In 2001, the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions carried out a survey on
working conditions in 12 candidate countries: Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia,
Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia (extended to Turkey in 2002). This questionnaire-based survey
is identical to the three working conditions surveys carried out in the EU Member States in 1990, 1995 and 2000,
allowing for comparisons to be drawn between these two groups of countries. The survey addresses a wide range of
issues related to the quality of work and employment, such as: physical risk factors (noise, vibrations, etc.); working
time patterns (working hours, working time arrangements, etc.); work organisation features (job content, pace of
work, autonomy, etc.); social relations (consultation, support, etc.); and work-related health outcomes (stress, muscular
pain, etc.). This leaflet presents the main findings of the 12 candidate countries' survey.
Main findings
 In comparison to EU Member States, a higher proportion of workers in candidate countries are employed in
agriculture and a lower proportion in the services sector.
 There is a higher proportion of self-employed workers in the candidate countries (22 % compared to 17 % in EU
Member States). However, there is a wide variation in the different types of employment status to be found in
candidate countries.
 A lower proportion of workers belong to the higher skilled job categories: 31 % compared to 35 % in the EU.
 Gender segregation is less prevalent in candidate countries, and a higher proportion of women work: 46 %
compared to 42 % in the EU.
 Exposure to physical risk factors, such as noise, vibrations and painful positions, is higher.
 Work is less client-oriented than in EU Member States, and less reliant on computer technology.
 Work organisation in the candidate countries tends to be: less client-driven; less decentralised (less worker
responsibility and autonomy); more hierarchical;
 Fewer workers in the candidate countries receive training and work does not provide as many learning
opportunities.
 Job demands, although of a different nature, are higher and job
control (worker autonomy) is lower. However, in the candidate
countries workers receive more support from colleagues.
 Working hours are longer and tend to be less gender-differentiated
(the level of female part-time work is low). Unsocial working hours,
such as shift and night work, are more prevalent. Part-time work is
less frequent (7 % in candidate countries, 17 % in the EU).
 The dual workload (combining paid work with unpaid
household/caring work) is more balanced between the sexes,
although it is still far from being evenly distributed.
 More workers consider their health and safety to be at risk because
of work (40 %, in candidate countries, 27 % in the EU)
 Work-related health problems are reported to be higher in the
candidate countries, in particular overall fatigue and musculo-skeletal
disorders.
Working conditions in candidate
countries and the European Union
Résumé

Background
The total population in the 12 candidate countries
surveyed currently stands at 105 million and the total
working population is 43 million. However, there are
wide differences between countries, with two
countries ­ Poland (total population 38 million) and
Romania (22 million) ­ accounting for nearly half the
total population of the candidate countries. It is
important, therefore, to be aware of the fact that
since average figures from the survey are weighted
according to the total active population of all
countries, the results for Poland and Romania tend to
have a stronger influence on average figures. This
explains why these two countries generally come close
to the average figure for the candidate countries.
When comparing results between countries or groups
of countries, it should be noted that results will be
influenced by structural and cultural differences
prevailing in individual countries or groups of
countries. Some of these differences are presented
below. And, although the methodology and
questionnaire in both the third survey in EU countries
and first candidate countries' survey were identical, it
is important to bear in mind that the former was
carried out in 2000 and the latter in 2001.
The survey conclusions documented in this leaflet are
based on average figures. However, this can mask
significant differences, in particular differences
prevailing between countries. Therefore conclusions
drawn on the basis of the survey may not always
reflect the particular situation of a country within the
group of candidate countries. Obviously, the same also
applies to national comparisons within the group of
EU Member States.
Structure of the workforce
The survey reveals some important structural
differences between candidate countries and EU
Member States, most notably in the distribution of the
workforce between sectors and job categories.
Job category
The proportion of workers employed in the higher
skilled job categories is lower in candidate countries
than in EU Member States (31 % of people are
employed in managerial, professional and technical
jobs compared to 35 % in EU Member States).
Sector
The proportion of people employed in agriculture is
higher in candidate countries (21 % compared to 5 %),
but there are wide differences between countries:
45 % in Romania, 19 % in Poland, 18 % in Lithuania,
14 % in Latvia, 5 % in the Czech Republic and 2 % in
Malta. The pattern is reversed in the services sector: as
many as 66 % of workers in EU Member States work
in this area compared to 47 % in the candidate
countries.
