Union Membership Rate Middle Class Share of National Income. Year

Figure 1.1 30 union Membership Rate and Middle-Class Income Decline in the United States, 1967 to 2007 54 25 52 Union Membership Rate 20 15 10 50 48 46 Middle Class Share 5 Union Membership Rate Middle Class Share of National Income 44 0 42 1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 Source: Madland, Walter, and Bunker (2011, 2), reprinted with permission. This figure was created by the Center for American Progress (www.americanprogress.org).

Figure 4.1 Union Density in the United States 45 40 35 1973 2010 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Overall union density Private sector Manufacturing Public sector Source: Author s calculations based on Hirsch and MacPherson (2012).

Table 4.1 Unionization Rates in the United States Industry 1880 1910 1930 1953 1974 1983 2000 Agriculture, forestry, fishing 0 0.1 0.4 0.6 4 4.8 2.1 Mining 11.2 37.7 19.8 64.7 34.7 21.1 10.9 Construction 2.8 25.2 29.8 83.8 38 28 18.3 Manufacturing 3.4 10.3 7.3 42.4 37.2 27.9 14.8 Transportation, communication, utilities 3.7 20 18.3 82.5 49.8 46.4 24 Private services 0.1 3.3 1.8 9.5 8.6 8.7 4.8 Public employment 0.3 4 9.6 11.3 38 31.1 37.5 All private 1.7 8.7 7 31.9 22.4 18.4 10.9 All 1.7 8.5 7.1 29.6 24.8 20.4 14.1 Author s compilation of data from Friedman (2008).

Figure 5.1 The Two Axes of Regulation and Integration High Regulation Zone 1 HR/HI Zone 2 HR/LI High Integration Low Integration Zone 3 LR/HI Zone 4 LR/LI Low Regulation Source: Author s figure based on a diagram in Freedland and Kountouris (2011).

Figure 6.1 Graduated Protections Model Independent entrepreneurs Health and safety Independent workers Discrimination legislation Workers Pay and time legislation Employment contract (SEC) Source: Reprinted with permission from Perulli (2003, 246).

Figure 7.1 Collective Bargaining Coverage Percentage 80 76 70 63 60 50 40 30 73 70 71 70 70 68 67 65 63 63 65 57 55 56 55 54 53 53 54 54 52 51 20 10 0 Western Germany Eastern Germany 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Source: Author s calculations based on Ellguth and Kohaut (2010).

Figure 7.2 Trade Union Density in Germany Percentage 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Source: Author s calculations based on OECD (2012). Trade Union Density 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Figure 7.3 Derogations and Agreements 450 400 Number of Agreements 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Working times chemical industry Wages chemical industry 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Single payments chemical industry Metalworking industry Source: Author s calculations from unions data.

Figure 7.4 Counterconcessions in Derogation Agreements Percentage of Share of Topics in Derogations 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Safeguarding of Jobs Protection of Sites Investments Innovation 2004 2005 2006 Apprenticeship Further Training Codetermination Membership Bonus Miscellaneous Topics of Agreements Source: Author s calculations based on Haipeter (2009).

Figure 8.1 Unemployment Rates 12.0 Percentage of Civilian Labor Force 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Source: Author s calculations based on European Commission (2010). Netherlands EU15 average 2010

Figure 8.2 Male Employment Population Rates 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 Standard employment males NL Nonstandard employment males NL Standard employment males EU Nonstandard employment males EU Source: Author s calculations based on European Commission (2010).

Figure 8.3 Female Employment Population Rates 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 Standard employment females NL Nonstandard employment females NL Standard employment females EU Nonstandard employment females EU Source: Author s calculations based on European Commission (2010).

