Labour Market Regulation

Dismissal Rules and Costs: Balancing Efficiency and Employee Protection

A new research report from the Lithuanian Free Market institute ‘’Dismissal  rules and costs: balancing efficiency and employee protection“ analyses dismissal rules and costs in selected CEE countries and looks into their economic implications. The study finds that applicable laws do not provide enough leeway for human capital allocation nor do they create incentives for increasing efficiency of employees, employers and the economy. Recommendations are put forward regarding ways to reach a proper balance between an efficient use of resources and adequate employee protection. The research, which was conducted in cooperation with think-tanks from Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Poland, Estonia and Slovakia, is based on comparative regulatory analysis and expert interviews.

The full research may be found here. 

Employment Flexibility Index 2020: Policymakers are Reluctant to Respond to Market Needs

For the third year in a row, the Lithuanian Free Market Institute and its partner organisations present the Employment Flexibility Index 2020 that ranks a total of 41 countries that are members of the European Union (EU) or the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

The Index shows that the US, Japan, New Zealand, the UK, Canada and Ireland provide the highest degree of freedom to negotiate with employers. France, Luxembourg and Mexico rank the lowest in terms of the flexibility of employing people.

Employment Flexibility Index 2020 also suggests that policymakers are reluctant to respond to evolving market needs as the analysis of the Index data shows little to no change in national regulations for the last year. Yet, the countries in the lead which enjoy relatively flexible labor markets continue to strive to reap the benefits of flexibility, while those below the average seem to stagnate in terms of labor market liberalization. This only widens the already looming differences in the level of state intervention in the labor markets.

Due to technological and demographic changes the European labor market is becoming more dynamic and diverse. A growing need for more flexibility is evident: worker mobility is increasing, as is the ability to choose jobs that match workers’ skills and interests. Importantly, growing economic and geopolitical tensions are posing a risk to the global economy, leading to a slowdown in economic growth. Greater flexibility in employment relations would enable market players to adapt to those changes more efficiently.

“The top countries are diverse in the sense of their legal systems, yet there are similar in terms of employment flexibility. For example, those countries have the most flexibility in regulating fixed-term contracts, premium rates for non-standard working hours, and in negotiating overtime, night work and rest days. In order to ensure greater flexibility and attractiveness to both local and foreign investments policymakers in the countries with lower rankings could consider revising regulations,” – says Karolina Mickutė, the Index lead researcher at the Lithuanian Free Market Institute.

The study thus suggests that changes in the labor markets are happening faster than legislature is able to reflect.

“Forms of employment are changing and workers are becoming more mobile. As the European Commission observes, this creates a need for more flexibility of regulations. Labor laws must not get stuck in times of an economic slowdown. Flexibility becomes particularly important. Unfortunately, extremely rigid regulations are justified on the ground of worker protection but these can have the opposite effect of reducing economic competitiveness and investments. If we want more jobs, higher salaries, better working conditions and more bargaining power for employees, we need investments and business,” Edita Maslauskaitė, Interim President of the Lithuanian Free Market Institute, notes.

Employment Flexibility Index 2020 is produced in collaboration with independent think-tanks in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Poland and Slovakia based on the World Bank methodology and data from 2019. Countries are ranked by way of comparing hiring and working time regulations, redundancy rules and redundancy costs. The full Employment Flexibility Index 2020 may be found here.

This project is generously supported with a grant from the Rising Tide Foundation.

EPICENTER. Free to Work: Employment Regulations In 2019

The Employment Flexibility Index of LFMI quantifies a great divergence in employment regulations between EU countries. Of the 41 countries included in the index (EU and OECD countries), Denmark and the United States were ranked as having the most flexible labour regulations, while France and Luxembourg were ranked last.

Flexible employment regulations may allow for more employment opportunities and enable businesses to respond to market fluctuations.

A proposed Council Recommendation by the European Commission seeks to provide workers in non-standard employment, such as those who are self-employed, with social security protection. The Commission’s rationale is to ensure that employees who have exceptional employment circumstances are protected during economically challenging times. This proposal could decrease employment flexibility throughout the EU.

