’ throughout questionnaire] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
CLOSE INTERVIEW

34 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34,

2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 23, 26, 29, 32, 35,
3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36,

45
 Third European survey on working conditions 2000

Q.2a What is your main paid job?

Please give me your job title.

INTERVIEWER: WRITE IN FULL DETAILS. PROBE FOR AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE

■■ 70-71

Q.3a How many years have you been in your company or organisation? (IF LESS THAN 1 YEAR) How many months?

Number of years : ■■ 72-73

Number of months ■■ 74-75

Q.3b How many years have you been in your present main job? (IF LESS THAN 1 YEAR) How many months?

Number of years : ■■ 76-77

Number of months : ■■ 78-79

Q.4a Are you mainly ...

(SHOW CARD ‘Q.4a’ - READ OUT - ONE ANSWER ONLY)?

Self-employed without employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 1 GO TO Q.5

Self-employed with employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 GO TO Q.5

Employed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 GO TO Q.4b

Other (SPONTANEOUS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 GO TO Q.5

(IF “EMPLOYED”, CODE 3 IN Q.4a)

Q.4b Is it... ?

(SHOW CARD ‘Q.4b’ - READ OUT - ONE ANSWER ONLY)?

On an unlimited permanent contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 1 GO TO Q.5

On a fixed term contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 GO TO Q.4c

On a temporary employment agency contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

On apprenticeship or other training scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 GO TO Q.5

Other (SPONTANEOUS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

DK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

(IF “EMPLOYED ON A FIXED TERM CONTRACT”, CODE 2 IN Q.4b)

Q.4c What is the exact duration of the contract in number of years and months?

Number of years : ■■ 82-83

Number of months : ■■ 84-85

46
Annex 1 - Questionnaire

ASK ALL
Q.5 What is the main activity of the company or organisation where you work?

(INTERVIEWER: WRITE IN FULL DETAILS – PROBE FOR AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE)

■■ 86-87

Q.6 Are you working in ... ?

(SHOW CARD ‘Q.6’ – READ OUT – ONE ANSWER ONLY)?

National or local government services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 1

State-owned company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Another company, another business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Other (SPONTANEOUS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

DK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Q.7 How many people in total work in the local unit of the establishment where you work?
None (interviewee works alone) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 1

2-4 ......................................................... 2

5-9 ......................................................... 3

10 - 49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

50 - 99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

100 - 249 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

250 - 499. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

500 and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

DK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Q.8 How many people work under your supervision, for whom pay increases,
bonuses or promotion depend directly on you?
None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 1

1-4 ......................................................... 2

5-9 ......................................................... 3

10 and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

DK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Q.9 Besides your main paid job, do you have any other paid job? (IF YES)
Is it...? (READ OUT - ONE ANSWER ONLY)

No other paid job . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 1 GO TO Q.11

Yes, regular . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 GO TO Q.10

Yes, occasional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Yes, seasonal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 GO TO Q.11

Other (SPONTANEOUS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

DK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

(IF “YES, REGULAR”, CODE 2 IN Q.9)

47
 Third European survey on working conditions 2000

Q.10 For how many hours a week?

Number of hours : ■■ 92-93

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

ASK ALL
Q.11 Please tell me, using the following scale, are you exposed at work to?
(SHOW CARD ‘Q.11’ WITH SCALE)

ALMOST AROUND AROUND AROUND

READ OUT - ROTATE ALL OF ALL OF 3/4 OF HALF OF 1/4 OF ALMOST DON’T
THE TIME THE TIME THE TIME THE TIME THE TIME NEVER NEVER KNOW

1. Vibrations from hand

tools, machinery, etc. 94 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

2. Noise so loud that you

would have to raise your
voice to talk to people 95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

3. High temperatures which

make you perspire even
when not working 96 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

4. Low temperatures
whether indoors or
outdoors 97 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

5. Breathing in vapours,
fumes, dust, or dangerous
substances such as :
chemicals, infectious
materials, etc. 98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

6. Handling or touching
dangerous products or
substances 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

7. Radiation such as X-rays,

radioactive radiation,
welding light, laser beams 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

48
Annex 1 - Questionnaire

Q.12 Please tell me, using the following scale, does your main paid job involve?
(SHOW CARD ‘Q.11’ AGAIN)

ALMOST AROUND AROUND AROUND

READ OUT - ROTATE ALL OF ALL OF 3/4 OF HALF OF 1/4 OF ALMOST DON’T
THE TIME THE TIME THE TIME THE TIME THE TIME NEVER NEVER KNOW

1. Painful or tiring
positions 101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

2. Carrying or moving
heavy loads 102 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

3. Repetitive hand or
arm movements 103 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

4. Working with
computers: PCs,
network, mainframe 104 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

5. Teleworking from
home with a PC 105 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

6. Working at home (home

being your normal
workplace), excluding
teleworking 106 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

7. Dealing directly with

people who are not
employees at your
workplace such as
customers, passengers,
pupils, patients, etc 107 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

8. Wearing personal
protective equipment 108 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Q.13 Would you say you are very well informed, fairly well informed, not very well informed or not at all well
informed about the risks resulting from the use of materials, instruments or products which you handle
in your job?

Very well informed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 1

Fairly well informed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Not very well informed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Not at all well informed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

NOT APPLICABLE (SPONTANEOUS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

DK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

49
 Third European survey on working conditions 2000

TIME

Q.14 How many hours do you usually work per week, in your main paid job?
(INTERVIEWER: IF 30+ MINUTES, ROUND UP TO NEXT HOUR)

hours per week : ■■■ 110-112

Q.15 In total, how many minutes per day do you normally spend travelling from home to work and back?

Minutes per day : ■■■ 113-115

Not relevant (SPONTANEOUS) .................................... 116 1

DK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Q.16a Normally, how many times a month do you work at night, say for at least 2 hours
between 10.00 pm and 05.00 am?
(IF NO NIGHT : CODE 00)

Number of nights, per month : ■■ 117-118

Q.16b And how many times a month do you work in the evening, for at least 2 hours between 6pm and 10pm?
(IF NO EVENING : CODE 00)

number of evenings per month : ■■ 119-120

Q.16c And how many times a month do you work on Sundays?

(IF NO SUNDAY : CODE 0)

number of Sundays, per month : ■ 121

Q.16d And how many times a month do you work on Saturdays?

(IF NO SATURDAY : CODE 0)

number of Saturdays, per month : ■ 122

Q.16e And how many times a month do you work more than 10 hours a day?
(IF NEVER : CODE 00)

number of days, per month : ■■ 123-124

Q.17a Do you work part-time?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 1 GO TO Q.17b

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 GO TO Q.18a

(IF “YES”, CODE 1 IN Q.17a)

Q.17b Would you like to work... (READ OUT)?

More hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 1

Less hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

The same number of hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

DK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

50
Annex 1 - Questionnaire

ASK ALL
Q.18a Do you work ...?
READ OUT YES NO DON’T KNOW

1. The same number of hours every day 127 1 2 3

2. The same number of days every week 128 1 2 3

3. Fixed starting and finishing times 129 1 2 3

4. In the daytime 130 1 2 3

Q.18b Do you work shifts?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 1 GO TO Q.18c

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 GO TO Q.19a

DK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 GO TO Q.19a

(IF “YES”, CODE 1 IN Q.18b)

Q.18c Do you work ... ?

(SHOW CARD ‘Q.18c’ - READ OUT - ONE ANSWER ONLY)?

Split shifts (with a break of at least 4 hours in between) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 1

Permanent night shifts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Permanent afternoon shifts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Permanent morning shifts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Alternating morning and afternoon shifts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Alternating day and night shifts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Alternating morning/afternoon/night shifts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Other (SPONTANEOUS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

ASK ALL
Q.19a Usually, how many times a month do your scheduled working times change?

It never changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 1 GO TO Q.20a

It changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 GO TO Q.19b

NOW ASK: How many times a month does it change: ■■ 134-135

(IF CODE 2 IN Q.19a, ASK Q.19b)

Q.19b Usually, how many days in advance do you know of a change?

On the day/Same day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 1

Number of days in advance: ■■ 137-138

It depends (SPONTANEOUS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
▲
PUNCHER: NOTE ORDER OF COL. NUMBERS |

51
 Third European survey on working conditions 2000

ASK ALL
Q.20 In general, do your working hours fit in with your family or social commitments
outside work very well, fairly well, not very well or not at all well?

Very well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 1

Fairly well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Not very well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Not at all well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

DK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

ORGANISATIONAL ENVIRONMENT

Q.21a Please tell me, does your job involve short repetitive tasks of less than...?

READ OUT YES NO DON’T KNOW

1. 5 seconds 140 1 2 3

2. 30 seconds 141 1 2 3

3. 1 minute 142 1 2 3

4. 5 minutes 143 1 2 3

5. 10 minutes 144 1 2 3

Q.21b And, does your job involve...(SHOW CARD ‘Q.21b’ WITH SCALE)?

ALMOST AROUND AROUND AROUND

READ OUT ALL ALL OF 3/4 OF HALF OF 1/4 OF ALMOST DON’T
THE TIME THE TIME THE TIME THE TIME THE TIME NEVER NEVER KNOW

1. Working at very high speed 145 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

2. Working to tight deadlines 146 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Q.22 On the whole, is your pace of work dependent, or not, on ... ?

READ OUT YES NO DON’T KNOW

1. The work done by colleagues 147 1 2 3

2. Direct demands from people such as customers,

passengers, pupils, patients, etc. 148 1 2 3

3. Numerical production targets 149 1 2 3

4. Automatic speed of a machine or movement of a

product 150 1 2 3

5. The direct control of your boss 151 1 2 3

52
Annex 1 - Questionnaire

Q.23a How often do you have to interrupt a task you are doing in order to take on an unforeseen task?
(SHOW CARD ‘Q.23a’ - READ OUT - ONE ANSWER ONLY)

Several times a day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 1

A few times a day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 GO TO Q.23b

Several times a week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

A few times a week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Never . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 GO TO Q.24

DK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

(IF CODE 1 OR 2 OR 3 OR 4 IN Q.23a, ASK Q.23b AND Q.23c)

Q.23b Are these interruptions mainly due to ...

(SHOW CARD ‘Q.23b’ - READ OUT - SEVERAL ANSWERS POSSIBLE)?

the nature of your work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 1,

bad organisation of work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,

requests from colleagues or superiors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,

external requests (clients, etc.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,

machines or equipment working badly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,

bad design of workplace or work station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,

Other (SPONTANEOUS). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,

DK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,

Q.23c For your work, are these interruptions ... ?

(SHOW CARD ‘Q.23c’ - READ OUT - ONE ANSWER ONLY)?

disruptive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 1

without consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

positive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Not relevant (SPONTANEOUS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

DK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

ASK ALL
Q.24 Generally, does your main paid job involve, or not, ... ?

READ OUT YES NO DON’T KNOW

1. Meeting precise quality standards 162 1 2 3

2. Assessing yourself the quality of your own work 163 1 2 3

3. Solving unforeseen problems on your own 164 1 2 3

4. Monotonous tasks 165 1 2 3

5. Complex tasks 166 1 2 3

6. Learning new things 167 1 2 3

53
 Third European survey on working conditions 2000

Q.25 Are you able, or not, to choose or change ... ?

READ OUT YES NO DON’T KNOW

1. Your order of tasks 168 1 2 3

2. Your methods of work 169 1 2 3

3. Your speed or rate of work 170 1 2 3

Q.26 For each of the following statements, please answer yes or no.

READ OUT YES NO DON’T KNOW

1. You can get assistance from colleagues if
you ask for it 171 1 2 3

2. You can take your break when you wish 172 1 2 3

3. You are free to decide when to take holidays

or days off 173 1 2 3

4. You can influence your working hours 174 1 2 3

5. You have enough time to get the job done 175 1 2 3

6. You have access to a telephone for

private calls 176 1 2 3

Q.27a In your job, do you have responsibility or not for ...?

READ OUT YES NO DON’T KNOW

1. Production planning 177 1 2 3

2. Staffing 178 1 2 3

3. Working times and shifts 179 1 2 3

Q.27b Does your job involve, or not ...?

READ OUT YES NO DON’T KNOW

1. Rotating tasks between yourself and colleagues 180 1 2 3

2. Doing all or part of your work in a team 181 1 2 3

Q.28 How well do you think your skills match the demands imposed on you by your job?
(SHOW CARD ‘Q.28’ - READ OUT – ONE ANSWER ONLY)

The demands are too high . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 1

They match . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

The demands are too low . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

DK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Q.29 Over the past 12 months, have you undergone training paid for or provided by your employer,
or yourself if you are self-employed, to improve your skills or not?
(IF YES) How many days? (IF NO, CODE 000)

IF YES number of days over the past 12 months : ■■ 183-185

54
Annex 1 - Questionnaire

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

Q.30a Within your workplace, are you able to discuss ... ?

READ OUT YES NO DON’T KNOW

1. Your working conditions in general 186 1 2 3

2. the organisation of your work when changes take place 187 1 2 3

IF “YES” AT Q.30a, ASK – OTHERS GO TO Q.31.

Q.30b Do these exchanges of views take place ... ?

READ OUT YES NO DON’T KNOW

1. With your colleagues 188 1 2 3

2. With your superiors 189 1 2 3

3. With staff representatives 190 1 2 3

4. With outside experts 191 1 2 3

5. On a regular basis 192 1 2 3

6. On a formal basis 193 1 2 3

Q.30c And, do these exchanges of views lead to improvements ... ?

READ OUT YES NO DON’T KNOW

1. At your own personal workplace 194 1 2 3

2. In your office or factory 195 1 2 3

3. In the organisation as a whole 196 1 2 3

ASK ALL
Q.31 Over the past 12 months, have you, or have you not, been subjected at work to ... ?

