DOCSLIB.ORG

Member State Factsheets

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Member State Factsheets European Platform Undeclared Work Member State Factsheets 2017 LEGAL NOTICE Neither the Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information. The information contained in this publication does not necessarily reflect the official position of the European Commission. This publication is part of the work programme 2017-2018 of the European Platform tackling undeclared work established through Decision (EU) 2016/344. The information contained in this publication does not necessarily reflect the official position of the European Platform. For any use of material which is not under the European Union copyright, permission must be sought directly from the copyright-holder(s) indicated. This publication has received financial support from the European Union Programme for Employment and Social Innovation "EaSI" (2014-2020). For further information please consult: http://ec.europa.eu/social/easi Table of Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 2 Member State Factsheets .............................................................................. 2 Factsheet on Undeclared Work – AUSTRIA (September 2017) ................................. 3 Factsheet on Undeclared Work – BELGIUM (September 2017) ................................11 Factsheet on Undeclared Work – BULGARIA (September 2017) ..............................17 Factsheet on Undeclared Work – CROATIA (July 2016) ..........................................23 Factsheet on Undeclared Work - CYPRUS (September 2017) ..................................29 Factsheet on Undeclared Work – CZECH REPUBLIC (September 2017) ....................35 Factsheet on Undeclared Work – DENMARK (September 2017) ...............................41 Factsheet on Undeclared Work – ESTONIA (September 2017) ................................47 Factsheet on Undeclared Work - FINLAND (September 2017) ...............................54 Factsheet on Undeclared Work – FRANCE (September 2017) .................................60 Factsheet on Undeclared Work – GERMANY (September 2017) ...............................68 Factsheet on Undeclared Work – GREECE (September 2017) .................................74 Factsheet on Undeclared Work – HUNGARY (September 2017) ...............................81 Factsheet on Undeclared Work – IRELAND (September 2017) ................................87 Factsheet on Undeclared Work – ITALY (September 2017) .....................................95 Factsheet on Undeclared Work – LATVIA (September 2017)................................. 102 Factsheet on Undeclared Work – LITHUANIA (September 2017) ........................... 107 Factsheet on Undeclared Work – LUXEMBOURG (July 2016) ................................. 113 Factsheet on Undeclared Work – MALTA (July 2016) ........................................... 119 Factsheet on Undeclared Work – NETHERLANDS (September 2017) ...................... 125 Factsheet on Undeclared Work – POLAND (July 2016) ......................................... 131 Factsheet on Undeclared Work – PORTUGAL (September 2017)............................ 139 Factsheet on Undeclared Work – ROMANIA (July 2017) ....................................... 146 Factsheet on Undeclared Work – SLOVAKIA (September 2017) ............................ 151 Factsheet on Undeclared Work – SLOVENIA (September 2017) ............................ 159 Factsheet on Undeclared Work – SPAIN (September 2017) .................................. 166 Factsheet on Undeclared Work – SWEDEN (September 2017) .............................. 172 Factsheet on Undeclared Work – UNITED KINGDOM (September 2017) ................. 179 1 Introduction In 2016 factsheets were produced for each Member State to provide an overview of the state of play regarding efforts to address undeclared work, as part of preparations for the launch of the Platform Tackling Undeclared Work. The factsheets were produced by national experts from the European Employment Policy Observatory and covered a range of topics, including: The definition, characteristics and scale of estimated undeclared work (UDW) in each Member State; The institutional framework for addressing UDW – including the characteristics of the authorities responsible for identifying, tackling and/or preventing UDW, and the degree of cooperation between organisations within and between Member States; and The policy approach and measures used to tackle UDW in each Member State – including their effectiveness, the challenges and barriers faced in tackling UDW, and examples of good practice. In 2017, following the first year of operation of the Platform, each Member State was given the opportunity to update their 2016 factsheets to reflect changes in the previous 12 months. A total of 20 Member States provided an update to their factsheets (as shown in Table 1 below), with an additional three reporting that no changes were required. Table 1. Member States Updating Factsheets - 2017 Member State Member States updating factsheets Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, UK Member States reporting that no Finland, Ireland and Sweden changes were required Member States not responding Croatia, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland and Romania The remainder of this document provides factsheets for all 28 Member States. In each case, the headings describe whether these were updated for 2017 (including Member States reporting no change) or whether the original 2016 factsheet is provided. 