Gender
The proportion of women in the workforce is higher
in candidate countries than in EU Member States
(46 % compared to 42 %). The highest rates are found
in the Baltic States (Lithuania 51 %, Latvia 49 % and
Estonia 49 %) and the lowest in Malta (30 %). The
proportion of women employed in managerial
occupations is also higher in candidate countries: 38 %
of managers in candidate countries are women,
compared to 34 % in the EU.
Employment status
The proportion of self-employed persons is on average
higher in candidate countries (22 % compared to 17 %
in the EU). There are wide variations between
countries: the highest rate is to be found in Poland
(33 %) and the lowest in Slovenia (9 %).
As regards employees, a higher proportion has a
permanent contract in candidate countries (85 %
compared to 82 %). However, average figures
regarding employment status tend to mask wide
differences between countries. For example, 92 % of
employees in Romania are employed on a permanent
contract, compared to 55 % in Cyprus. Similarly, while
25 % of employees are on a fixed-term contract in
Bulgaria, this is the case for only 3 % of employees in
Romania. Finally, 7 % of employees in Latvia are on a
temporary agency contract, while there is no
temporary agency work in Slovenia.
Company size
A greater proportion of workers in the candidate
countries work in companies with less than 50
employees (69 % compared to 61 % in EU Member
States).
Age
Relatively more workers over the age of 40 are found
in candidate countries (51 %) than in EU Member
States (47 %). The average age of employees in
candidate countries is 40 years, compared to 39 years
in the EU.
Second job
Workers in candidate countries are more likely to have
a second job (10 % against 6 % in EU Member States)
and to work longer hours in this job (an average of
17.8 hours a week compared to 12.1 hours in the EU).
Gender segregation
Gender segregation, whether horizontal (where
women are over-represented in a limited range of
2

occupations, sectors and employment contracts) or
vertical (where women are under-represented in the
higher status and higher paid jobs), is not as common
in the candidate countries as in EU Member States.
As indicated above, although segregation remains,
there is a more even distribution of women between
the different job categories and in the occupational
hierarchy.
Women in candidate countries are also more likely to
be in management positions than their EU Member
State counterparts. For example, 71 % of employees
report having a man as their immediate boss (75 % in
the EU) and 27 % a woman (23 % in the EU), while
18 % of male employees report a woman as their
boss, compared to 9 % in the EU.
In candidate countries, 17 % of male employees
declare that they are responsible for supervising staff
(25 % in the EU), as do 14 % of female employees
(14 % in the EU).
The nature of work
Two dimensions illustrate differences between
candidate countries and EU Member States: the use
of information technology and the worker-client
interface.
Information technology
Working with computers is less widespread in the
candidate countries than in the EU (12 % report using
a computer all of the time compared to 19 % in the
EU). Slovenia, Hungary and the Czech Republic have
the highest user rates, while Romania and Lithuania
have the lowest.
Worker-client interaction
This interaction, which can have a considerable
influence on the organisation of work, is more
prevalent in EU countries. On average, only 36 % of
workers have direct contact with the client in the
candidate countries (compared to 43 % in the EU),
and there are wide variations from country to country
(from 57 % in Cyprus to 31 % in Slovakia).
When considering the factors determining the pace of
work, it is clear that customer demands exert a bigger
influence in EU countries (see Figure 1). While 69 % of
workers in EU Member States say that their pace of
work is client-driven, only 58 % do so in the candidate
countries. Conversely, the influence exerted by
hierarchical demands is higher in candidate countries
(37 % compared to 32 % in the EU).
Figure 1 Factors influencing pace of work
Work organisation
Overall, work organisation in the candidate countries
can be described as the more traditional, industrial
variety and less service oriented. As shown above, the
interaction between workers and clients is not as
widespread in the candidate countries. The pace of
work is also less likely to depend on external demands
and more likely to depend on orders from within the
hierarchy (see Figure 1 above).
The organisation of work is also less decentralised and
more hierarchical than in the EU: responsibility for
quality control and work autonomy is not as
developed, while hierarchical control is greater (see
Figure 2). Fewer workers are given responsibility for
production planning and staffing. Task rotation, which
is both a feature of flexibility and multi-skilling, is also
less widespread.