READ OUT YES NO DON’T KNOW

1. Physical violence from people from your
workplace 197 1 2 3

2. Physical violence from other people 198 1 2 3

3. Intimidation 199 1 2 3

4. Sexual discrimination 200 1 2 3

5. Unwanted sexual attention 201 1 2 3

6. Age discrimination 202 1 2 3

7. Discrimination linked to nationality 203 1 2 3

8. Discrimination linked to ethnic background/race 204 1 2 3

9. Discrimination linked to disability 205 1 2 3

10. Discrimination linked to sexual orientation 206 1 2 3

55
 Third European survey on working conditions 2000

Q.32 In the establishment where you work, are you aware of the existence of ... ?

READ OUT YES NO DON’T KNOW

1. Physical violence from people from your workplace 207 1 2 3

2. Physical violence from other people 208 1 2 3

3. Intimidation 209 1 2 3

4. Sexual discrimination 210 1 2 3

5. Unwanted sexual attention 211 1 2 3

6. Age discrimination 212 1 2 3

7. Discrimination linked to nationality 213 1 2 3

8. Discrimination linked to ethnic background/race 214 1 2 3

9. Discrimination linked to disability 215 1 2 3

10. Discrimination linked to sexual orientation 216 1 2 3

Q.33 Is your immediate boss a man or a woman?

A man . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 1

A woman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

NOT APPLICABLE (SPONTANEOUS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

OUTCOMES

Q.34 Do you think your health or safety is at risk because of your work, or not?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 1

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

DK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Q.35 Does your work affect your health, or not? (IF YES) How does it affect your health?

(SHOW CARD ‘Q.35’ - READ OUT - SEVERAL ANSWERS POSSIBLE)

No, it does not affect my health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 1

Yes, hearing problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Yes, problems with my vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Yes, skin problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Yes, backache . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Yes, headaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Yes, stomach ache . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Yes, muscular pains in shoulders and neck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Yes, muscular pains in upper limbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

56
Annex 1 - Questionnaire

Yes, muscular pains in lower limbs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Yes, respiratory difficulties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Yes, heart disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Yes, injury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Yes, stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Yes, overall fatigue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Yes, sleeping problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Yes, allergies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Yes, anxiety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Yes, irritability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Yes, trauma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Other (SPONTANEOUS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

My work improves my health (SPONTANEOUS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

DK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Q.36a In your main paid job, how many days over the past 12 months were you absent due to an accident at work?

(IF NO DAY: CODE 000; IF CAN’T REMEMBER: CODE 999)

■■■ 242-244

Q.36b And due to health problems caused by your work?

(IF NO DAY: CODE 000; IF CAN’T REMEMBER: CODE 999)

■■■ 245-247

Q.36c And due to other health problems?

(IF NO DAY: CODE 000; IF CAN’T REMEMBER: CODE 999)

■■■ 248-250

EF.11 How old are you?

■■ 251-252

(IF INTERVIEWEE IS LESS THAN 60)

Q.37 Do you think you will be able to do the same job you are doing now when you are 60 years old?

Yes, I think so . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 1

No, I don’t think so . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

I wouldn’t want to (SPONTANEOUS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

DK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

57
 Third European survey on working conditions 2000

ASK ALL
Q.38 On the whole, are you very satisfied, fairly satisfied, not very satisfied or not at all
satisfied with working conditions in your main paid job?

Very satisfied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 1

Fairly satisfied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Not very satisfied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Not at all satisfied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

DK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

DEMOGRAPHICS

EF.7 Could you give me the letter which corresponds best to your own current situation?

(SHOW CARD ‘EF.7’ - READ OUT - ONE ANSWER ONLY)

255-256

Married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Remarried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Unmarried. Currently living with partner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Unmarried. Having never lived with a partner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Unmarried. Having previously lived with

a partner, but now on my own . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Divorced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Separated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Widowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Other (SPONTANEOUS). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Refusal (SPONTANEOUS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

INTERVIEWER: THERE IS NO EF. 8 OR 9

EF.10 SEX

Male. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 1

Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

INTERVIEWER: THERE IS NO EF.11

EF.12 How many people live in your household, including yourself, all adults and children?

EF.13 How many children under 15 are currently living at home?

58
Annex 1 - Questionnaire

EF.13b How many people in your household have a paid job?

EF.12 PEOPLE EF.13 CHILDREN EF.13 b PAID JOB

1 258 1 259-260 261-262

1 1

2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5

6 6 6 6

7 7 7 7

8 8 8 8

9 or more 9 9 9
None 10 10

INTERVIEWER: NO EF. 14-18.

EF.19 Are you ... ?

READ OUT Yes No

a) In your household the person mainly responsible
for ordinary shopping and looking after the home 263 1 2

b) In your household the person who contributes

most to the household income 264 1 2

EF.20 How often are you involved in any of the following activities outside work

(SHOW CARD ‘EF20’ WITH SCALE)?

READ OUT Everyday Everyday Once or Once or Once or Never Not

for 1 or every twice a twice a twice a applicable
hour or second day week month year
more for less than
one hour

1. Voluntary or charitable activity 265 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. Political/trade union activity 266 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. Caring for and educating your children 267 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. Cooking 268 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. Housework 269 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. Caring for elderly/ disabled relatives 270 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. Taking a training or education course 271 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. Sporting activity 272 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9. Cultural activity 273 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. Leisure activity 274 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

59
 Third European survey on working conditions 2000

EF.21 What is on average your net monthly income from your main paid job at present?

275-276

B ............................................................ 1

T ............................................................ 2

P ............................................................ 3

F ............................................................ 4

E ............................................................ 5

H ............................................................ 6

L ............................................................ 7

N ............................................................ 8

R ............................................................ 9

M ........................................................... 10

S ............................................................ 11

K ............................................................ 12
Refusal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

DK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

(IF CODE 3 IN Q.4a, ASK EF.22)

EF.22 What does your remuneration include?

(SHOW CARD ‘EF.22’ - SEVERAL ANSWERS POSSIBLE - READ OUT)

Basic fixed salary/wage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 1

Piece rate or productivity payments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Extra payments for additional hours of work/overtime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Extra payments compensating for bad or dangerous working conditions . .4

Extra payments compensating for Sunday work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Other extra payments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Payments based on the overall performance of the

company (profit-sharing scheme) where you work .................... 7

Payments based on the overall performance of a group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Income from shares in the company you work for . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

DK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Refusal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

(IF CODE 1 OR 2 IN Q.4a, ASK EF. 23)

60
Annex 1 - Questionnaire

EF.23 What does your remuneration include?

(SHOW CARD ‘EF.23’ - READ OUT - SEVERAL ANSWERS POSSIBLE)

Income from self-employment such as own

business, profession or farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289 1

Payments based on the overall performance of the

company (profit sharing scheme) where you work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Payments based on the overall performance of a group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Income from shares in the company you work for . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

DK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Refusal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

P.1 – Date of interview DAY MONTH

■■ 296-297 ■■ 298-299

P.2 – Time of the beginning of the interview HOUR MINUTES

USE 24-HOUR CLOCK ■■ 300-301 ■■ 302-303

P.3 – Number of minutes the interview lasted MINUTES

■■■ 304-306

P.4 – Number of persons present during the interview, including interviewer.

