Transcript Presentation

DCO-ZXE089-20040200-jgfPP1
Czech Firm-Level Bargaining and Wages
EVIDENCE FROM MATCHED EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE DATA
Štěpán Jurajda
CNB
September 14, 2005
DCO-ZXE089-20040200-jgfPP1
OUTLINE
1. DATA
2. COVERAGE
3. ANALYSIS OF WAGE LEVEL (mean and median)
a. at individual level
b. at firm level
1
DCO-ZXE089-20040200-jgfPP1
1. DATA AND MEASUREMENT
• ISPV (MPSV=MoL, Trexima)
– entrepreneurial sector only
– firms with over 10 employees
• Data have lower sampling rates for smaller firms.
Weighting matters for firms with under 250 employees.
• Hourly wages for 1Q 2004 in over 2500 firms.
• Add: 4Q 2003 indicator of firm-level collective agreement
(with wage stipulations) based on firm answers in ISPV
and a follow-up firm telephone survey: 2000 firms have CA
i.e. 24% missing (more likely to be smaller firms, foreign or
private firms, in hotel/restaurant, retail and construction).
• Add: 4Q2003 indicator of higher-level agreements
(industry-level) based on MoL extensions: 450 firms, of
which 250 have the firm-level CA indicator available.
2
DCO-ZXE089-20040200-jgfPP1
2. UNION COVERAGE
57% (74%) [85%] of employees are covered by firm-level coll. agreement (CA) based on
full (limited) [no] weighting. Combining the firm- and higher-level CAs, the coverage is
70% (80%) [90%]. Even if we suppose that all missing-CA-indicator firms have no CA,
44% (61%) [75%] of employees are still covered by firm collective agreements. =>
A safe bet is that union coverage is over 50% (70%) before (after) extensions.
Percentage of Firms with Collective Agreement
(Limited Weighting)
100
80
60
40
20
0
10-100
100-250
250-500
500-1000
>1000
Number of Employees
Firm-Level
Firm or Higher
Worst-Case
3
DCO-ZXE089-20040200-jgfPP1
2. COVERAGE of firm-level CA in firms over 250 employees (unweighted)
Percentage of Firms with Collective Agreement
100
80
60
40
20
0
Foreign Owned
Private
Co-op
State Owned
Mixed
Firm Ownership
4
DCO-ZXE089-20040200-jgfPP1
3a. INDIVIDUAL WAGE ANALYSIS:
• The weighted average hourly wage is a bit higher in firms with firm CA (117 vs. 115CZK).
The weighted median wage is 10% (8 CZK) higher with firm CA (101 vs. 83 CZK).
• Excluding top 1% of wages (>451), covered avg. wages are 8% higher (103 vs. 95).
Excluding managers (ISCO<20) avg. (median) covered wages are 6% (17%) higher.
• Average log-wage trade-union premium of +10% is not affected by worker
demographics, but drops to 0 after controlling for firm size and 2-digit industry.
• There is no unconditional log-wage premium to having a higher-level CA, but controlling
for worker and/or firm characteristics, there is a +5% gap compared to no-CA firms.
Covered firms pay substantially more to most of their workforce, but not their managers.
But this wage gap disappears once we compare firms of similar size and industry.
• In firms with over 250 employees (limited weighting=full weighting):
– the avg. wage is 3 CZK lower and the median wage is 4 CZK higher in covered firms
– unconditional log-wage premium to firm-level CA is zero but it is -20% for higher-level
CA; however, conditional log-wage gaps are small and mostly insignificant.
• Conditional firm-level-CA log-wage premium in large firms:
– for men with college: -0.23, high-school: -0.14, apprenticeship: 0, primary: 0
– for women with college: -0.17, high-school: -0.10, apprenticeship: 0, primary: 0
Within firm type, those firms that have a CA pay less to highly productive (male) workers.
5
DCO-ZXE089-20040200-jgfPP1
3a. BY INDUSTRY
Wages in Large Firms: Effect of Firm-Level CA (ignoring higher CAs)
Average Log-Wage Gap (firm-CA/no-CA)
Raw Gap
Adjusted Gap
Sample
Number of
Firms
Fraction
with Col.
Agreement
Agriculture
0.22
0.09
15
0.67
Mining and Metallurgy
0.51
0.53
11
0.82
Manufacturing
0.13
0
383
0.85
Utilities
--
--
46
1
Construction
0
0
34
0.87
-0.27
0
43
0.70
0
-0.07
7
0.29
-0.48
-0.49
59
0.88
Banking and Insurance
0
0
24
0.33
Real Estate and R&D
0
0
28
0.56
Other Services
0
-0.25
13
0.62
0.08
-0.07
663
0.82
Retail
Hotels, Restaurants
Transport
Total
6
DCO-ZXE089-20040200-jgfPP1
3a. BY INDUSTRY
Wages in All Firms: Effect of Firm-Level CA (ignoring higher CAs)
Average Log-Wage Gap (firm-CA/no-CA)
Sample
Number of
Firms
Fraction
with Col.
Agreement
Agriculture
290
0.36
Mining and Metallurgy
25
0.80
Manufacturing
775
0.66
Utilities
85
0.92
Construction
165
0.33
Retail
164
0.37
Hotels, Restaurants
24
0.42
Transport
97
0.75
Banking and Insurance
65
0.22
Real Estate and R&D
185
0.43
Other Services
74
0.46
1953
0.53
Raw Gap
Total
Adjusted Gap
7
DCO-ZXE089-20040200-jgfPP1
3. Things to do
• Of course, the descriptive comparisons provided up to now do not identify the causal
effect of trade union coverage on wages.
• What more can one do with the available cross-sectional data?
• INDIVIDUAL WAGE ANALYSIS
–
–
–
–
Run quantile regressions
Is there an effect on gender wage gaps? (no)
Is predictive power of occupation dummies stronger in unionized firms? (no)
Etc.
• FIRM-LEVEL ANALYSIS
– Control for propensity score (matching) instead of relying on regressions, DiNardo and Lee (2004)
– Card and de la Rica (2004): Spanish wages about 10 percent higher with firm-specific contracts
compared to industry agreements.
8