Table 9.1 Job security and skills development Patterns of Intervention Low High Source: Author s compilation. Security Through Membership Within Organized Settings I Promotion of paths leading to a standard contract in a firm III Programs for the shared use of human resources by several firms Security Through Permanence on the Labor Market II Compensated promotion of opportunities for atypical work IV Invention of protections and rights independent from stable memberships

Figure 10.1 Overview of Labor Dispute Resolution Systems in Japan In-house dispute resolution Labor disputes Private ADR Administration Judiciary Labor administration (individual disputes) Labor relations commissions (collective disputes) Courts (individual and collective disputes) General labor consultation corner Adjustment of collective labor disputes Adjudication of unfair labor practices Labor tribunal procedures (individual disputes) Provisional disposition procedures Labor inspection (violation of laws) Guidance and advice by labor bureau Regular civil procedures Dispute Adjustment Committee Adjudication Adjustment (mediation, conciliation) Source: Author s figure. Note: Dark gray boxes indicate adjudication procedures and light gray boxes indicate adjustment procedures. The dark line around the box for labor tribunal procedures indicates this chapter s focus on the whole dispute resolution system in Japan.

Figure 10.2 Ratio of Standard to Nonstandard Employees in Japan 100 80 Percentage 60 40 20 0 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 Nonstandard employees Standard employees Source: Author s compilation based on Labor Force Survey 1990 2008 (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, various years).

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2002 Figure 10.3 Newly Filed Labor Cases at First Instance in Japan 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 662 392 892 485 1,307 1,507 1,552 1,525 1,656 1,793 1,802 2,063 2,119 642 804 696 686 705 792 815 682 708 Number of Cases 2,309 768 2,433 2,519 2,446 2,035 2,246 2,441 3,218 470 417 726 649 598 440 877 1494 655 2052 3468 Labor tribunal cases Provisional disposition cases Regular civil cases 1,000 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Source: Author s compilation based on Supreme Court Secretariat (1991 2009).

Figure 10.4 Consultations at Labor Offices Number of Individual Civil Labor Dispute Consultations (Cases) 240,000 200,000 160,000 120,000 80,000 40,000 907,869 946,012997,237 823,864 734,257 625,572 103,194 FY 2002 140,822 FY 2003 160,166 FY 2004 Number of individual civil labor dispute consultations 176,429 FY 2005 187,387 FY 2006 197,904 FY 2007 (Cases) 1,100,000 1,000,000 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 Overall number of laborrelated consultations Overall Number of Labor-Related Consultations Source: Reprinted with permission from Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training (2009). Figure 10.5 Consultation Cases on Civil Individual Disputes, FY 2007 Others 15.5% Dismissal 22.9% Employment management 1.7% Recruitment/ hiring 1.4% Bullying or harassment 12.5% Child and family care 0.8% Other working conditions 21.5% Lowering of working conditions 12.5% Transfer or job location 3.6% Inducement toward retirement 7.7% Source: Reprinted with permission from Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training (2009).

Table 10.1 Newly Filed Labor Cases Japan Germany United Kingdom France 3,168 590,442 115,042 156,442 (2004) (2004) (2003 2004) (2004) Source: Author s compilation based on Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Arbeit (2004), Employment Tribunals Service (2006), and Ministère de la Justice (2006).

Figure 12.1 Danish Flexicurity High job mobility Low tenure Low strictness of employment protection Flexible labor market Continuing vocational training Expenditures and participants among the highest in the world Generous income security Active labor market Two years eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits Up to 90 percent of former income Indefinite means-tested social assistance Strict criteria for showing availability High spending on ALMP Low incidence of long-term unemployment Motivation and qualification effects Source: Author s compilation.

Figure 12.2 Preconditions of Danish Flexicurity September Compromise between capital and labor (1899) Regulation by collective agreements Law on Salaried Workers (1938) Many SMEs Flexible labor market Continuing vocational training Financed by the public budget for employed and unemployed Transferable, general skills Administrative corporatism Rights to training in collective agreements Indirect subsidy to the competitiveness of Danish firms Generous income security Active labor market Unemployment insurance administered by unemployment insurance funds (1907) Public employment service responsible for reintegration and unemployment insurance funds responsible for benefit administration (1969) Municipalities responsible for social assistance (1976) Activation policies from early 1990s Learn-fare rather than work-fare Administrative corporatism Source: Author s compilation.