Two (interviewer and respondent) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307 1

Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Four . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Five or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

P.5 - Respondent cooperation

Excellent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308 1

Fair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Bad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

61
 Third European survey on working conditions 2000

P.6 - Size of locality

Less than 2,000 people . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309 1

2,001 - 20,000 people . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

20,001 - 100,000 people . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

100,001 people and more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

PUNCHER NOTE: NO COL 310

P.7 - Region

PUNCHER NOTE: NO COL 312

P.8 - Postal code

■■■■■■■■ 313-320

P.9 - SAMPLE POINT NUMBER

■■■■■■■■ 321-328

P.10 - INTERVIEWER NUMBER

■■■■■■■■ 329-336

P.11 - WEIGHTING FACTOR

■■■■■■■■ 337-344

P.12 - Telephone available in the household?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345 1 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

62
Annex 2 – NACE codes

Statistical Classification of Economic Activities (NACE Rev. 1)

Section

A, B Agriculture, hunting and forestry + Fishing (1 digit)

C Mining and quarrying (1 digit)

D Manufacturing (2 digits)

15+16 Food products, beverages and tobacco

17+18+19 Cloths, textiles and leather

20+21 Wood industry, paper

22 Publishing, printing

23+24+25+26 Chemical, rubber, mineral

27+28+29+30 Metal products and machinery

31+32+33 Electrical and electronics, precision instruments

34+35 Automobile and other transport equipment

36 Furniture

E Electricity, gas and water supply (1 digit)

F Construction (1 digit)

G Wholesale and retail trade, repair of motor vehicles,

motorcycles and personal and household goods (1 digit)

H Hotels and restaurants (1 digit)

I Transport, storage and communication (2 digits)

60 Land transport

61+62+63 Water, Air Sampling activities

64 Post and telecommunications

J Financial intermediation (2 digits)

65+67 Financial intermediation and auxiliary activities

66 Insurance

K Real estate, renting and business activities (1 digit)

L Public administration and defence; compulsory

social security (1 digit)

M Education (1 digit)

N Health and social work (1 digit)

O Other community, social and personal service activities (1 digit)

P+Q Private households with employed persons;

extra-territorial organisations and bodies (1 digit)

63
Annex 3 – ISCO codes

International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO-88 (COM))

1 Legislators, senior officials and managers (1 digit)

2 Professionals (1 digit)

3 Technicians and associate professionals (1 digit)

4 Clerks (1 digit)

5 Service workers and shop and market sales workers (1 digit)

6 Skilled agricultural and fishery workers (1 digit)

7 Craft and related trades workers (1 digit)

8 Plant and machine operators and assemblers (1 digit)

9 Elementary occupations (1 digit)

10 Armed forces (1 digit)

64
Annex 4 – Expert working group

Jesús Alvarez-Hidalgo Kaisa Kauppinen

European Commission, Department of Psychology
EUFO 03/3265 Finnish Insitute of Occupational Health
Bâtiment Jean Monnet Topeliuksenkatu 41 a A
Plateau de Kirchberg, Fin-00250 Helsinki
L-2920 Luxembourg
Christine Kotarakos
Steven Dhondt INRA (Europe)
TNO Arbeid European Coordination Office
Postbus 718 18, Avenue R. Vandendriessche
NL-2130 AS Hoofddorp B-1150 Brussels

Didier Dupré Elisabeth Lagerlöf

Eurostat NIVA
JMO C3 39 Topeliuksenkatu 41 aA
Rue A. Wehrer FIN-00250 Helsinki
L-2920 Luxembourg
Michaela Moritz
Johnny Dyreborg Österreichisches Bundesinstitut für
Eurostat Gesundheitswesen (ÖBIG)
JMO C3 39 Stubenring 6
Rue A. Wehrer A-1010 Vienna
L-2920 Luxembourg.
Clotilde Nogareda
Inger Eklund INSHT
Statistika Centralbyran Centro Nacional de Condiciones de Trabajo
AM-avdelningen C./ Dulcet 2-10
S-10451 Stockholm E-08034 Barcelona

Michel Gollac Elsa Ørhede

Centre d’Etudes de l’Emploi Arbejdsmiljøinstituttet
29, promenade Michel Simon Lersø Park Allé 105
Noisy-le-Grand DK-2100 Copenhagen
F-93166 Marne-la-Vallée Cedex
Pascal Paoli
Irene Houtman European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and
TNO Arbeid Working Conditions
Postbus 718 Wyattville Road
NL-2130 Hoofddorp Loughlinstown
IRL- Dublin 18
Rolf Jansen
Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung Olivier Richard
Hermann-Ehlers-Str. 10 UNICE
D-53113 Bonn Rue Joseph II, 40, Box 4
B-1200 Brussels

65
 Third European survey on working conditions 2000

Anette Rückert Laurent Vogel

European Agency for Safety Trade Union Technical Bureau (TUTB)
and Health at Work Boulevard Albert II no. 5
Gran Via, 33 B-1210 Brussels
E-48009 Bilbao
Anders Wikman
Marc Sapir NIWL
Trade Union Technical Bureau (TUTB) Ekelundsvägen 16
Boulevard Albert II no. 5 Stockholm S-112 79
B-1210 Brussels

66
Annex 5 – INRA technical specifications and national correspondents

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
Between 1 March and 30 April 2000, INRA (EUROPE), a In order to do so, the points were drawn systematically from
European Network of Market and Public Opinion Research each of the ‘administrative regional units’, after
agencies, carried out the Third European survey on working stratification by individual unit and type of area. They thus
conditions, at the request of the European Foundation for represent the whole territory of the Member States
the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. according to the Eurostat-NUTS II (or equivalent) and
according to the distribution of the resident population of
The Third European survey on working conditions covers the the respective EU-nationalities in terms of metropolitan,
total active population of the respective nationalities of the urban and rural areas. In each of the selected sampling
European Union Member States, aged 15 years and over, points, a starting address was drawn, at random. Further
resident in each of the Member States. The basic sample addresses were selected as every nth address, by standard
design applied in all Member States is a multi-stage, random random route procedures, from the initial address. In each
(probability) one. In each EU country, a number of sampling household, the respondent was drawn, at random. All
points were drawn with probability proportional to interviews were face-to-face in people’s home and in the
population size (for a total coverage of the country) and to appropriate national language.
population density.