1 2 Member State Factsheets This section provides the factsheets for each Member State. As described above, they include: Factsheets were updates were provided marked as 2017; Factsheets were responses indicated no changes were required (marked as 2017); and Factsheets where no responses were received, and where the original 2016 factsheets are included (marked as 2016). 2 Factsheet on Undeclared Work – AUSTRIA (September 2017) 2.1 Nature and Estimated Scale of Undeclared Work 2.1.1 Definition of undeclared work Legal definitions in Austria can be found in the Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch - StGB), where § 153e defines “organised undeclared work” as “professional recruitment or placement of people in independent or dependent employment without the required registration for social insurance or without the required business license”. The law combating social security fraud (Sozialbetrugsbekämpfungsgesetz – SBBG) addresses and specifies several forms of social fraud, namely partial / no payment of social security contributions in the form of undeclared work (envelope wages, bogus part-time work, falsely declared employment), organised undeclared work or bogus registration to the social security system to obtain benefits or to avoid obligations. The Law against wage and social dumping (Lohn- und Sozialdumping-Bekämpfungsgesetz, LSD-BG in force since 1.1.2017; former LSDB-G), aims to ensure equal pay conditions for everyone employed in Austria and to ensure fair competition between Austrian and foreign companies. Penalties to companies are imposed if wages and salaries (as provided for in the collective agreements) fall short. The previously mentioned laws are the essential common framework for several institutions involved in combating undeclared work. 2.1.2 Characteristics of undeclared work In Austria, several types of undeclared work exist. Any ranking of the importance of different types suffers from a lack of data and limited comparability. Furthermore data reporting is irregular or undertaken in a compromised form, so that further distinctions cannot be provided. Undeclared work (e.g. (partly) envelope wages, bogus part-time work, underpayment – where wages and salaries are less than what is provided for in the collective agreements). Underpayment is controlled under the LSD-BG including all forms of wages and salaries that fall short of collective agreements. Between 2011 (start of the implementation of the LSDB-G) and end of November 2016, nearly 1,950 reports relating to underpayment are documented (affecting 7,308 workers). More than 1,100 final decisions relating to underpayment exist which affect around 2,300 workers, of whom nearly 64% are from abroad. Information on other types of activity, especially quantitative information, are highly limited (for results based on qualitative methods see footnote1). For the gastronomy sector, the Chamber of Labour2 analysed the situation of part-time workers, finding more than half (58%) of the analysed cases reported to the social security authorities as being part-time or marginal employed workers had actually worked longer hours. Bogus self-employment (incl. undocumented (illegal immigrant) work) Despite bogus self-employment being continually discussed as a problem, quantitative data are also limited. The union estimates that up to two-thirds of people working on the basis of a service contract (one-person-enterprises and ‘new self-employed’) or free service contract (Freie Dienstnehmer) are not employed correctly (cf. www.watchlist-prekaer.at). 1 Schmatz, Susanne / Wetzel, Petra, ‘Developments in the field of wage dumping’ (‘Entwicklungen im Bereich Lohndumping’), on behalf of the Chamber of Labour, Vienna, 2014. 2 Chamber of Labour, ‘Evaluation of 371 questionnaires in the gastronomy’ (‘Auswertung von 371 Fragebögen Gastgewerbe‘), unpublished report,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Threatening Immigrants: Cultural Depictions of Undocumented Mexican Immigrants in Contemporary Us America
    THREATENING IMMIGRANTS: CULTURAL DEPICTIONS OF UNDOCUMENTED MEXICAN IMMIGRANTS IN CONTEMPORARY US AMERICA Katharine Lee Schaab A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY August 2015 Committee: Jolie Sheffer, Advisor Lisa Hanasono Graduate Faculty Representative Rebecca Kinney Susana Peña © 2015 Katharine Schaab All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Jolie Sheffer, Advisor This project analyzes how contemporary US cultural and legislative texts shape US society’s impression of undocumented (im)migrants and whether they fit socially constructed definitions of what it means to “be American” or part of the US national imaginary. I argue that (im)migrant-themed cultural texts, alongside legal policies, participate in racial formation projects that use racial logic to implicitly mark (im)migrants as outsiders while actively employing ideologies rooted in gender, economics, and nationality to rationalize (im)migrants’ exclusion or inclusion from the US nation-state. I examine the tactics anti- and pro-(im)migrant camps utilize in suppressing the role of race—particularly the rhetorical strategies that focus on class, nation, and gender as rationale for (im)migrants’ inclusion or exclusion—in order to expose the similar strategies governing contemporary US (im)migration thought and practice. This framework challenges dichotomous thinking and instead focuses on gray areas. Through close readings of political and cultural texts focused on undocumented (im)migration (including documentaries, narrative fiction, and photography), this project homes in on the gray areas between seemingly pro- and anti-(im)migrant discourses. I contend (im)migration-themed political and popular rhetoric frequently selects a specific identity marker (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Advisory Board Report Findings and Implications of the RSI Report to the Joint Task Force on Employee Misclassificatio