Table 12.1 Flexibility Versus Security Trade-Offs Flexibility-Security Job Security Employment Security Income Security External-numerical Internal-numerical Functional Variable pay Source: Author s compilation based on Wilthagen and Tros (2004). Combination Security

Table 12.2 Labor Market Indicators in 2009 Denmark Sweden Netherlands United Kingdom Germany EU-27 Labor force participation rate (percentage of population age fifteen to sixty-four) 80.7 78.9 79.7 75.7 76.9 71.1 Employment rate (percentage of population age fifteen to sixty-four) 75.7 72.2 77.0 69.9 70.9 64.6 Unemployment rate (percentage of labor force fifteen and older) 6.0 8.3 3.4 7.6 7.5 8.9 Long-term unemployment rate (percentage of labor force) 0.5 1.1 0.8 1.9 3.4 3.0 Youth unemployment rate (percentage of labor force fifteen through twenty-four) 11.2 25.0 6.6 19.1 10.4 19.6 Source: Author s compilation based on European Commission (2010c).

Figure 14.1 Development of JTUC Community Unions 18,000 16,000 Number of Members 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Source: Authors calculations based on Japanese Trade Union Confederation (1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009).

Table 14.1 Workforce Composition by Employment Type from 1982 to 2007 (in Thousands) Category 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 Total 57,888 60,502 65,756 67,003 65,009 65,978 Percentage 100 100 100 100 100 100 Self-employed 9,536 9,071 8,442 7,931 7,041 6,675 Percentage 16.5 15 12.8 11.8 10.8 10.1 Family workers 5,869 5,255 4,712 4,052 3,114 1,876 Percentage 10.1 8.7 7.2 6 4.8 2.8 Private-sector executive 2,751 3,089 3,970 3,850 3,895 4,012 Percentage 4.8 5.1 0.6 5.7 6 6.1 Regular employee or staff 33,009 34,565 38,062 38,542 34,557 34,324 Percentage 57 57.1 57.9 57.5 53.2 52 Total part-timer or arbeiter 4,675 6,563 8,481 10,342 12,061 12,935 Percentage 8.1 10.8 12.9 15.4 18.6 19.6 Part-timer 4,677 5,967 6,998 7,824 8,855 Percentage 7.7 9.1 10.4 12 13.4 Arbeiter 1,886 2,514 3,344 4,237 4,080 Percentage 3.1 3.8 5 6.5 6.2 Contract worker 695 730 880 966 2,477 3,313 Percentage 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 3.8 5 Agency workers 87 163 257 721 1,608 Percentage 0.1 0.2 0.4 1.1 2.4 Others 1,325 1,118 1,008 1,025 946 965 Percentage 2.3 1.8 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Source: Authors calculations based on Statistics Bureau (1983, 1988, 1993, 1998, 2003, 2008).

Table 14.2 Development of Labor Union Members Total Number Regular Workers Part-Time Workers 1990 12,265 12,167 97 1994 12,699 12,531 168 2000 11,539 11,279 260 2006 10,040 9,525 515 2007 10,080 9,492 588 2008 10,065 9,449 616 2009 10,078 9,377 700 2010 10,054 9,328 726 Source: Authors calculations based on Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare (1990, 1994, 2000, 2006, 2007, 2008a, 2009, 2010). Note: Numbers in thousands. Part-time workers here refer to those who work fewer hours than regular workers in establishments, or those who are called part-time workers in establishments. The number of unionized regular workers is calculated by subtracting the part-time worker union membership from total union membership. The regular workers here, therefore, include some nonstandard workers such as temporary workers, contract workers, agency workers, and so forth.

Table 14.3 Enterprise-Based Unions Dealing with Nonstandard Workers Category Approach 1993 1998 2003 2008 Temporary workers Part-time workers Contract workers Organize 3.3 3.3 6.1 11.2 Other organizational initiative 11.1 8.8 7.8 5.5 Organize 8.9 4.9 16.6 23.0 Other organizational initiative 11.7 14.7 11.0 10.6 Organize 15.0 23.3 Other organizational initiative 9.8 7.3 Source: Authors calculations based on Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare (1993, 1998, 2003, 2008b). Note: Numbers in percentages.