Figure 2 Job responsibilities
3
%
EU15 CC12
Pace induced
by clients
Pace induced
by colleagues
Pace induced
by boss
Pace induced
by machines
Pace induced
by production
targets
69
32 31
20
58
41
37
31
20
43
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
%
EU15 CC12
Having to meet
quality standards
Assessing quality
of own work
Solving problems Production planning
70
75
82
27
62
77
24
64
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Learning opportunities
There are fewer opportunities for learning on the job
in the candidate countries: an average of 65 % of
workers claim to benefit from this compared to 72 %
in the EU Member States. The highest rates are to be
found in Estonia and the Czech Republic (both 77 %),
Malta (74 %) and Slovenia (73 %), while the lowest
rates are in Lithuania (42 %) and Romania (55 %).
With regard to training provided by companies to
their staff over the last 12 months, on average 24 %
of workers received training for 3.2 days per person in
the candidate countries, while 31 % of workers in EU
Member States were trained for an average of 4.4
days. These figures mask wide differences between
countries, as is illustrated in Figure 3, with the Czech
Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia and Estonia reporting the
highest levels of training among employees. In the
candidate countries, skills are more likely to match the
demands of the job than in EU Member States (90 %
compared to 84 %).
Figure 3 Training provision over the last 12 months
(employees only)
Work intensity
The intensification of work has been a feature of
work in the EU over the last ten years. In the
candidate countries, while a greater number of
workers report working at high speed (candidate
countries 62 %, EU Member States 56 %), fewer
workers report having to work to tight deadlines
(candidate countries 57 %, EU Member States 60 %)
and more report having enough time to do their job.
In addition, workers from the candidate countries
report fewer interruptions in their work (24 % are
interrupted `often or very often', compared to 47 %
in the EU). These features are reflective of the more
traditional organisation of work to be found in the
candidate countries, referred to earlier.
Manual workers, both skilled trades and factory
workers, experience the most time constraints in their
work. Cyprus, Malta, Poland and Romania are the
countries with the highest number of workers
reporting high-speed work. Cyprus, the Czech republic
and Malta are the countries with the highest number
of workers reporting tight deadlines.
Workers working under time pressure tend to report
more health problems, in particular musculo-skeletal
disorders, overall fatigue and stress. Intensification of
work tends to bring about an increase in reported
health problems.
Figure 4 Work intensity
Job control
Job control, signifying either control over work and
organisation of tasks, or control over working hours,
is considerably lower in the candidate countries (see
Figure 5). On the other hand, support from colleagues
is reported to be more readily available among
candidate country workers (86 %) than their European
Union counterparts (83 %).
Figure 5 Job control
4
EU15 CC12
Working at
high speed
Working to tight
deadlines
Not having enough
time to do the job
Interruptions
during work
56
60
21
47
62
17
23
57
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
%
%
EU15 CC12
30 30
55
39
28
40 38
63
41
35
Inability to take
a break
when desired
No influence
over working
hours
No control
over work
methods
No control
over task
order
No control
over pace
of work
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
%
11
14
26 27 27 27 27 28
32 33
39 40
51
BG RO LT HU CY LV CC12 PL MT EE SK SI CZ
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Information and consultation
While the proportion of workers able to discuss their
working conditions at work is similar in both
candidate countries and the EU, the proportion of
those able to discuss organisational changes is lower
(66 % in the candidate countries, 73 % in the EU).
When these discussions take place, staff
representatives and outside experts are less likely to
be involved in candidate countries than in the EU.
However, when worker consultation does take place,
fewer workers in candidate countries are of the
opinion that this leads to practical improvements,
either at the individual workplace, or in the
organisation as a whole.
Payment systems
Fewer employees in candidate countries receive a
basic salary (88 % compared to 92 % in the EU).
However, a higher proportion is paid compensation
for poor working conditions (7 % on average ­ and
11 % in Slovenia and Romania ­ compared to 3 % in
the EU). Similarly, more workers in candidate countries
receive piece rate/productivity payments (18 %
compared to 7 % in the EU). These productivity
payments are paid to a significant proportion of
workers in some countries, with the highest rates
being reported in Slovakia (49 %), the Czech Republic
(35 %), and Slovenia (28 %). These same countries also
score much higher when it comes to the proportion of
employees being paid for overtime, weekend work,
and payments based on company performance.