Full paper (PDF)

Employment Flexibility Index 2019 Shows the Biggest Leap for Lithuania

The 2017 labour law reform significantly improved Lithuania’s position in the Employment Flexibility Index, moving the country from the 27th to 15th position among EU and OECD countries, according to Employment Flexibility Index 2019 compiled by the Lithuanian Free Market Institute based on the World Bank’s Doing Business data.

Denmark, the USA and Japan are found to have the most flexible labour regulation of all member states of the European Union (EU) and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). These countries allow fixed-term employment contracts for tasks of permanent nature and apply no restrictions on the maximum length of fixed-term contracts or night work. These countries continue to promote flexible regulation and maintain the top rankings.

Lithuania showed the biggest improvement of all EU and OECD countries, mainly due to the reduction of redundancy costs. Lithuania outperformed Estonia in the 28th place and Latvia in the 20th.

Iceland dropped the most, from the 12th to the 19th position, as it had tightened the rules on premiums for night work, overtime and work on a weekly rest day. Norway moved up by five positions, from the 21st to the 16th following the removal of restrictions on night work.

“Employment flexibility stimulates overall productivity, employment and labor mobility across sectors allowing the economy to better and faster respond to labor market fluctuations. The leading countries – Denmark, the US and Japan – have different legal systems of regulating labor relations but they all promote flexibility,” says Karolina Mickute, Associate Expert at the Lithuanian Free Market Institute.

“Research shows that the attractiveness of a country’s business environment and the degree of employment flexibility do not necessarily match. Lithuania is among the top ten EU and OECD countries in terms of business competitiveness, while it is ranked 15th by employment flexibility. The labour reform was an important step forward but the Labour Code is not flexible enough to reflect the needs of the 21st century and as liberal as the reform opponents claim it to be,“ concludes Zilvinas Silenas, President of the Lithuanian Free Market Institute.

The Lithuanian Free Market Institute published the Employment Flexibility Index 2019 in cooperation with think tanks in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Poland, Slovakia. The Index is based on the data collected by the World Bank for its annual Doing Business report. The index embraces 41 EU and OECD member states and more than 30 indicators on hiring regulations, working hours, redundancy rules and redundancy costs.

Read the full report Employment Flexibility Index 2019

 

 

Fixed-Term Employment for Long-Term Competitiveness

Labor market flexibility may be characterized by the market participants’ abilities to deviate from standard labor regulations and typical forms of employment. Such possibilities may not only provide positive outcomes to both employers and employees, but they may also benefit the whole economy.

Atypical employment contracts respond to the needs of both employers and workers, therefore the proliferation of temporary employment and the emergence of new temporary work forms over the past decades at the EU and global level is not surprising. Currently temporary employment constitutes a large share of the labor market suggesting that the issues of both market flexibility enhancement and temporary work are relevant as ever. Even though national regulations broadly conform to the generic concepts of temporary work, the regulations vary significantly across countries.

This report provides an overview of the economic effects of hiring flexibility under atypical employment contracts and a cross country legislative and policy analysis on the flexibility of hiring under atypical contracts with a particular emphasis on employment under agreements of predetermined duration in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Denmark, and Switzerland.

Read the full report Fixed-Term Employment for Long-Term Competitiveness.

 

 

Minimum Wage Regulation. It’s Complicated

A mandatory minimum wage is a complicated and inaccurate policy tool for poverty reduction that involves unintended consequences and drawbacks. Its downsides and pitfalls are frequently overlooked. Real effects of increases in mandatory minimum wage are hard to measure due to a lack of counterfactual analysis or even reliable data measuring how businesses cope with increases in minimum wages.

There is evidence showing that increases in mandatory minimum wage might force some firms to increase prices, lay off workers, cut fringe benefits for employees and engage in other revenue-boosting or cost-cutting measures. Additionally, a high mandatory minimum wage might stimulate the spread of the shadow economy.

A high level of mandatory minimum wage may “flatten” incomes and result in reduced effort and disincentivization of workers earning slightly more than the minimum wage. These effects can at least partially be countered by mandatory minimum wage driving all wages up. However, this may also result in an inflationary spiral or contribute to inflationary pressures.