Figure 16.1 Temporary Workers as a Percentage of All U.K. Employees 10 9 8 7 Percentage 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 All Male Female 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Source: Author s compilation based on ONS (2010). Note: Numbers in thousands and seasonally adjusted. 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Figure 16.2 Part-Time U.K. Workers 8,000 7,000 6,000 Number of Workers 5,000 4,000 3,000 All Male Female 2,000 1,000 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Source: Author s compilation based on ONS (2010). Note: Seasonally adjusted. 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Figure 16.3 temporary Employees Who Could Not Find a Permanent U.K. Job 60 50 40 Percentage 30 20 10 0 All Male Female 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Source: Author s compilation based on ONS (2010). Note: Numbers in thousands and seasonally adjusted. 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Figure 16.4 Part-Time Workers Who Could Not Find a Full-Time U.K. Job 35 30 All Male Female 25 Percentage 20 15 10 5 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Source: Author s compilation based on ONS (2010). Note: Numbers in thousands and seasonally adjusted. 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Figure 16.5 Active Members of Occupational U.K. Pension Schemes Number of Active Members (in millions) 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1953 1955 1957 1959 1961 1963 1965 1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 Private Public 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 Source: Reprinted from ONS (2010). Notes: The 2005 survey did not cover the public sector. Due to changes in the definition of the private and public sectors, estimates for 2000 and onward differ from earlier years. From 2000, organizations such as the Post Office and the BBC were reclassified from the public to the private sector. Changes to methodology for 2006 onward mean that comparisons with 2005 and earlier should be treated with caution.

Table 16.1 Comparing Multi-Tier Pension Systems Across Welfare Regimes Mandatory First Tier (Public): Type Second Tier (Earnings-Related): Public or Private Liberal Australia 1,2,3 resource-tested private, DC Canada 2 resource-tested, basic public, DB United Kingdom 4 resource-tested, basic, public, DB minimum United States 3,5 resource-tested public, DB Conservative France 6 minimum public, DB* Germany 7 resource-tested public, points Japan basic public, DB Italy resource-tested public, NDC Social Democratic Denmark resource-tested, basic private, DC Netherlands basic private, DB Sweden 3 minimum public, NDC and private, DC Post-socialist Czech Republic basic, minimum public, DB Poland minimum public, NDC and private, DC Slovak Republic minimum public, points and private, DC Source: Author s compilation based on OECD (2011, 106, 173). Notes: Percentage figures in columns 4 and 5 relate to coverage of private schemes by type of plan, 2009, as a percentage of working age population (sixteen to sixty-four years). DB = defined benefit, DC = defined contribution, NDC = notional defined contribution. ATP, QMO, and PPM are names of specific private second-tier schemes in Sweden and Denmark. n.a. = not applicable. 1 Data refer to the total mandatory and voluntary. 2 Data refer to 2008. 3 OECD estimate based on data provided by national authorities as a percentage of total employment. See OECD (2011, 173). 4 Data may include multiple counting between active and deferred members of occupational schemes, and occupational and personal pensions. The percentages are based on a working life of sixteen to sixty-four for men and sixteen to fifty-nine for women. 5 Data refer to 2006. 6 OECD does not include the American first-tier resource-tested scheme in its table. 7 Coverage of occupational pensions refers to 2007 and includes all second-pillar pensions.

Voluntary Second Tier: Percentage of Private Coverage Third Tier: Percentage of Coverage by Occupational Schemes 68.5 data not available n.a. 33.9 n.a. 49.1 n.a. 32.8 n.a. 3.5 n.a. 32.2 n.a. data not available n.a. 7.5 ATP: ~70.0 n.a. QMO: ~59.0 69.3 n.a. PPM: ~76.0 n.a. QMO: ~78.0 n.a. n.a. 53.0 1.2 36.5 n.a.

Figure 18.1 Time Spent on Domestic Work 350 300 Men Women 250 Minutes per Day 200 150 100 50 0 Sweden Germany Spain Source: Author s compilation based on Eurostat (2006). Note: Ages twenty to seventy-four. Figure 18.2 Time Spent on Child Care Percentage of Total Domestic Time 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 Men Women 0 Sweden Germany Spain Source: Author s compilation based on Eurostat (2006). Note: Ages twenty to seventy-four.