    Technical Advisory Board Report Findings and Implications of the RSI Report to the Joint Task Force on Employee Misclassification and the Underground Economy: Contractor Use, Analysis, and Impact Results James B. Rebitzer and David Weil Boston University School of Management March 31, 2014 TAB Report on the RSI Study--FINAL March 31, 2014 1 Preamble: The RSI Report and the Technical Advisory Board In order to assess the extent of the problem of misclassification and of unreported compensation in the underground economy, the Massachusetts Joint Task Force on Employee Misclassification and the Underground Economy (JTF) commissioned an analysis of these practices in 2012. The study’s purpose was to estimate the frequency, scale, and consequences of misclassification and the underground economy in the Commonwealth. In designing the study, the JTF acted on recommendations of the 2004 study of misclassification of workers in Massachusetts that advocated basing future research on more detailed compensation data than had been available at that time (see Carré and Wilson 2004). This included drawing on data not only from the Massachusetts Department of Unemployment Assistance used in the 2004 analysis, but also data from the Department of Revenue (DOR) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) including business filings of W-2 employment and 1099 contracting. Revenue Solutions, Inc. (RSI) was selected by DOR as a member of the JTF, to undertake the analysis and write a report of their findings. The RSI report provides a detailed description of the specific aims and analyses they undertook. The JTF also created a Technical Advisory Board (TAB) made up of the authors of this report to work with the RSI team during their analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of Unreported Family Workers
    DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES IZA DP No. 14449 Women at Work in the United States since 1860: An Analysis of Unreported Family Workers Barry R. Chiswick RaeAnn Halenda Robinson JUNE 2021 DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES IZA DP No. 14449 Women at Work in the United States since 1860: An Analysis of Unreported Family Workers Barry R. Chiswick George Washington University and IZA RaeAnn Halenda Robinson George Washington University JUNE 2021 Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in this series may include views on policy, but IZA takes no institutional policy positions. The IZA research network is committed to the IZA Guiding Principles of Research Integrity. The IZA Institute of Labor Economics is an independent economic research institute that conducts research in labor economics and offers evidence-based policy advice on labor market issues. Supported by the Deutsche Post Foundation, IZA runs the world’s largest network of economists, whose research aims to provide answers to the global labor market challenges of our time. Our key objective is to build bridges between academic research, policymakers and society. IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be available directly from the author. ISSN: 2365-9793 IZA – Institute of Labor Economics Schaumburg-Lippe-Straße 5–9 Phone: +49-228-3894-0 53113 Bonn, Germany Email: [email protected] www.iza.org IZA DP No. 14449 JUNE 2021 ABSTRACT Women at Work in the United States since 1860: An Analysis of Unreported Family Workers* Estimated labor force participation rates among free women in the pre-Civil War period were exceedingly low.
    [Show full text]
  • Has Voucher Work Favoured Unreported Employment? an Analysis of Subsidiary Employment in Tuscany
    Has voucher work favoured unreported employment? An analysis of subsidiary employment in Tuscany ALBERTO MAZZON Joint Doctoral Programme in Economics Universities of Siena, Pisa and Firenze June 20, 2017 Abstract In Italy, since 2008, subsidiary employment (or voucher work) spread throughout the economy, triggering criticism and concern from many economists and trade unionists. However, research on this phenomenon is still at an unsatisfactory level. In particular, it is not clear whether subsidiary work reached its objective of fighting irregular employment. According to critics, in fact, the recourse to vouchers might as well have favoured the hiring of unreported workers. Using a database on vouchers used in Italy between 2010 and 2017, combined with additional data on Tuscan workers and firms, I exploit a recent pol- icy change to calculate a difference-in-difference estimator to assess whether vouchers have been used to conceal irregular employment. Results show that the introduction of a policy intended to control the use of this instrument caused the number of hours contracted in subsidiary employment to plunge after October 2016. 1 Introduction In 2016, the impact of subsidiary employment 1 on the national labour market has given rise to an intense public debate in Italy. Often referred to as voucher work, subsidiary employment at the moment of its introduction had a purpose close to that of French chèques emploi services (CES) [22]. It was, in fact, meant to provide families and small businesses with a flexible instrument to regulate occasional or seasonal activities often confined in the shadow economy [19]. Subsidiary employment is just one example of the rise of alternative contractual arrangements in Europe and other developed economies.