Studies from various international organizations recommend setting mandatory minimum wage between 30 and 40 percent of the average wage and differentiating it to lower negative effects.

Differentiation of mandatory minimum wage (by age, area, occupation etc.) may offset some of the negative effects of a relatively high mandatory minimum wage, by allowing lower minimum wage levels for some workers. At the same time differentiation may ramp-up mandatory minimum wage for certain groups even higher.

Our research spans eight countries. We review minimum wage statistics and policies in Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Switzerland.

In most EU countries the mandatory minimum wage accounts for more than 40 percent of the average wage. In the countries under review the minimum wage has grown faster than the average wage and labour productivity since the financial crisis. Our data indicate that a higher ratio between the minimum and average wages is linked to higher unemployment levels.

Most European countries have a statutory minimum wage. Most of the countries under review apply no formal criteria for setting the minimum wage, and minimum wage setting appears to be a politicized matter.

Download the full analysis Minimum Wage Regulation. It’s Complicated

Lithuania Reforms Tax and Pension Systems

In late June the Lithuanian Parliament adopted a law that consolidated the employer and employee base for social security contributions and significantly cut the rate of contributions. Labor taxes were consolidated on the employee’s side, but the gross salary (salary before tax) will be recalculated by increasing it 1.289 fold. The employer’s rate of social security contributions was cut from 31.18 to 1.47 percent, and the employee’s contributions rate was raised from 9 percent to 19.5 percent.

The idea of consolidating social security contributions was first put forward by the Lithuanian Free Market Institute in 2014. Two years later four major political parties adopted this idea in their election programs and eventually it was incorporated in the new administration’s work program. Importantly, the consolidation of social security contributions is a step forward in terms of taxpayers’ awareness raising and creates a platform to advocate for further reductions in social security contributions. Notably, this reform will also lift Lithuania’s Doing Business ranking in the category of Ease of Paying Taxes from the 18th to the 6th position and the country’s overall ranking from 16th to 13th.

Lithuania has also introduced a cap on social security contributions for income exceeding a sum of 120 average wages per year (which is 8,900 euros per month) and provided for a gradual reduction in the “capped” level of employment income (to 6.200 Eur in 2020 and 4.400 Eur in 2021). The cap on the application of the tax deductible income has been increased from 1.3 to 2 average wages (1760 Eur). Mandatory health care insurance payments will not be capped.

These amendments will help to ease Lithuania’s labour tax burden which presently is heavier than the OECD member states’ average (40 percent vs. 36 percent). It will benefit 1.3 mln working population in Lithuania. An economic survey released by OECD on the occasion of Lithuania’s accession to this organization states that, in order to secure inclusive growth, Lithuania must reduce social security contributions, especially for low-income workers, while ensuring that benefits and deficit targets are maintained.

Although a cap on social security contributions is a step towards a fairer tax system, the “capped level“ is still very high. By comparison, the neighbouring Poland caps social security contributions at 2.3 average wages. Even the Scandinavian welfare state of Sweden caps pension contributions at 1.2 average wage. Even after 2021 Lithuania will still have one of the highest levels of a social security contribution cap in the EU.

At the same time though, Lithuania has phased out its 24 year-old flat tax regime. The personal income tax has been raised from 15 to 20 percent (with the basic pension fund being transferred from the state social insurance fund to the state budget) and introduced income tax progressivity. A tax of 27 percent has been imposed on income exceeding 120 average wages per year, with this income level to be lowered in the years to come to the size of the income capped by social security contributions.

The progressive income tax will have a minor impact on the state budget. The expected revenue is estimated to amount to around 4 mln Eur in 2019. The progressive PIT will be the second smallest source of budget revenues and its introduction can be viewed as a meaningless step.

Those reforms are estimated to bring budget losses of 200 mln Eur in 2019, but the government is planning to offset those losses through anti-shadow economy initiatives and economic growth. According to EC and Bank of Lithuania, economic growth is forecast to remain strong but is expected to slow down from 3.1 % in 2018 somewhat to 2.7% in 2019.