Figure A.1 Contingent U.S. Workforce Forty-Five and Older, 1995 2005 Percentage 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 Definition 3 Definition 2 Definition 1 1995 1997 1999 2001 2005 Source: Author s compilation based on Hipple (2001); U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2001, 2005).

Figure A.2 Workforce in Temporary Employment, Selected European Countries 30 25 1985 2009 20 Percentage 15 10 5 0 Denmark France Germany Italy Japan Netherlands Spain United Kingdom Source: Author s compilation based on OECD (2012a). Note: Data from Spain are for 1987 through 2009. All numbers in percentages.

Figure A.3 Young Persons in Permanent Employment, Selected OECD Countries 100 90 80 70 Percentage 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 United Kingdom Denmark Japan Italy France Germany Netherlands Spain Source: Author s compilation based on OECD (2012b). Note: Ages fifteen through twenty-four. s 1985 to 2010. Numbers in percentages.

Figure A.4 indexed Employment Growth of Temporary Help Services and of All Industries in the United States, 1990 2008 Index [1990 = 100] 260 240 Temporary help services Total 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Source: Reprinted with permission from Luo, Mann, and Holden (2010).

Figure A.5 Trends in Number of Registered Dispatched Workers in Japan, 1994 2005 (thousands) 2000 1900 1800 1700 1600 1500 1400 1300 1200 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 (FY) Source: Reprinted with permission from Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare (2008).

Figure A.6 Median Job Tenure in the U.S., Men 18 16 14 Ages 25 to 34 Ages 35 to 44 Ages 45 to 54 Ages 55 to 64 12 Tenure 8 6 4 2 0 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2012 Source: Author s compilation based on U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (1998, 2008, 2012).

Figure A.7 Workers with Ten or More s Tenure with Current Employer, U.S. Men 70 60 50 Percent Workers 40 30 20 10 0 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 Ages 25 to 29 Ages 30 to 34 Ages 35 to 39 Ages 40 to 44 Ages 45 to 49 Ages 50 to 54 Ages 55 to 59 Ages 60 to 64 Source: Author s compilation based on U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (1998, 2008, 2012).

Figure A.8 Median Job Tenure, U.S. Women 12 10 8 Tenure 6 4 2 0 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 Ages 25 to 34 Ages 35 to 44 Ages 45 to 54 Ages 55 to 64 Source: Author s compilation based on U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (1998, 2008, 2012).

Figure A.9 Workers with Ten or More s Tenure with Current Employer, U.S. Women 60 50 40 Percent Workers 30 20 10 0 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 Ages 25 to 29 Ages 30 to 34 Ages 35 to 39 Ages 40 to 44 Ages 45 to 49 Ages 50 to 54 Ages 55 to 59 Ages 60 to 64 Source: Author s compilation based on U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (1998, 2008, 2012).

Figure A.10 Employed by Job Tenure, Canadian Men Age 44 49 55 50 45 40 Percentage 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 1985 1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 10 or more years 5 to 10 years 2004 2005 2006 3 to 5 years 3 years or less 2007 2008 2009 2010 Source: Author s compilation based on OECD (2012c).

Figure A.11 percent Employees Holding Current Job for Ten s or More, Canadian Men 80 70 60 1985 2009 Percentage 50 40 30 20 10 0 Ages 30 to 34 Ages 35 to 39 Ages 40 to 44 Ages 45 to 49 Ages 50 to 54 Ages 55 to 59 Source: Author s compilation based on OECD (2012). Note: Numbers in percentages. Figure A.12 Workers in Current Jobs Ten s or More and Five s or Less, Australia 70 60 50 Percentage 40 30 20 10 0 Five years or less, percentage of total Ten years or more, percentage of total 2001 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 Source: Author s compilation based on OECD (2012c). Note: Age twenty-five to fifty-four.

Figure A.13 Change in Union Density 20 0 Percentage Points 20 40 60 80 100 Australia Canada Denmark France Germany Italy Japan Netherlands Spain United Kingdom United States Source: Author s compilation based on Visser (2009).