COUNTRIES INSTITUTES N° INTERVIEWS FIELDWORK ACTIVE

DATES POPULATION 15+
(x 000)

Belgium INRA BELGIUM 1523 01/03 - 14/04 3,837

Denmark GfK DANMARK 1506 11/03 - 12/04 2,672
Germany INRA DEUTSCHLAND 1540 07/03 - 29/03 35,298
Greece KEME 1500 06/03 - 13/04 3,853
Spain INRA ESPANA 1500 06/03 - 31/03 12,706
France CSA-TMO 1502 03/03 - 30/03 22,160
Ireland LANSDOWNE Market Research 1502 06/03 - 20/04 1,376
Italy PRAGMA 1500 04/03 - 04/04 20,031
Luxembourg ILReS 1502 06/03 - 26/04 168
The Netherlands NIPO 1516 14/03 - 19/04 7,187
Portugal METRIS 1502 04/03 - 15/04 4,525
Great Britain INRA UK 1514 01/03 - 29/03 26,610
Austria SPECTRA 1526 01/03 - 15/04 3,611
Sweden GfK SVERIGE 1574 03/03 - 28/04 3,915
Finland MDC MARKETING RESEARCH 1496 01/03 - 30/04 2,117

Total number of interviews = 21,703

67
 Third European survey on working conditions 2000

For each country a comparison between the sample and the W.1 WEIGHT RESULT FROM TARGET (also WEIGHTP or
universe was carried out. The universe description was WSAMPLE)
derived from the Eurostat Labour Force Survey Results 1997
(LSF). For all EU Member States a national weighting W.2 WEIGHT ADJUSTED TO STANDARD SIZE (also
procedure, using marginal and intercellular weighting, was WEIGHTS)
carried out based on this universe description. As such in all
countries, minimum sex, age, region NUTS II were introduced W.11 WEIGHT EUROPE 15 (also WEIGHT15 or WEURO)
in the iteration procedure. Sources, in addition to LFS,
include the Eurostat Regional Statistics Yearbook 1998 and There are 15 samples areas: one for each country of the
the Eurobarometer series. For international weighting (i.e. European Union.
EU averages), INRA (Europe) applied the official ‘persons in
employment’ figures as published by Labour Force Survey Each sample area contains a number of interviews, this
Results 1997. The total population figures for input in this number is not always the one desired (1,500 per sample area)
post-weighting procedure are listed above. except for Luxembourg (500). For this reason an adjustment
is made, which corrects this number back to the one desired
Readers are reminded that survey results are estimates, the (W.2).
accuracy of which, everything being equal, depends on the
sample size and on the observed percentage. With samples We can now bring together the various countries, in order to
of about 1,000 interviews, the real percentages vary within make a European weight. For this, we extrapolate the data
the confidence limits shown at foot of page: using the appropriate figures for each sample area. Bringing
the different sample areas together, gives a weight for the
Weighting procedure people in employment in the European Union today (15
1. Comparison of the sample with the universe, and members = 15 sample areas).
weighting
Precision of weights

A comparison between the sample and the universe is Each weight is expressed in 10,000. This means that a person
carried out, per country. For each EU-member country, a with weight equal to 1 will have in the weight 10,000, a
national weighting procedure, using marginal (RIM) and person with weight 1.534 contains 15340 in the weight. In
intercellular weighting, is carried out, based on this Universe other words we use 4 decimal point digits. Or: you need to
description. divide by 10000 to have the notion of people interviewed in
your data.
The universe description is derived from Eurostat Labour
Force Survey (LFS) Results 1997. A national weighting 2. Datakit, variables and file descriptions
procedure is carried out based on this universe description.
As such in all countries, minimum sex and age variables were Variable names are labelled as follows:
introduced in the iteration procedure but also occupation
(ISCO), sector of activity (NACE) and region NUTS 2. For the V.001-181 = Q.02 - Q.38 (Q for `question’): all substantive
international weighting (i.e. EU-averages), the official questions on different topics.
‘persons in employment’ figures as published by Labour
Force Survey - Results 1997 were applied. V.173-179 = EF.11 (EF for ‘demographics’).

The distribution of the individual weights, and the number V.182-218 = EF.7 - EF.23c7 : socio-demographic and
of iterations necessary to obtain this distribution are added socio-political descriptive questions.
In appendix, per sampling area (country), together with
V.219-224 = P.1 - P.12 (P for ‘protocol’): protocol variables.
selected tables, comparing the weighted and the
unweighted data for each country.
V.225-227= W.1- W.11 (W for ’weight’): all weighting
variables.
Weights delivered with the working conditions data set
The following weights are used in the Working Conditions
V.228 = For identifying the countries, use this variable
survey:

Observed percentages 10% or 90% 20% or 80% 30% or 70% 40% or 60% 50%

Confidence limits +1.9% +2.5% +2.7% +3.0% +3.1%

68
Annex 5 – INRA Technical Specifications and national correspondents

V.229-287 = All country specific variables. In variable sets DUB3t0.MAP:

“EF” and “P” there are questions (i.e. EF.21, P.6, and P.7) listing of all variable names, variable types and
that differ per country. They are ordered per country using corresponding column positions (only useful for users of
an extra country abbreviation (see below). ‘The Research Machine-software’).

Country abbreviations SPSS software:

Belgium BEL DUB3tOp.SPS:
Denmark DEN complete description of all SPSS variable names, variables
Germany GER labels and value labels (only useful for users of ‘SPSS PC
Greece GRE software’ and if syntax command ‘execute’ is added).
Spain SPA DUB3tOx.SPS:
France FRA complete description of all SPSS variable names, variables
Ireland IRL labels and value labels (only useful for users of ‘SPSS VAX
Italy ITA software’ if syntax command ‘execute’ is added).
Luxembourg LUX DUB3t0.SAV:
The Netherlands NET complete integrated SPSS system file, for immediate use
Austria AUS (only useful for users of ‘SPSS PC + VAX software’).
Portugal POR
Finland FIN Reference documents:
Sweden SWE DUB3t0q.LIS:
United Kingdom UK complete description of all question text and answer codes
(in ASCII-format)
Datafile: DUB3tOu.LIS:
complete description of all question text with unweighted
DUB3t0.DAT: results (in ASCIIformat)
complete datafile with one record=one respondent in DUB3t0q.LIS:
standard ASCII-format. complete description of all question text with weighted
The research machine software: EU15-results (in ASCIIformat)
DUB3t0.QSL: READMEDUB3.DOC:
complete description of all questions, answers (only useful guidelines for using the Eurobarometer data
for users of ‘The Research Machine-software’).