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of the New German Minimum Wage Act (Mindestlohngesetz, Milog)
    Minimum Wages in Germany – You Might Be Affected, Too: An Overview of the New German Minimum Wage Act (Mindestlohngesetz, MiLoG) By Dr. Marc Spielberger and Angela Schilling ermany recently established its first national minimum wage leg- islation providing for a minimum wage of EUR 8.50 per hour. G Unlike most European countries and the U.S., Germany did not previously have any nationwide minimum wage legislation. Instead, it was mainly the responsibility of labor unions and employers’ associations to lay down minimum wages in collective bargaining agreements. In the coalition agreement, which was negotiated by the Christian Democratic Union (CDU)/Christian Social Union (CSU) and the Social Democratic Party (SPD) after the parliamentary election in September 2013, the new German government has planned quite a considerable number of new labor and social law regulations. The Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, responsible for their implementation, is taking the provisions very seriously and has set a remarkably quick pace. This has, in a relatively short period of time, led to the Minimum Wage Act, which is part of the reform package “Act on Strengthening Collective Bargaining Autonomy” (Tarifautonomi- estärkungsgesetz). In July, the Federal Minister of Labor proudly announced: “The minimum wage is coming”. In the following, we will describe the basic features of the new Minimum Wage Act and why it may also affect U.S.-companies and employers. I. Introduction On July 3, 2014, in its 46th session, the lower house of the German parliament DR. MARC SPIELBERGER is a licensed (Bundestag) approved the German Act on the Regulation of a Minimum Wage labor law specialist in Munich, Germany, (Mindestlohngesetz; hereinafter referred to as “Minimum Wage Act”) based on a and is a partner in the law firm Reed recommendation and a report of the Committee for Labor and Social Affairs.
    [Show full text]
  • Conference Proceedings
    1ST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BUSINESS MANAGEMENT “NEW CHALLENGES IN BUSINESS RESEARCH” Conference Proceedings Editorial Universitat Politècnica de València General Chairs Mª Consuelo Calafat Marzal Mª Luisa Martí Selva 1ST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BUSINESS MANAGEMENT “NEW CHALLENGES IN BUSINESS RESEARCH” Conference Proceedings EDITORIAL UNIVERSITAT POLITÈCNICA DE VALÈNCIA Colección Congresos UPV Los contenidos de esta publicación han sido evaluados por el Comité Científico que en ella se relaciona y según el procedimiento que se recoge en http://www.icbm.webs.upv.es/ © Editores Mª Consuelo Calafat Marzal Mª Luisa Martí Selva © de los textos: los autores. © 2015, de la presente edición: Editorial Universitat Politècnica de València. www.lalibreria.upv.es / Ref.: 6224_01_01_01 ISBN: 978-84-9048-342-8 (versión electrónica) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4995/ICBM.2015 1st International Conference on Business Management Se distribuye bajo una licencia de Creative Commons 4.0 Internacional. Basada en una obra en http://ocs.editorial.upv.es/index.php/ICBM/1ICBM General Chairs Calafat, Consuelo (Universitat Politècnica de València - Spain) Martí, María Luisa (Universitat Politècnica de València - Spain) Scientific Committee Albors, José (Universitat Politècnica de València - Spain) Amat, Pablo (Universitat Politècnica de València - Spain) Andreaus, Michele (University of Trento - ItalyAnguelov, Kiril (Technical Universty of Sofia - Bulgaria) Arribas, Iván (Universitat de València - Spain) Belussi, Fiorenza (Padova University - Italy) Boix,
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 1, No.1, 2019
    ROMANIAN JOURNAL OF LABOUR AND SOCIAL STUDIES Volume 1, No.1, 2019 Romanian Journal of Labour and Social Studies (RJLSS) is published by The National Institute for Labor Research and Social Protection in Bucharest (INCSMPS), Romania Romanian Journal of Labour and Social Studies (RJLSS) is Available from Website: http://www.rjlss.ro/ Reproduced with the kind permission of the copyright owner ©Copyright: 2019, RJLSS ISSN 2601 - 257X ISSN-L 2601 - 257X CONTENTS Speranta Camelia PÎRCIOG and Cristina LINCARU Structural Changes Existing at the Level of Local Labour Markets - a Conceptual Constructive Analysis Framework.........................................Page 1 Adriana AnaMaria DAVIDESCU and Friederich SCHNEIDER Is the Incidence of Envelope Wages Less Prevalent in More Modernised and Developed Countries? Am Empirical Analysis Based on EU28 Multilevel Approach...................................................................................................Page 16 Marioara IORDAN and Mihaela-Nona CHILIAN Labor Market Developments in the Romanian Regions after the Accession to the European Union: Employment, Wages, Structural Shifts.....................Page 31 Cristina STROE Poverty and Rural Poverty – Strong and Persistent Social Stigma of Romanian Society...............................................................................................Page 40 Tatiana COLESNICOVA, Mihail CIOBANU and Mircea GUTIUM The Impact of Covid-19 Pandemic on the Moldovan Labour Market…..Page 50 Raluca MOLEA Gender Inequalities in Educational Pathways ........................................Page