Figure A.14 Union Density and Collective Bargaining Coverage, Australia Percent of Eligible Working Population 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 Union density Collective bargaining coverage 1960 1965 1970 1974 1980 1985 1990 1996 2001 2007 Source: Author s compilation based on Visser (2009). Figure A.15 Union Density and Collective Bargaining Coverage, Canada 80 Percent of Eligible Working Population 70 60 50 40 30 20 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2009 Union density Collective bargaining coverage Source: Author s compilation based on Visser (2009).

Figure A.16 Union Density and Collective Bargaining Coverage, Denmark Percent of Eligible Working Population 65 60 55 50 45 35 25 15 Union density Collective bargaining coverage 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2007 2010 Source: Author s compilation based on Visser (2009). Figure A.17 Union Density and Collective Bargaining Coverage, France 95 Percent of Eligible Working Population 85 75 65 55 45 35 25 15 5 Union density Collective bargaining coverage 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2008 Source: Author s compilation based on Visser (2009).

Figure A.18 Union Density and Collective Bargaining Coverage, Germany 80 Percent of Eligible Working Population 75 70 65 60 55 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2009 Union density Collective bargaining coverage Source: Author s compilation based on Visser (2009). Figure A.19 Union Density and Collective Bargaining Coverage, Italy 92 82 Percent of Eligible Working Population 72 62 52 42 32 Union density Collective bargaining coverage 22 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2006 2009 Source: Author s compilation based on Visser (2009).

Figure A.20 Union Density and Collective Bargaining Coverage, Japan 35 Percent of Eligible Working Population 30 25 20 15 Union density Collective bargaining coverage 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2008 Source: Author s compilation based on Visser (2009). Figure A.21 Union Density and Collective Bargaining Coverage, Netherlands Percent of Eligible Working Population 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 Union density Collective bargaining coverage 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2008 Source: Author s compilation based on Visser (2009).

Figure A.22 Union Density and Collective Bargaining Coverage, Spain 100 Percent of Eligible Working Population 80 60 40 20 0 1977 1980 1986 1990 1995 2000 2004 2008 Union density Collective bargaining coverage Source: Author s compilation based on Visser (2009). Figure A.23 union Density and Collective Bargaining Coverage, United Kingdom Percent of Eligible Working Population 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 Union density Collective bargaining coverage 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2009 Source: Author s compilation based on Visser (2009).

Figure A.24 union Density and Collective Bargaining Coverage, United States 35 Percent of Eligible Working Population 30 25 20 15 10 Union density Collective bargaining coverage 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Source: Author s compilation based on Visser (2009).

Figure A.25 change in Gini Coefficient Between Mid-1980s and Late 2000s for Working Age Population 25 20 Percentage 15 10 5 0 5 Denmark France Germany Italy Japan Netherlands Spain United Kingdom United States Source: Author s compilation based on OECD (2012d), using data for working age population.

Table A.1 Percent U.S. Workforce in Contingent Employment Estimate 1 Estimate 2 Estimate 3 1995 2.2 2.8 4.9 1997 1.9 2.4 4.4 1999 1.9 2.3 4.3 2001 1.7 2.2 4.1 2005 1.8 2.5 4.1 Source: Author s compilation based on U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (1999, 2001, 2005) and Hipple (2001).

Table A.2 percent Employed Workers Employed Part-Time, Men and Women 1985 1995 2005 2009 Change Canada 17.1 18.8 18.4 19.3 2.2 Denmark 21.1 17.5 17.6 19.4 1.7 France 11.7 14.8 13.9 14.0 2.2 Germany 10.6 14.2 21.8 22.4 11.8 Italy 8.2 11.5 15.6 16.9 8.7 Netherlands 19.7 29.2 36.1 37.7 18.0 Spain 4.1 6.8 10.9 12.3 8.2 United Kingdom 20.1 22.5 23.0 23.8 3.7 United States 14.7 14.0 12.8 14.1 0.6 Source: Author s compilation based on OECD (2012a). Note: Data from Spain from 1990 to 2009. Numbers in percentages.