INRA CO-OPERATING AGENCIES AND RESEARCH EXECUTIVES

INRA (Europe) European Coordination Office SA/NV Denmark

Christine Kotarakos GfK Danmark
18 Avenue R. Vandendriessche Erik Christiansen
B -1150 Brussels Sylows Alle 1
Tel. ++/32/2/775 01 11 DK-2000 Frederiksberg
Fax ++/32/2/772 40 79 tel. ++/45 38 32 20 00
E-mail: christine.Kotarakos@inra.com fax. ++145 38 32 20 01
harald.piitters@inra.com erik.christiansen@gfk.dk

Belgium Germany
INRA Belgium INRA Deutschland
Eleonore Snoy Mr Christian Holst
430 Avenue Louise Papenkamp 2-6
B-1050 Brussels D-23879 Mölln
tel. ++/32 2 648 80 10 tel. ++/49 4542 801 0
fax. ++/32 2 648 34 08 fax. ++/49 4542 801 201
inra.belgium@skynet.be christian.holst@inra.de

69
 Third European survey on working conditions 2000

Greece Netherlands
KEME NIPO
Fotini Panoutsou Vincent Groen
Ippodamou Street 24 Grote Bickersstraat 74
GR-11635 Athena NL -1013 KS Amsterdam
tel. ++/301 7018082 tel. ++/3120 522 54 44
fax. ++/301 701 7837 fax ++/31 20 522 53 33
fpanoutsou@gr.memrb.com vincent.groen@nipo.nl

Spain Austria
INRA Espana Spectra
Carmen Mozo Jitka Neumann
C\Alberto Aguilera, 7-5° Brucknerstrasse 3-5/4
E-28015 Madrid A-4020 Linz
tel. ++/34 91 594 47 93 tel. ++/43/732/6901
fax. ++/34 91 594 52 23 fax. ++/43/732/6901-4
carmen.mozo@inra.es neji@spectra.at

France Portugal
CSA-TMO Metris
Bertrand Dosseur Mafalda Brasil
22, rue du 4 Septembre Av. Eng. Arantes e Oliveira 3-2°
F-75002 Paris P-1900 Lisboa
tel. ++/331 44944000 tel. ++/351 21 84322 00
fax. ++/331 44944001 fax. ++/351 21 84612 03
Dosseur@tmo.fr mafaldabrasil@metris.pt

Ireland
Lansdowne Market Research Finland
Roger Jupp MDC Marketing Research LW
49 St. Stephen’s Green Juhani Pehkonen
IRL-Dublin 2 Itatuolenkuja 10 A
tel. ++/353 1 661 34 83 FIN-02100 Espoo
fax. ++/353 1 661 34 79 tel. ++/358 9 613 500
roger@lmr.ie fax. ++/358 9 613 50 423
Juhani. Pehkonen@mdc.fi
Italy
PRAGMA Sweden
Maria-Adelaide Santilli GfK Sverige
Via Salaria 290 Rikard Ekdahl
I-001 99 Roma St Lars vag 46
tel. ++/39 06 84 48 81 S-221 00 Lund
fax. ++/39 06 84 48 82 98 tel. ++/46 46181600
pragma.inter@iol.it fax. ++/46 46181611
rikard.ekdahl@gfksverige.se
Luxembourg
ILReS United Kingdom
Charles Margue Inrauk
46, rue du Cimetière Paul Durrant
L-1338 Luxembourg Monarch House, Victoria Road
tel. ++/352 49 92 91 UK-London W3 6RZ
fax. ++/352 49 92 95 555 paul.durrant@inra.co.uk
charles.margue@ilres.com tel. ++/44 208 99322 20
fax. ++/44 208 99311 14

70
Index

absenteeism INRA-Europe, 1
causes of, 33 International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO)
Austria, 2, 37, 39 codes, 64
Ireland, 2, 6, 37
Belgium, 2, 37 Italy, 2, 6, 32, 37, 40

commuting see working time job autonomy, 12-13

and breaks/holidays, 13
Denmark, 1, 6, 26, 40 and working hours, 13
discrimination job content, 16-19
based on age, 30 and quality standards, 17
based on gender, 29 self-assessment of quality, 17
based on ethnicity, 29 and complex tasks, 17
and learning opportunities, 17-18
European survey on working conditions (ESWC) and monotonous tasks, 17
expert working group, 65-6 and problems unforeseen, 17
field work, 1
INRA technical specifications, 66-9 Labour Force Survey (Eurostat), 1, 2
limitations of, 3 learning opportunities see job content
methodology, 1-3: sampling, 1; Luxembourg, 1, 2, 3, 29, 32
random walk procedure, 1; weighting, 1-2
national correspondents, 70-1 NACE codes, 63
questionnaire, 3, 45-62 Netherlands, the, 2, 6, 8, 21, 23, 26, 29, 38, 39, 40
response rates, 2-3 Norway, 41-2
Eurostat, 2 (see also Labour Force Survey) health issues, 41
physical work factors, 41
Finland, 2, 15, 26, 28, 32, 37 working time, 41
France, 2, 29, 31, 32, 37, 38, 40 work organisation, 41

gender inequality, 39 over-skilling, 19

Germany, 2, 30, 38
Greece, 2, 8, 15, 21, 31, 32, 38, 39 payment systems, 36-8
overtime, 37
harassment performance-based, 38
intimidation, 28-9 piece-rate payments, 36
sexual, 29 profit-sharing schemes, 37
health Sunday work, 37
problems, 31-2: backache, 31; fatigue, 31; Portugal, 2, 6, 8, 15, 21, 26, 28, 37, 39, 40
muscular pains, 31-2; occupational injuries, 32;
stress, 32 segregation
risks, 31 gender-based, 30, 39
and safety see work skills, 18-19
household Spain, 2, 6, 13, 32, 37, 39
duties, 39 Sweden, 2, 16, 32, 37, 38, 39
income, 39
training see work
income levels, 36
and company shares, 38 under-skilling, 19
of self-employed workers, 38 United Kingdom, 2, 8, 21, 29, 30, 38
information and consultation, 26-7
and discussion of work-related issues, 26-7 violence, 28
benefits of, 27
risks at work and, 26

71
 Third European survey on working conditions 2000

women workers workforce

country breakdown of, 6 ageing of, 6
jobs occupied by, 9 and company status, 6
work distribution by age, 6
colleagues, 18 distribution by economic activity, 4
and family life, 39-40 distribution by gender, 5
at home, 9 distribution by occupation, 4
hazards at, 10-11 distribution by sector, 4
health and safety, 10 employment status of, 5
interruptions at, 16 and length of employment, 6
just-in-time practices, 9 structure of, 4-7
lean production, 9 working conditions, 3
nature of, 8-9: computer use, and, 8; contact with satisfaction with, 34
clients, and, 8; teleworking, 8 summary of (EU average percentages), 43-4
organisation, 12-19 working environment, 3
pace of, 13-16: and contributory factors, 15-16; and working time, 20-5
deadlines, 14-15; and health commuting and, 23
problems, 13; and high speed, 14 duration of, 20-1
part-time, 21-3 nightwork and, 23
physical factors, 10-11 and part-time work, 21-3
repetitive, 12 patterns, 23-5
responsibilities in, 18 shift-work and, 23
teamwork, 1 weekend work and, 23
training, 19
(see also job autonomy)
workers
in second job, 6
self-employed, 8
supervisory, 7

