Dissertation_Paula Aleksandrowicz_12 ... - Jacobs University

The position of older workers on the German and Polish labour markets might improve
due to those developments, but only if the policy of early deactivation of older workers will
be suspended both by public and corporate policy-makers. Barriers might be the continuing
reservations of employers towards older workers with regard to their innovation potential
and their efficiency, and the continuing practice of releasing ´problem groups´ instead of
adapting organisational structures accordingly.
Moreover, the labour market will still be characterised by mismatches in qualificatory
and regional terms (Buck et al. 2002: 22), and productivity rises may diminish the absolute
demand for labour (Fuchs 2005: 269). On the other side, there are worries that an aged
labour force will be less productive and slow down economic growth (ibid: 269). This might
occur as result of the deployment of older workers at positions with low innovation
potential, owing to the still prevailing belief in the deficit model (Wolff 2000: 35). All in all,
it can be said that the long-term impact of demographic changes on the employment
prospects of older workers cannot be assessed. Therefore, that variable is not included in the
final analysis (Table 13 at the end of this section).
High trade union density and the spread of workplace representation may on the one
hand inhibit job growth (Socha/Sztanderska 2000: 39) and perpetuate pressures on the
preservation of legislatively framed early exit options. On the other hand, it may boost the
improvement of working conditions and workers´ participation in matters like further
training, promotion etc. Because of the equivocal assessment, statistical indicators on
industrial relations in Poland and Germany (Table 12) will not enter the final comparison of
barriers and opportunities (Table 13 further down below).
Table 12: Figures on labour relations
Germany Poland EU-25
union density 18% 17% 25%
employers´ organisation density 63% 20% 58%
workplace representation* 53% 22% 53%
collective bargaining coverage* 65% 35% 66%
degree of bargaining centralisation 47% 20% 34%
Source: EIRO (2005, 2007).
* in % of workers.
The structural variables discussed in this section are visualised with their respective
country values in Table 13.
100