Transcript Netherlands presentation

Statistics Netherlands
Mies Bernelot Moens
Opinions on revision of ISCO
1988
Netherlands
• Don’t use ISCO 1988
• Have our own National Standard Classification
of Occupations 1992
• ISCO and national codes are derived from
common more detailed provisional codes with
help of algorithms that makes use of (if needed)
– employment status
– number of workers supervised
– level and field of education/training
ISCO not adequate for Dutch
purposes because:
• number of skill levels is not sufficient (4 in stead
of 5)
• two major groups have no skill level
• it is not detailed and systematic enough for the
Dutch labour market
ISCO should be adequate to organise/advice on
matching of demand and supply on the
international labour market (wish of the
European Employment Agencies)
Criteria for update ISCO
• Too much difference in skill level within
major and minor groups
• Too much heterogeneity of occupations
within minor groups
• New occupations don’t fit in the minor
groups
• High frequencies of occupations in
heterogeneous rest groups
Non-criteria
• location where the job is fullfilled (shop, market,
street, contact centre, home)
• medium used to provide services, including
sales (internet, telephone or face to face)
In stead of location or medium the criterion should
be: skill specialisation based on the kind of
service to be delivered or the kind of product to
be sold.
Too much difference in skill level
within major and minor groups
Support:
Splitting skill level 2 in low and intermediate
skill level
Low = about ISCED 2 (pre)vocational
education or 3C short (or comparable
skills)
Intermediate = ISCED 3-4 excluding 3C
short (or comparable skills)
Too much difference in skill level
within major and minor groups
Support:
Introduction and definition of separate
front-line managers/ supervisors under 122
and 123 (department managers)
Too much difference in skill level
within major groups
No support:
Splitting up skill level 4
Why?
Frequencies become too low in highest level
and operationalising is too difficult
Too much heterogeinity
Support splitting up :
• nursing and midwifery professionals
• general and specialised physicians
• most other splits
New occupations don’t fit in the
minor groups
Support:
Proposed groups of information technology
occupations
Other observations
• New label of 6111 (Field crop and vegetable growers)
should be Non-perennial crop growers.
• Vice versa 6112
• However ‘perennial’ doesn’t seem a good criterion for a
classification of occupations (preference for the old
labels)
• Crop has two agricultural meanings: the plant itself and
parts of it (leaves, fruits etc.) => labels 6111 and 6112
are confusing
• Where in 611 do growers of cut flowers, bulbs,
ornamental trees and plants, seeds for seeding fit?
Other observations
• 6151 Title Aquaculture workers: should be
Animal aquaculture workers
• It is difficult to judge new unit groups
without new descriptions