72
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions

Third European survey on working conditions 2000

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

2001 – XI, 72 pp. – 21 x 29.7 cm

ISBN 92-897-0130-7

Price (excluding VAT) in Luxembourg: EUR 25

 Venta • Salg • Verkauf • Pvlèseiw • Sales • Vente • Vendita • Verkoop • Venda • Myynti • Försäljning
http://eur-op.eu.int/general/en/s-ad.htm
BELGIQUE/BELGIË ÖSTERREICH EESTI Renouf Publishing Co. Ltd
5369 Chemin Canotek Road, Unit 1
Jean De Lannoy Manz’sche Verlags- und Eesti Kaubandus-Tööstuskoda Ottawa, Ontario K1J 9J3
Avenue du Roi 202/Koningslaan 202 Universitätsbuchhandlung GmbH (Estonian Chamber of Commerce and Industry) Tel. (1-613) 745 26 65
B-1190 Bruxelles/Brussel Kohlmarkt 16 Toom-Kooli 17 Fax (1-613) 745 76 60
Tél. (32-2) 538 43 08 A-1014 Wien EE-10130 Tallinn E-mail: order.dept@renoufbooks.com
Fax (32-2) 538 08 41 Tel. (43-1) 53 16 11 00 Tel. (372) 646 02 44 URL: http://www.renoufbooks.com
E-mail: jean.de.lannoy@infoboard.be Fax (43-1) 53 16 11 67 Fax (372) 646 02 45
URL: http://www.jean-de-lannoy.be E-Mail: manz@schwinge.at E-mail: einfo@koda.ee EGYPT
URL: http://www.manz.at URL: http://www.koda.ee
La librairie européenne/ The Middle East Observer
De Europese Boekhandel 41 Sherif Street
PORTUGAL HRVATSKA
Rue de la Loi 244/Wetstraat 244 Cairo
B-1040 Bruxelles/Brussel Mediatrade Ltd Tel. (20-2) 392 69 19
Tél. (32-2) 295 26 39 Distribuidora de Livros Bertrand Ld.ª
Pavla Hatza 1 Fax (20-2) 393 97 32
Fax (32-2) 735 08 60 Grupo Bertrand, SA HR-10000 Zagreb E-mail: inquiry@meobserver.com
E-mail: mail@libeurop.be Rua das Terras dos Vales, 4-A Tel. (385-1) 481 94 11 URL: http://www.meobserver.com.eg
URL: http://www.libeurop.be Apartado 60037 Fax (385-1) 481 94 11
P-2700 Amadora INDIA
Moniteur belge/Belgisch Staatsblad Tel. (351) 214 95 87 87
Rue de Louvain 40-42/Leuvenseweg 40-42 Fax (351) 214 96 02 55 MAGYARORSZÁG EBIC India
B-1000 Bruxelles/Brussel E-mail: dlb@ip.pt Euro Info Service 3rd Floor, Y. B. Chavan Centre
Tél. (32-2) 552 22 11 Gen. J. Bhosale Marg.
Fax (32-2) 511 01 84 Imprensa Nacional-Casa da Moeda, SA Szt. István krt.12
II emelet 1/A Mumbai 400 021
E-mail: eusales@just.fgov.be Sector de Publicações Oficiais Tel. (91-22) 282 60 64
PO Box 1039
Rua da Escola Politécnica, 135 H-1137 Budapest Fax (91-22) 285 45 64
DANMARK P-1250-100 Lisboa Codex E-mail: ebicindia@vsnl.com
Tel. (36-1) 329 21 70
Tel. (351) 213 94 57 00 Fax (36-1) 349 20 53 URL: http://www.ebicindia.com
J. H. Schultz Information A/S Fax (351) 213 94 57 50
Herstedvang 12 E-mail: euroinfo@euroinfo.hu
E-mail: spoce@incm.pt URL: http://www.euroinfo.hu JAPAN
DK-2620 Albertslund URL: http://www.incm.pt
Tlf. (45) 43 63 23 00 PSI-Japan
Fax (45) 43 63 19 69 MALTA Asahi Sanbancho Plaza #206
E-mail: schultz@schultz.dk SUOMI/FINLAND
Miller Distributors Ltd 7-1 Sanbancho, Chiyoda-ku
URL: http://www.schultz.dk Akateeminen Kirjakauppa/ Tokyo 102
Malta International Airport Tel. (81-3) 32 34 69 21
Akademiska Bokhandeln PO Box 25
DEUTSCHLAND Fax (81-3) 32 34 69 15
Keskuskatu 1/Centralgatan 1 Luqa LQA 05 E-mail: books@psi-japan.co.jp
Bundesanzeiger Verlag GmbH PL/PB 128 Tel. (356) 66 44 88 URL: http://www.psi-japan.co.jp
Vertriebsabteilung FIN-00101 Helsinki/Helsingfors Fax (356) 67 67 99
Amsterdamer Straße 192 P./tfn (358-9) 121 44 18 E-mail: gwirth@usa.net MALAYSIA
D-50735 Köln F./fax (358-9) 121 44 35
Tel. (49-221) 97 66 80 Sähköposti: sps@akateeminen.com POLSKA EBIC Malaysia
Fax (49-221) 97 66 82 78 URL: http://www.akateeminen.com Suite 45.02, Level 45
E-Mail: vertrieb@bundesanzeiger.de Ars Polona Plaza MBf (Letter Box 45)
URL: http://www.bundesanzeiger.de SVERIGE Krakowskie Przedmiescie 7 8 Jalan Yap Kwan Seng
Skr. pocztowa 1001 50450 Kuala Lumpur
ELLADA/GREECE BTJ AB PL-00-950 Warszawa Tel. (60-3) 21 62 92 98
Traktorvägen 11-13 Tel. (48-22) 826 12 01 Fax (60-3) 21 62 61 98
G. C. Eleftheroudakis SA S-221 82 Lund Fax (48-22) 826 62 40 E-mail: ebic@tm.net.my
International Bookstore Tlf. (46-46) 18 00 00 E-mail: books119@arspolona.com.pl
Panepistimiou 17 Fax (46-46) 30 79 47 MÉXICO
GR-10564 Athina E-post: btjeu-pub@btj.se ROMÂNIA
Tel. (30-1) 331 41 80/1/2/3/4/5 Mundi Prensa México, SA de CV
URL: http://www.btj.se
Fax (30-1) 323 98 21 Euromedia Río Pánuco, 141
E-mail: elebooks@netor.gr Str.Dionisie Lupu nr. 65, sector 1 Colonia Cuauhtémoc
URL: elebooks@hellasnet.gr UNITED KINGDOM RO-70184 Bucuresti MX-06500 México, DF
Tel. (40-1) 315 44 03 Tel. (52-5) 533 56 58
The Stationery Office Ltd Fax (52-5) 514 67 99
ESPAÑA Fax (40-1) 312 96 46
Customer Services E-mail: euromedia@mailcity.com E-mail: 101545.2361@compuserve.com
Boletín Oficial del Estado PO Box 29
Trafalgar, 27 Norwich NR3 1GN PHILIPPINES
Tel. (44) 870 60 05-522 SLOVAKIA
E-28071 Madrid EBIC Philippines
Tel. (34) 915 38 21 11 (libros) Fax (44) 870 60 05-533 Centrum VTI SR
Tel. (34) 913 84 17 15 (suscripción) E-mail: book.orders@theso.co.uk 19th Floor, PS Bank Tower