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Performance and Accountability Report • U.S
    Introduction Performance and Accountability Report Fiscal Year 2016 2016 Performance and Accountability Report • U.S. Customs and Border Protection I This page intentionally left blank. Performance and Accountability Report Mission Statement: To safeguard America’s borders thereby protecting the public from dangerous people and materials while enhancing the Nation’s global economic competitiveness by enabling legitimate trade and travel Core Values Vigilance Service To Country Integrity Vigilance is how we ensure the safety Service to country is embodied in Integrity is our cornerstone. We are of all Americans. We are continuously the work we do. We are dedicated guided by the highest ethical and watchful and alert to deter, detect, to defending and upholding the moral principles. Our actions bring and prevent threats to our Nation. We Constitution and the laws of the honor to ourselves and our Agency. demonstrate courage and valor in the United States. The American people protection of our Nation. have entrusted us to protect the homeland and defend liberty. This page intentionally left blank. About This Report Introduction About This Report The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP, or the agency) Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) combines CBP’s Annual Performance Report with its audited financial statements, assurances on internal control, accountability reporting, and Agency assessments. CBP’s PAR provides program, financial, and performance information that enables Congress, the President, and the public to assess its performance as it relates to the CBP mission. The CBP PAR discusses the Agency’s strategic goals and objectives and compares its actual performance results to performance targets which align with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) major missions established by the DHS Strategic Plan 2014-2018 and that support the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and the GPRA Modernization Act (GPRAMA) of 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • Valley of Caged Immigrants: Punishment, Protest, and the Rise of the Port Isabel Detention Center1
    VALLEY OF CAGED IMMIGRANTS: PUNISHMENT, PROTEST, AND THE RISE OF THE PORT ISABEL DETENTION CENTER1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.25058/20112742.n33.09 Jennifer Cullison2 Orcid ID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5267-1143 University of Nevada, USA [email protected] How to cite this article: Cullison, J. (2020). Valley of Caged Immigrants: Punishment, Protest, and the Rise of the Port Isabel Detention Center. Tabula Rasa, 33, 1-41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25058/20112742.n33.09 Received: June 23, 2018 Accepted: August 27, 2018 Abstract: Despite popular understanding of immigrant detention in the US as effectively nonexistent before the 1980s, in reality the practice grew significantly over the early postwar era and especially in Texas’s Rio Grande Valley (RGV). Immigrant detention in the RGV became vital in the expanding network of the INS, other federal agencies, and for-profit institutions called here the Border Industrial Complex. Indeed, beginning in 1961 with its first full-fledged, permanent immigrant detention center, the Port Isabel Detention Center (PIDC), South Texas became a major piece of the Border Industrial Complex in its work to control, immobilize, and banish border crossers. Over the early postwar period, immigrant caging (or immigrant detention and immigrant incarceration based on immigration legal code) in the RGV transitioned from a temporary, situational response to a perpetual crisis. With growing Congressional support for immigration enforcement, by the 1970s, not only the INS, but also the US Marshals Service and the US Bureau of Prisons had greater numbers of people caged per immigration legal code. 1 This article is a product of a dissertation research project on the expansion of immigrant detention in the US, titled “The Growth of Immigrant Caging in Postwar America: National Immigration Policy Choices, Regional Shifts Toward Greater Carceral Control, and Continuing Legal Resistance in the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards an Eu Toolbox for Migrant Workers