Labour taxation in Lithuania:


Along with the tax reform Lithuania adopted a very unsustainable pension reform. Working people will no longer be able to transfer 2 percent of their mandatory social security contributions into the second-pillar pension funds (the previous law stipulated a gradual increase in this proportion). Instead, a new formula for pension accumulation has been adopted, 0%+4%+2%. Contributions into pension funds will now comprise 4 percent of personal income and a supplementary contribution of 2 percent of the national average salary paid for the participant out of the state budget. Basically this means that the goal of transforming the PAYG system into saving for retirement is being abandoned. The law also foresees a quasi-mandatory mechanism of involvement in second-pillar pension funds. Given a reduction in the working-age population, the adopted pension reform is a serious step backwards.

Another distressing amendment is that the State Social Insurance Fund Board will become the only payer of pension annuities. This means that contributions accumulated in private pension accounts will ultimately end up in a state annuity fund. There will be fewer options for deferred annuity and inheritance of unpaid part of annuity.

These policy reforms were discussed at a policy conference “Can we do more to boost Lithuania’s competitiveness” which the Lithuanian Free Market Institute co-hosted with the Ministry of Economy of Lithuania and the Heritage Foundation in Vilnius on July 9th. The conference featured Simeon Djankov, Director of the Office of the Chief Economist of the World Bank and co-author of Doing Business Index, Ambassador Terry Miller, Director of the Center for International Trade and Economics at The Heritage Foundation, and Anthony Kim, Research Manager and Editor of the Index of Economic Freedom of The Heritage Foundation.

Labour Migration and Flexibility of Regulation for Employing Non-EU Nationals

Migration issues create discussions not only in the areas of culture and nationality but in economics, politics and national security as well. Immigration from outside the EU is perceived as a problem by significant portions of voters in EU Member States (see infographics in Annex). On the one hand, it is often assumed that immigrants cause economic disturbances, on the other hand, they are seen as the driving force of the most dynamic sectors of the economy. Moreover, political opposition to immigration can arise even when the economic impact of immigration is overwhelmingly positive (Tabellini, 2018). Just like the migration inside the country, immigration from outside can lead to short-term economic disruptions even though it brings broad long-term benefits and allows many sectors to remain internationally competitive.

Some researchers argue that immigrants focus on economic sectors with jobs avoided by locals, low-skilled jobs and sectors experiencing seasonal labour shortages. However, other segments are strongly dependent on the labour supply of immigrants as well. Without migrant employees, such sectors would probably be forced to reduce the amount of labour used in their host country, e.g. automatize their production methods or move their activities overseas. Other fast growing sectors, e.g. IT, experience long-term shortages of labour that cannot be mitigated by the supply of qualified labour from domestic education systems (Münz et. al., 2006). This indicates that immigrants contribute to labour market efficiency and long-term economic growth (Somerwille and Sumption, 2009).

In recent years the number of foreigners who are coming to the EU as seasonal workers, posted workers, arriving as trainees or highly qualified workers, are seconded to work or transferred within the company, are working under a particular fast-track scheme (recruited in a facilitated manner), etc. is increasing. The free movement of workers is one of the fundamental freedoms of the EU. However, non-EU nationals may work in the EU only when they meet the eligibility requirements (e.g., annual entry quotas, labour market testing, labour market access for a particular employer or profession). Many of such requirements were transposed from a number of EU directives, but they have not yielded identical results in all EU Member States. Different migration policies have led to a wide variety of administrative procedures for hiring non-EU nationals. Nevertheless, non-EU nationals usually have to deal with extensive requirements and paperwork in order to meet EU labour regulations. This potentially contradicts the principle of flexibility in labour regulation, which should concentrate on few mandatory rules and establish common open-ended standards instead.

The Lithuanian Free Market Institute presents a report on the economic effects of migration and implications of employing non-EU nationals, providing a cross-country legislative and policy analysis on the flexibility of hiring of non-EU nationals in Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Slovakia, Bulgaria and the Czech Republic as well as Denmark and Switzerland. For comparative purposes, only general requirements and procedures for hiring non-EU nationals are discussed and compared.