Nám. Slobody, 19 Sen. Gil J. Puyat Ave. cor. Tindalo St.
Fax (34) 915 38 21 21 (libros), URL: http://www.itsofficial.net SK-81223 Bratislava
Fax (34) 913 84 17 14 (suscripción) Makati City
Tel. (421-7) 54 41 83 64 Metro Manilla
E-mail: clientes@com.boe.es ÍSLAND Fax (421-7) 54 41 83 64
URL: http://www.boe.es Tel. (63-2) 759 66 80
E-mail: europ@tbb1.sltk.stuba.sk Fax (63-2) 759 66 90
Bokabud Larusar Blöndal URL: http://www.sltk.stuba.sk
Mundi Prensa Libros, SA E-mail: eccpcom@globe.com.ph
Skólavördustig, 2 URL: http://www.eccp.com
Castelló, 37 IS-101 Reykjavik
E-28001 Madrid SLOVENIJA
Tel. (354) 552 55 40 SOUTH AFRICA
Tel. (34) 914 36 37 00 Fax (354) 552 55 60 Gospodarski Vestnik
Fax (34) 915 75 39 98 E-mail: bokabud@simnet.is Dunajska cesta 5 Eurochamber of Commerce in South Africa
E-mail: libreria@mundiprensa.es SLO-1000 Ljubljana
URL: http://www.mundiprensa.com PO Box 781738
NORGE Tel. (386) 613 09 16 40 2146 Sandton
Fax (386) 613 09 16 45 Tel. (27-11) 884 39 52
FRANCE Swets Blackwell AS E-mail: europ@gvestnik.si Fax (27-11) 883 55 73
Journal officiel URL: http://www.gvestnik.si E-mail: info@eurochamber.co.za
Østenjoveien 18
Service des publications des CE Boks 6512 Etterstad
26, rue Desaix N-0606 Oslo TÜRKIYE SOUTH KOREA
F-75727 Paris Cedex 15 Tel. (47) 22 97 45 00 Dünya Infotel AS The European Union Chamber of
Tél. (33) 140 58 77 31 Fax (47) 22 97 45 45 Commerce in Korea
Fax (33) 140 58 77 00 E-mail: info@no.swetsblackwell.com 100, Yil Mahallessi 34440
E-mail: europublications@journal-officiel.gouv.fr TR-80050 Bagcilar-Istanbul 5th FI, The Shilla Hotel
URL: http://www.journal-officiel.gouv.fr Tel. (90-212) 629 46 89 202, Jangchung-dong 2 Ga, Chung-ku
SCHWEIZ/SUISSE/SVIZZERA Fax (90-212) 629 46 27 Seoul 100-392
E-mail: infotel@dunya-gazete.com.tr Tel. (82-2) 22 53-5631/4
IRELAND Euro Info Center Schweiz Fax (82-2) 22 53-5635/6
Alan Hanna’s Bookshop c/o OSEC ARGENTINA E-mail: eucck@eucck.org
Stampfenbachstraße 85 URL: http://www.eucck.org
270 Lower Rathmines Road PF 492 World Publications SA
Dublin 6 CH-8035 Zürich
Tel. (353-1) 496 73 98 Av. Cordoba 1877 SRI LANKA
Tel. (41-1) 365 53 15 C1120 AAA Buenos Aires
Fax (353-1) 496 02 28 Fax (41-1) 365 54 11 EBIC Sri Lanka
E-mail: hannas@iol.ie Tel. (54-11) 48 15 81 56
E-mail: eics@osec.ch Fax (54-11) 48 15 81 56 Trans Asia Hotel
URL: http://www.osec.ch/eics E-mail: wpbooks@infovia.com.ar 115 Sir Chittampalam
ITALIA URL: http://www.wpbooks.com.ar A. Gardiner Mawatha
Licosa SpA Colombo 2
B@LGARIJA Tel. (94-1) 074 71 50 78
Via Duca di Calabria, 1/1 AUSTRALIA Fax (94-1) 44 87 79
Casella postale 552 Europress Euromedia Ltd
Hunter Publications E-mail: ebicsl@slnet.ik
I-50125 Firenze 59, blvd Vitosha
Tel. (39) 055 64 83 1 BG-1000 Sofia PO Box 404
Abbotsford, Victoria 3067 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Fax (39) 055 64 12 57 Tel. (359-2) 980 37 66
E-mail: licosa@licosa.com Fax (359-2) 980 42 30 Tel. (61-3) 94 17 53 61 Bernan Associates
URL: http://www.licosa.com E-mail: Milena@mbox.cit.bg Fax (61-3) 94 19 71 54 4611-F Assembly Drive
URL: http://www.europress.bg E-mail: jpdavies@ozemail.com.au Lanham MD 20706-4391
LUXEMBOURG Tel. (1-800) 274 44 47 (toll free telephone)
|ESKÁ REPUBLIKA BRESIL Fax (1-800) 865 34 50 (toll free fax)
Messageries du livre SARL E-mail: query@bernan.com
5, rue Raiffeisen Livraria Camões
ÚVIS URL: http://www.bernan.com
L-2411 Luxembourg Rua Bittencourt da Silva, 12 C
odd. Publikaci CEP
Tél. (352) 40 10 20 Havelkova 22 ANDERE LÄNDER/OTHER COUNTRIES/
Fax (352) 49 06 61 20043-900 Rio de Janeiro AUTRES PAYS
CZ-130 00 Praha 3 Tel. (55-21) 262 47 76
E-mail: mail@mdl.lu Tel. (420-2) 22 72 07 34
URL: http://www.mdl.lu Fax (55-21) 262 47 76 Bitte wenden Sie sich an ein Büro Ihrer
Fax (420-2) 22 71 57 38 E-mail: livraria.camoes@incm.com.br Wahl/Please contact the sales office of
URL: http://www.uvis.cz URL: http://www.incm.com.br your choice/Veuillez vous adresser au
NEDERLAND
bureau de vente de votre choix
SDU Servicecentrum Uitgevers CYPRUS CANADA Office for Official Publications of the European
Christoffel Plantijnstraat 2 Communities
Postbus 20014 Cyprus Chamber of Commerce and Industry Les éditions La Liberté Inc. 2, rue Mercier
2500 EA Den Haag PO Box 21455 3020, chemin Sainte-Foy L-2985 Luxembourg
Tel. (31-70) 378 98 80 CY-1509 Nicosia Sainte-Foy, Québec G1X 3V6 Tel. (352) 29 29-42455
Fax (31-70) 378 97 83 Tel. (357-2) 88 97 52 Tel. (1-418) 658 37 63 Fax (352) 29 29-42758
E-mail: sdu@sdu.nl Fax (357-2) 66 10 44 Fax (1-800) 567 54 49 E-mail: info-info-opoce@cec.eu.int
URL: http://www.sdu.nl E-mail: demetrap@ccci.org.cy E-mail: liberte@mediom.qc.ca URL: http://eur-op.eu.int
1/2001
EF/00/21/EN
EF/01/05/EN
 4
5
TJ-39-01-764-EN-C
Third European survey on
working conditions 2000

ISBN 92-897-0130-7
Price (excluding VAT) in Luxembourg: EUR 25

OFFICE FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS OF

THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
L-2985 Luxembourg
9 789289 701303