Worker Absenteeism: An Analysis Using Microdata

Barmby, Tim; Treble, John G.; Orme,

doi:10.2307/2233813

Cited by 119 publications

(94 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Barmby et al (1991) show that sick-pay regulations yield clear employee responses. Johansson andPalme (1996, 2002) describe the decline in absenteeism among Swedish men after a reduction of sick-pay, and Barmby (2002) finds that workers reduce absences more when sick-pay is low relative to earnings.…”

Section: Incentives Prior Empirical Evidence and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Temporary contracts and employee effort

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may Temporary Contracts and Employee EffortAxel Engellandt Regina T. Riphahn The Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) in Bonn is a local and virtual international research center and a place of communication between science, politics and business. IZA is an independent, nonprofit limited liability company (Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung) supported by the Deutsche Post AG. The center is associated with the University of Bonn and offers a stimulating research environment through its research networks, research support, and visitors and doctoral programs. IZA engages in (i) original and internationally competitive research in all fields of labor economics, (ii) development of policy concepts, and (iii) dissemination of research results and concepts to the interested public. The current research program deals with (1) mobility and flexibility of labor, (2) internationalization of labor markets, (3) welfare state and labor market, (4) labor markets in transition countries, (5) the future of labor, (6) evaluation of labor market policies and projects and (7) general labor economics. May 2003 D I S C U S S I O N P A P E R S E R I E SIZA 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 on the IZA website (www.iza.org) or directly from the author. ABSTRACT Temporary Contracts and Employee EffortTemporary contracts provide employers with a tool to screen potential new employees and have been shown to provide "stepping stones" into permanent employment for workers. For both reasons workers on temporary contracts have an incentive to provide more effort than permanent employees. Using indicators for unpaid overtime work and absences taken from the Swiss Labor Force Survey we present evidence that temporary workers indeed provide higher effort than permanent employees: Their probability of working unpaid overtime exceeds that of permanently employed workers by 60 percent. We show the heterogeneity of this effect across different types of temporary contracts, investigate differences between men and women, and discuss the relevance of adverse selection into temporary employment. Using data from the Swiss Labor Force Survey (SLFS) we compare the behavior of 1 The subsequent discussion of contract-based incentives will exclude payment issues.2 See e.g. OECD 1999, Cahuc and Po...

show abstract

Section: Incentives Prior Empirical Evidence and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Temporary contracts and employee effort

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Barmby et al, 1994) have tried to distinguish between voluntary and involuntary absence but this has proven to be difficult. Barmby et al (1991) report that the majority of sickness absence is in the UK is in spells of five days or less; a finding supported by Labour Market Trends (2003) which showed that of those workers who were absent during a reference week, 40% of workers claimed absence for a period of only one day and approximately 75% claimed absence for 4 days or less. Both these suggest strongly that much absenteeism is on the basis of self certification of illness and this has been cited as support for the voluntary absence hypothesis.…”

Section: D) Job Satisfaction and Absenteeismmentioning

confidence: 92%

Comprehensive analysis of some job-related attitudes on expectation and satisfaction among forestry staff: case results from a Turkish regional forestry organization

Erol¹

2016

Int. Forest. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Training, Job Satisfaction and Workplace Performance in Britain:Evidence from WERS 2004This paper analyses the relationship between training, job satisfaction and workplace performance using the British 2004 Workplace Employee Relations Survey (WERS). Several measures of performance are analysed including absence, quits, financial performance, labour productivity and product quality. While there is clear evidence that training is positively associated with job satisfaction, and job satisfaction in turn is positively associated with most measures of performance, the relationship between training and performance is complex, depending on both the particular measures of training and of performance used in the analysis.JEL Classification: J0, J2, J3

show abstract

“…Existing empirical studies on worker absenteeism in general typically employ either firm data on the employees' recorded days of absence during a specified period of time (see Barmby, Orme, andTreble 1991 andKenyon andDawkins 1989, among others) or workers' self-assessed information about whether they were absent during a specified period of time. Allen (1981) considers, for instance, a two-week period, whereas Leigh (1983) refers to 10 working days, and Drago and Wooden (1992) ask for respondents' estimation of the number of days they were absent over the previous 12 months.…”

Section: See For Instance Ravallion (2001) and Gertler Et Al (2011)mentioning

confidence: 99%