The Observatory on Precariousness of the INPS for the first 9 months of 2017 generally confirms, in terms of flow, the employment growth already reported by ISTAT in terms of stock. Goodwill increased significantly compared to 2016 (same period): + 880.000, equal to +20,1%. Terminations also increased (as a matter of course, given that most of the new start-ups are temporary) but to a much lesser extent: + 656.000 equal to +16,9%. This produces a positive balance of 224.000 more jobs than last year: the highest result since employment started to grow again.
An element in contrast, which needs some reflection: for the first time since the introduction of the Jobs Act there is a negative balance between starts and terminations for open-ended contracts, albeit a very small one: just under 10.000 units. There is substantially no increase in terminations (+ 1.700) but a significant decrease in goodwill (- 35.000). We believe that this figure is influenced by two combined effects: on the one hand, the continuation of the decline due to the end of the tax relief; on the one hand, the expectation for the new incentive envisaged by the DEF, which probably induces companies to postpone permanent hirings to the new year.
Contrary to the fears of the detractors of the JobsAct, layoffs are not increasing, in fact they are decreasing. Those for economic reasons decreased by 35.000 units for permanent workers and even by 104.500 (equal to – 50%) for fixed-term contracts. Side effect of an economic situation that is evolving positively and as such is also perceived by companies. On the other hand, dismissals for just cause or subjective reason increased slightly: + 1.200 for open-ended contracts and + 4.000 for fixed-term contracts.
Apart from the smallness of the numbers in question, which certainly do not document di mass layoffs, it is worth formulating a hypothesis that does not seem far-fetched to us: a part of these layoffs are agreed between the company and the employee instead of voluntary resignations both to allow access to NASPI and to remedy the malfunctioning of the procedure in effect. Hypothesis empirically supported by the observation, reported by Pietro Ichino on the drastic reduction of judicial disputes regarding dismissals.
As Seghezzi rightly observes (Bulletin ADAPT….) commenting on the stock data, for the first time since the beginning of the post-crisis the female employment rate decreases slightly. Sifting through the flow data, we see that there is an important negative figure regarding the hiring of women on permanent contracts (– 5%). This is 17.313 fewer hires than in 2016. The only figure that decreases on a comparable order of magnitude is that of part-time workers: – 40.000. Unfortunately we do not have the breakdown of this figure between males and females, but by empirical approximation we seem to see a relationship between fewer part-time hires and fewer female hires. Part-time during the crisis was an important flexibility tool for businesses and for female employment. If companies marginalize it now that we are recovering, the impact risks being negative on female employment: as these very first data seem to predict.
Finally, the boom in call contracts: intuitively this is one of the market's responses to the (almost) abolition of vouchers. In the first 9 months of 2017, there were 37.300 start-ups of permanent intermittent employment contracts, and 319.200 fixed-term contracts: respectively +15.500 (+71,7%) and +182.000 (+133%) compared to 2016. In confirmation of the thesis regarding the contingent reasons for the growth of this type, it is sufficient to observe that the 2016 variations on 2015 were practically nil, indeed slightly decreasing for permanent contracts.
To tell the truth, permanent contracts seem to respond rather poorly to the specific occasional characteristics of the services that were paid for with the voucher. Fixed-term contracts seem to adapt better to the speed and variability of this type of service: the terminations of these contracts were 220.000 in the first 9 months, with an increase of 100% compared to 2016, which consistently relates to the +133% of starts testifying to a volatility that was characteristic of the voucher market.
Another response from the market may have been the use of intensive part-time arrangements, certainly in this case exclusively within fixed-term contracts. Before seeing the figures, a clarification is needed: the dates and times of the service must be indicated in the part-time contract, flexibility must therefore be programmed in advance. A contract of this kind can respond to the characteristics of occasional work only if it is of short duration, otherwise it becomes a rigidity.
For this reason, and because we do not have data relating to the duration of the contracts, the part-time numbers must be taken with a grain of salt. Which in any case are as follows: horizontal part-timers in the first 9 months 1.195.000 (+ 188.000, but this is the type in which casual workers are least likely); vertical part-time 76.800 (+22.600); mixed part-time 155.000 (+45.000). However, the evidence of a cause-effect link between the abolition of vouchers and the increase in fixed-term part-time contracts is somewhat weak: for horizontal part-time contracts, the 2017 figure confirms constant growth from previous years; there is a more significant relative increase for vertical and mixed workers, but these are only 48.000 contracts, a part of which could have absorbed workers previously paid on vouchers.
Now, in 2016 there were 1.600.000 workers who received vouchers (then let's talk about how many and how), therefore empirically 1.200.000 in the first 9 months (they also include the harvest period, so it is entirely probable). INPS calculates that with the new legislation there will be around 300.000 at the end of the year, more or less 230.000 until September. Of the remaining 970.000 we also admit that 182.000 were absorbed by fixed-term contracts. With optimism we say that the increase in non-horizontal fixed-term part-timers has some absorbed another 45.000. The number of missing is 743.000. Someone may have been stabilized, perhaps with an apprenticeship contract, but it would be ridiculous to delude ourselves that these are significant numbers.
Which of course doesn't mean we have nearly 750.000 people out and about. Let's take a moment to consider the composition of voucher recipients: 22% were pensioners or young people not yet employed, equal to around 230.000. A part of these will still belong to the audience of 300.000 new vouchers, another part may have had one of the 182.000 new contracts on call (remember that the rules of the contract on call allow it in practice only to these two categories).
55% of the recipients (about 880.000) were insured with INPS (therefore employed or self-employed). Some of them could continue to receive vouchers, but only for services performed at companies with fewer than 5 employees (from which we cannot expect large numbers). Of these 880.000, approximately 300.000 received vouchers from the same employer with whom they had an employment contract during the year. But for 230.000 cases, the hiring followed the voucher-paid period, which therefore served as a probationary period.
These 230.000 therefore leave the calculation because they are regularly hired. In about 70.000 cases, the voucher supplemented the remuneration for overtime services, essentially in cases of workers with part-time contracts. Let's also admit that these workers have returned to the norm (they or their successors, because they were almost always dealing with fixed-term contracts) and that they are paid overtime in good standing. So let's say that the 300.000 workers we are talking about have returned to normal. The more than 500.000 policyholders we lose track of remain.
Here are workers who received vouchers from an employer other than theirs (the most frequent case), workers in NASPI, unemployed without subsidies, etc.
Let's sum up: at best, 300.000 people are in order to continue receiving vouchers; 182.000 had an on-call contract; 45.000 for a fixed-term part-time contract; 300.000 have returned to compliance with the employment contract. They are 827.000. Compared to 9 months 620.000. Just over half of voucher recipients in the first 9 months of 2016. And the others? Of course, since the average number of vouchers received was 62, equal to just under €500 (and 72% received less than €29), the figures we are discussing are minimal.
But they were even before, when it seemed that the voucher was the "bugs" intended to destabilize wages. In the end we must take note that the Voucher Liberation Struggle has led to the disappearance of approximately 0,116% of the annual wage bill referring to approximately 600.000 individuals. Either it is money returned to the black (as probable and very simply practicable) or it is modest earnings lost by people who were only wrong in wanting to receive them on a regular basis. Let's say that there are incomes between €290 and €500 which are no longer received by workers or are received illegally.