Download the full analysis Labour Migration and FLexibility of Regulation for Employing Non-EU Nationals


The analysis was prepared by the Lithuanian Free Market Institute in cooperation with the Institute of Market Economics (Bulgaria), the Center for Economic and Market Analyses (the Czech Republic), the Center for Free Economic Thought at the Estonian Business School (Estonia), the Civil Development Forum (Poland) and the Institute of Economic and Social Studies (Slovakia).

The publication was made possible through the support of a grant from the Rising Tide Foundation. The opinions expressed in the publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Rising Tide Foundation.

Labor Market Regulation Indicators Prove Valuable Despite Absence in Doing Business Report

Until 2012, a measure of the rigidity of labor regulation had been reflected in the World Bank’s Doing Business Report, but has since been removed in its associated index. The Lithuanian Free Market Institute (LFMI) believes that there is a vast body of research to support the importance of these employment regulation indicators, and so, it developed the Employment Flexibility Index for the European Union (EU) and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Based on the World Bank’s data on labor regulation and methodology used to compile the Rigidity of Employment Index, the new Employment Flexibility Index covers indicators on hiring, working hours, and redundancy costs.

“By launching this index we aim to promote a broader discussion on the importance of flexible rules of employing people for promoting growth and prosperity,” said Aneta Vaine, programs and development director at LFMI. “There is ample evidence that excessively rigid regulation of hiring, employment contracts, minimum wages, working hours or dismissals have adverse effects on employment dynamics, productivity and business growth. Despite that, labour market reforms geared towards greater flexibility tend to confront a great deal of resistance. The Employment Flexibility Index provides an effective tool for cross-country comparison.”

Excessively rigid regulation reduces labor force participation, increases unemployment, and displaces workers, but flexible legislation facilitates job creation and is key for new businesses to grow. Flexible economies can also adjust to economic shocks, business cycles, and long-term structural shifts in the economy more easily than economies with high levels of employment protection.

“The index is not intended to measure all aspects of labour regulation,” said Employment Flexibility Index co-author Jurgita Čyžiūtė. “It measures the flexibility of regulation that determines the efficiency of the labour market. Regulations have their costs and those should be taken into account if we want to assess the impact of regulatory interventions on economic outcomes. Employment flexibility is measured against a particular assumption-based business case in order to ensure comparability across countries. Its narrow scope is a deliberate consideration and should be taken into account when interpreting the data.”

In the European Union, the most flexible regulations are in Denmark, the United Kingdom and Ireland, all of which allow fixed-term contracts for permanent tasks and do not restrict redundancies and working time. The least flexible are found in France, Luxembourg and Portugal.

LFMI produced the index in cooperation with the Institute of Market Economics (Bulgaria), the Center for Economic and Market Analyses (the Czech Republic), the Civil Development Forum (Poland) and the Institute of Economic and Social Studies (Slovakia), and the Academy of Liberalism (Estonia).

Vaine expanded on how several other indices systematically rely on the datasets of the World Bank’s labour market regulation indicators as one of their main sources, such as “the World Economic Forum (the Global Competitiveness Index), the Institute for Management Development (the Government Efficiency and its Labour Regulation components), the Fraser Institute (the Labour Market Regulation Index), and the Heritage Foundation (the Index of Economic Freedom, Labour Freedom).”


Find out more about the Atlas Network.

Extreme disparity in European labour markets: an Employment Flexibility Index

The recent Employment Flexibility Index uses data provided by the World Bank’s Doing Business Labour Market Regulation Questionnaire to compare labour market regulations.

The data covers a set of labour regulation indicators from 2018 on hiring, working hours as well as redundancy rules and costs to rank OECD and EU countries.

Labour market regulation tends to vary greatly between countries due to social, cultural and political differences. Rigidity is often associated with negative economic outcomes, including lower labour market participation and higher unemployment, a two-tier labour market, lower productivity as well as reduced job creation and labour mobility.