Figure 6 Payment systems (employees only)
Income levels
The proportion of workers in the lower income
bracket is higher in candidate countries (24 %) than in
EU Member States (22 %) ­ see Figure 7. The
distribution of men and women in the various income
brackets is also more equal in the candidate countries.
Figure 7 Income category by gender
An indication of the presence in the candidate
countries of less gender segregation, and of less
widespread part-time work, is the fact that a higher
proportion of women in these countries is found in
the higher income bracket and conversely a lower
proportion in the lower income bracket.
Figure 8 Average weekly working hours
Working time
Workers (both employees and the self-employed) in
candidate countries work longer hours, on average
44.4 hours per week (38.2 hours in EU Member States)
with little gender difference (men work 45.4 hours per
week and women 43.3 hours). Employees work 42.2
hours a week (36.7 hours in EU Member States).
Workers in candidate countries do less part-time work
(7 %) than EU workers (17 %), work longer days (44 %
over 10 hours a day), and a higher proportion have
long working weeks (more than 40 hours): 79 %
compared to 48 % in EU Member States.
5
%
EU15 women EU15 men CC12 women CC12 men
HighMedium-highLow-mediumLow
34
28
32
26
22
27
13
20
13
20
26
23
31
28
30
29
50
40
30
20
10
0
%
EU15 CC12
< 30hrs/week 30-39 hrs/week 40-44 hrs/week >45 hrs/week
16
35
28
20
10
38
44
8
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
EU15 CC12
Profit-
sharing
schemes
Compensation
for poor working
conditions
OvertimeProductivity
payments
Basic salary
92
21
3 5
88
18 18
7 8
7
%

6
In the candidate countries, not only is part-time work
less frequent, it is also more equally divided between
the sexes: 6 % of men (7 % in the EU) and 9 % (32 %
in the EU) of women work part-time. It also seems to
be a less satisfactory option in candidate countries:
46 % of part-time workers report dissatisfaction with
the number of hours they work (33 % in EU Member
States).
Commuting times are considerably longer in the
candidate countries, the average time being 46
minutes a day, compared to 37 minutes in the EU.
Working unsocial hours such as night work and shift
work is more frequent in the candidate countries (see
Figure 10): 21 % work nights (19 % in the EU), 23 %
work shifts (20 % in the EU) and 37 % work on
Sundays (27 % in the EU).
Figure 10 Night work by country
The extent of irregular working hours (not working
the same number of hours every day or days every
week) is not very different from the EU Member
States. Differences between countries are significant in
this regard: the highest rates of irregular time
schedules are found in the Czech Republic, Estonia,
Latvia and Slovenia.
Dual workload
A comprehensive overview of the total workload
should include paid work, (including possible second
jobs), time spent commuting to work, and unpaid
activities outside work. Men in candidate countries are
more likely (often significantly so) than their EU
Member State counterparts to be involved in activities
such as caring for and educating children, cooking,
doing housework and caring for elderly or disabled
relatives. This can be explained at least partly by the
fact that the proportion of women at work is higher
and part-time work is less developed than in EU
Member States (see Figure 11).
Figure 11 Housework and caring activities
CCEU
NL DK D B S UK F EU15 I A SI L MT E IRL FIN P CZ EL EE HU SK CY BG LV CC12 LT PL RO
32.9
36
37.5
37.9 38 38.1 38.2 38.3
38.9
39.5 39.7 39.8
40.4 40.5 40.5
41.5
42.3 42.3 42.4
42.9 42.9
43.4 43.8
44.3 44.4 44.8 45.1
45.8
40.4
20
30
40
50
Figure 9 Weekly working hours by country
%
15
17
18 18
19
20
21
22 22 23
26
27 27
CY MT HU SI PL LT CC12 RO CZ SK BG EE LV
40
30
20
10
0
CC12 womenEU15 menEU15 women CC12 men
Caring for
children
Cooking Housework Caring for elderly/
disabled relatives
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2
5
40
24
41
64
50
63 64
6
8
31
13
28
12
33

Physical risk factors
Workers in candidate countries report significantly
higher exposure to most of the physical work factors,
as shown in Figure 12 below, in particular exposure to
noise, heat, and painful positions. However, use of
individual protective equipment is more widespread in
these countries, especially in Poland, Romania and
Slovenia, than in EU Member States. This fact,
combined with better information on physical risks in
the candidate countries (92 % against 89 % in the EU),
particularly in the Czech Republic and Poland, would
seem to suggest that there is more individual health
and safety prevention in the candidate countries than
in EU Member States.