Table A.3 Percent Employed Workers Employed Part-Time, Men, All Ages 1985 1995 2005 2009 Change Canada 8.8 10.8 10.9 12.0 3.2 Denmark 8.0 9.7 11.7 13.6 5.5 France 4.5 5.6 5.0 5.1 0.6 Germany 1.7 3.4 7.3 8.0 6.2 Italy 3.8 4.8 5.3 5.9 2.1 Netherlands 6.1 11.8 15.3 17.0 10.8 Spain 2.4 2.4 3.8 4.4 2.0 United Kingdom 4.3 7.4 9.6 10.9 6.5 United States 8.6 8.3 7.8 9.2 0.6 Source: Author s compilation based on OECD (2012a). Note: Data from Spain from 1990 to 2009. Numbers in percentages.

Table A.4 Percent Employed Workers Employed Part-Time, Women, All Ages 1985 1995 2005 2009 Change Canada 28.3 28.5 27.2 27.1 1.2 Denmark 35.2 25.8 23.9 24.8 10.4 France 21.6 24.8 22.6 22.4 0.8 Germany 25.4 29.1 38.8 38.1 12.7 Italy 16.6 21.1 28.8 30.5 14.0 Netherlands 45.5 55.1 60.7 59.9 14.3 Spain 12.0 15.8 21.5 21.4 9.4 United Kingdom 41.1 40.8 38.5 38.8 2.3 United States 21.6 20.2 18.3 19.2 2.4 Source: Author s compilation based on OECD (2012a). Note: Data from Spain from 1990 to 2009. Numbers in percentages.

Table A.5 Workers at the Same Job Ten s or More, Selected European Countries, Men 1995 2009 Change Denmark 34.3 29.4 4.9 France 44.8 43.6 1.2 Germany 40.5 44.8 +4.3 Italy 51.3 49.3 2.1 Netherlands 39.3 44.4 +5.1 Spain 41.8 40.7 1.0 United Kingdom 36.5 32.9 3.6 Source: Author s compilation based on OECD (2012c). Note: All ages. Numbers in percentages. Table A.6 Workers at the Same Job Ten s or More, Selected European Countries, Women 1995 2009 Change Denmark 29.3 24.5 4.7 France 41.3 42.8 +1.5 Germany 31.5 39.7 +8.2 Italy 44.0 42.2 1.8 Netherlands 26.0 35.8 +9.8 Spain 31.0 31.4 +0.3 United Kingdom 25.1 28.4 +3.4 Source: Author s compilation based on OECD (2012c). Note: All ages. Numbers in percentages. Table A.7 Workers at the Same Job Ten s or More, Selected European Countries, Men and Women 1995 2009 Change Denmark 30.2 18.5 11.7 France 48.7 41.5 7.2 Germany 34.9 38.3 +3.4 Italy 51.7 39.2 12.5 Netherlands 40.1 36.9 3.2 Spain 42.2 32.3 10.0 United Kingdom 32.9 27.9 5.0 Source: Author s compilation based on OECD (2012c). Note: All ages. Numbers in percentages.

Table A.8 average s on Job, Selected European Countries, Men and Women Country 1992 2009 Change Denmark 7.94 7.63 3.9% France 9.95 11.64 17.0% Germany 10.31 11.12 7.9% Italy 10.75 11.72 9.1% Netherlands 8.31 10.86 30.8% Spain 8.48 9.61 13.3% United Kingdom 7.77 8.53 9.8% Source: Author s compilation based on OECD (2012c). Note: All ages. Table A.9 Change in Job Tenure 1992 to 2009, Men Ages 25 to 29 Ages 30 to 34 Ages 35 to 39 Ages 40 to 44 Ages 45 to 49 Ages 50 to 54 Ages 55 to 59 Ages 60 to 64 Denmark 26.8 20.5 24.5 22.9 14.8 21.4 9.3 13.3 France 5.4 5.2 12.2 7.1 0.8 8.2 15.4 3.6 Germany 10.0 6.0 4.6 7.1 8.4 5.7 6.4 5.2 Italy 4.9 10.9 13.4 13.6 8.6 0.1 8.3 3.0 Netherlands 14.5 8.1 11.1 14.5 9.5 3.5 7.7 19.0 Spain 24.2 12.6 13.1 11.3 2.5 7.7 13.8 5.5 United Kingdom 9.0 15.5 13.6 13.9 13.0 5.1 7.7 13.6 Source: Author s compilation based on OECD (2012c).