Despite this, all countries tend to follow the general principles of flexibility in hiring, employment contracts, minimum wages, working hours and dismissal procedures.

Download full EPICENTER Network’s PDF briefing here.

Read more about the Employment Flexibility Index here.

Employment Flexibility Index 2018

Vilnius, December 7, 2017 – the Lithuanian Free Market Institute launches Employment Flexibility Index 2018 for the European Union (EU) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The index is based on the World Bank’s Doing Business data on labour market regulation and covers a set of indicators on hiring, working hours, redundancy rules, and redundancy costs. The Lithuanian Free Market Institute has produced the index in cooperation with the Institute of Market Economics (Bulgaria), the Center for Economic and Market Analyses (the Czech Republic), the Civil Development Forum (Poland) and the Institute of Economic and Social Studies (Slovakia) and the Academy of Liberalism (Estonia).

Note: Countries with flexible employment regulation merit higher scores in the index.

The Employment Flexibility Index shows a significant cross-country variation in the degree of employment flexibility. Overall, labour laws provide the highest degree of flexibility in Denmark, Japan and the United States, while France, Luxembourg and Mexico have the least flexible regulation (see Figure 1). “In flexible labour markets there are generally no redundancy costs or restrictions on redundancies, employers do not have to notify or get an approval from a third party if they want to dismiss employees, nor do they have to retrain, reassign or apply priority rules when hiring workers. Fixed-term contracts are allowed for permanent tasks and no restrictions apply to night work, overtime or work on a weekly holiday,” says Jurgita Čyžiūtė, a policy analyst at the Lithuanian Free Market Institute and co-author of the Employment Flexibility Index.

In the European Union, the most flexible regulation is in Denmark, the United Kingdom and Ireland, and the least flexible in France, Luxembourg and Portugal (see Figure 2). The top three countries allow fixed-term contracts for permanent tasks and do not restrict redundancies and working time. On the contrary, the most restrictive countries either prohibit fixed-term contracts for permanent tasks or cap the maximum length of such contracts, restrict work on weekly holidays, and require employees to notify a third party before dismissing employees, retrain or reassign them before redundancies and apply priority rules to reemployment.

“By launching this index we aim to promote a broader discussion on the importance of flexible rules of employing people for promoting growth and prosperity. There is ample evidence that excessively rigid regulation of hiring, employment contracts, minimum wages, working hours or dismissals have adverse effects on employment dynamics, productivity and business growth. Despite that, labour market reforms geared towards greater flexibility tend to confront a great deal of resistance. The Employment Flexibility Index provides an effective tool for cross-country comparison,” says Aneta Vaine, Programs and Development Director at the Lithuanian Free Market Institute.

Until 2012 the World Bank had ranked countries by the rigidity of labour regulation in the Doing Business report. While the Rigidity of Employment Index was eliminated from measuring overall business conditions, data on labour regulation have been announced on an annual basis.


Read the full report Employment Flexibility Index 2018

Government Watch. On Draft Amendments to the Law on Trade Unions

The Lithuanian Free Market Institute has examined the draft law no XIIIP-784 on amending Articles 13, 17 and 21 of the Law on Trade Unions no I-2018 and submitted its comments and proposals to relevant authorities. The draft amendments are aimed at providing longer time off work for the leadership of trade unions to carry out their activities from 60 to 120 hours per year, providing compulsory consultations with trade unions in cases of collective redundancies, and providing unpaid leave for the leaders of trade unions that cannot extend beyond their term in office.

In its position paper the Lithuanian Free Market Institute called for the rejection of the proposed amendments due to the following:

  • The provision of at least 120 hours of time of work for carrying out the functions of a trade union is disproportionate, unjustified and poses significant burden on employers by increasing labor costs;
  • Exclusive rights to longer periods of time of work for trade union members violates the principle of equality;
  • Unpaid leave periods  cannot be associated with the term of office of the leader of a trade union and cannot be included in the calculation of the annual paid leave.
  • Mandatory consultations with trade unions are redundant.

The full position paper (in Lithuanian) is available here.