Figure 12 Physical risk factors (workers exposed all
the time and almost all the time)
There are important country differences noticeable in
the levels of exposure to physical risks factors, as is
illustrated in Figure 13 in the case of painful positions.
Workers in the Czech Republic and Slovakia are the
least subject to painful positions in the workplace,
while workers in Cyprus are the most subject.
Figure 13 Painful positions (all the time or almost all
the time)
Health and work
40 % of workers in candidate countries consider that
their health and safety are at risk because of their
work, compared to 27 % in EU Member States. This is
reflected in the health problems reported by workers:
the problems are significantly more widespread,
irrespective of the issue, in the candidate countries
than in EU Member States. The most frequently
reported work-related health problems are:
ˇ Overall fatigue: 41 %
ˇ Backache: 34 %
ˇ Stress: 29 %
ˇ Muscular pains in neck and shoulders: 24 %.
Figure 14 Work-related health problems
There is only a small difference in the reported
prevalence of violence, intimidation and various other
forms of discrimination at the workplace between
candidate countries and EU Member States. The only
difference worthy of note is the rate of exposure to
sexual discrimination (more men than women in the
candidate countries).
`Work sustainability', indicating the ability to remain
in the same job until the age of 60, is lower in the
candidate countries. While 58 % of workers in EU
Member States think they will be able to do the same
job at 60, only 50 % of workers in the candidate
countries are of this opinion.
The reported rate of job satisfaction is lower in the
candidate countries than in the EU (73 % compared to
84 %). However, it is difficult to draw conclusions from
the job satisfaction indicator: the EU working
conditions surveys show that a high level of job
satisfaction can go hand in hand with over-exposure
to risk situations.
7
%
EU15 CC12
Health and
safety at risk
Backache Overall
fatigue
Stress Muscular pains
in neck and
shoulders
Muscular
pains in
upper limbs
Muscular
pains in
lower limbs
27
33
23
28
23
13 12
40 41
29
24
20
22
34
50
40
30
20
10
0
%
6
11
16
17
20 20
21 22
23 24
27 27
39
CZ SK EE LT LV PL CC 12 SI BG MT HU RO CY
50
40
30
20
10
0
%
EU15 CC12
Noise Vibrations Heat Vapours and
fumes
Painful
positions
Heavy
loads
Repetitive
movements
11
6
9
18
12
31
15
12
9
12
21
11
28
10
50
40
30
20
10
0

Copyright: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Reproduction is authorised, except for commercial
purposes, provided the source is acknowledged and a copy is sent to the Foundation.
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions
Wyattville Road, Loughlinstown, Dublin 18, Ireland
Tel: (+353 1) 204 31 00 - Fax: (+353 1) 282 42 09 / 282 64 56 - e-mail: postmaster@eurofound.eu.int - website: www.eurofound.eu.int
EF/02/46/EN
Pascal Paoli, Agns Parent-Thirion and Ola Persson, the authors of this leaflet, are research managers in the area of
working conditions at the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.
OFFICE FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS
OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
L-2985 Luxembourg
FURTHER INFORMATION
Information about the first survey on working conditions in candidate countries or the three surveys on working conditions
in the EU mentioned in this leaflet is available on the Foundation's website at www.eurofound.eu.int/working/working.htm.
For further information on this subject, please contact John Hurley, Information Liaison Officer, European Foundation for the
Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Tel: (353 1) 204 32 09, e-mail: joh@eurofound.eu.int.
Survey methodology
The first survey on working conditions in candidate countries covered a representative sample of the total active
population (persons who were either employees or self-employed) in 12 candidate countries, using the `random
walk' procedure. A total of 11,000 workers were interviewed in face-to-face interviews in their own home: 1 000
workers in each of 10 countries and 500 in Cyprus and Malta. The interviews and the data collection were carried
out by INRA-Europe.
The interviews were carried out simultaneously during spring 2001. The data was weighted for occupation, sector,
sex and age in accordance with Eurostat's Labour Force Survey 2000.
The same questionnaire as for the Foundation's third survey on working conditions, carried out in the 15 EU
Member States in 2000, was used. The questionnaire was developed by the Foundation in a working group
involving national experts, representatives of employer organisations (UNICE) and trade unions (ETUC) and the
European Commission.