    TOWARDS AN EU TOOLBOX FOR MIGRANT WORKERS LABOUR MOBILITY AND REGULARISATION IN GERMANY, ITALY, AND SPAIN IN 2020 AUTHORS Eleonora Camilli, Reporter, Redattore sociale — Section on Italy Giulia Laganà, Senior Analyst on EU migration and asylum policies, Open Society European Policy Institute – Introduction, conclusions, recommendations & editorial oversight Gemma Pinyol-Jiménez, Research Associate, GRITIM-UPF — Section on Spain Jan Schneider, Head of the Research Unit of the Expert Council of German Foundations on Integration and Migration (SVR) — Section on Germany English translation of Italian section by Giuliana Clementi, Translator and Conference Interpreter, Member of AIIC Copyediting of the sections on Italy, Germany, and Spain by Ali Colwell, Copyeditor, Clear Europe © 2020 Open Society Foundations uic b n dog. This publication is available as a PDF on the Open Society Foundations website under a Creative Commons license that allows copying and distributing the publication, only in its entirety, as long as it is attributed to the Open Society Foundations and used for noncommercial educational or public policy purposes. Photographs may not be used separately from the publication. Cover photo: Two women speak at a job fair for refugees and migrants on January 25, 2017, in Berlin, Germany. © Steffi Loos/AFP/Getty opensocietyfoundations.org December 2020 CONTENTS 2 INTRODUCTION 3 GERMANY: NEW TOOLS ON LABOUR MOBILITY AND A TREND TOWARDS MORE REGULARISATIONS? 3 Brief overview of migration trends and data in Germany 4 New migration policies
    [Show full text]
  • Informal Employment in Seven Oecd Countries Further
    DECLARING WORK OR STAYING UNDERGROUND: INFORMAL EMPLOYMENT IN SEVEN OECD COUNTRIES FURTHER MATERIAL This document contains Annex 2.A3 to Chapter 2, “Declaring Work or Staying Underground: Informal Employment in Seven OECD Countries”, of the 2008 edition of the OECD Employment Outlook. The complete versions of Employment Outlook are available online, on free access, one year after their publication on: www.oecd.org/employment/outlook. 1 ANNEX 2.A3 EXTENT AND CHARACTERISTICS OF INFORMAL EMPLOYMENT Employees in informal jobs The first type of informal employment examined concerns employees who are employed without some or all of the normal legal requirements associated with being an employee. These could include an employment contract, paying tax or social contributions, earning the minimum wage or entitlement to redundancy payments in the event of employment termination. While easy to define, measuring the number of employees in informal jobs is hindered by a lack of data on a full range of employee entitlements. The estimates in this section will use one of two definitions: (i) employees without written employment contracts (for the Czech Republic, Hungary, Mexico Poland and the Slovak Republic, where a written employment contract is a legal requirement under the Labour Code for almost all employees1); and (ii) employees not registered for mandatory social security (National Pension Insurance in Hungary; National Pension Scheme in Korea; IMSS or the equivalent public sector scheme in Mexico; and any social security institution in Turkey). Figure 2.A3.1 shows that employees in informal jobs comprise 20%-30% of non-farm employment in Korea, Mexico and Turkey, but are far less common in the Czech Republic, Poland and the Slovak Republic, where 2-5% of employees do not have a written contract.2 In Hungary, the picture is more complicated.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating the Illegal Employer Practice of Under-Reporting Employees' Salaries
    This is a repository copy of Evaluating the illegal employer practice of under-reporting employees' salaries. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/93519/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Williams, C.C. and Horodnic, I. (2017) Evaluating the illegal employer practice of under-reporting employees' salaries. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 55 (1). pp. 83-111. ISSN 0007-1080 https://doi.org/10.1111/bjir.12179 Reuse Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version - refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher’s website. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ 10,318 words Evaluating the illegal employer practice of under-reporting employees’ salaries Abstract This paper advances understanding of the prevalence and distribution of the illegal employer practice of under-reporting employees’ salaries, explains this practice and evaluates policy approaches.
    [Show full text]