All time references are in CEST
Number of hours usually worked? Methodological challenges in accurately measuring working time |
|
| Session Organisers | Miss Carolin Deuflhard (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin) Professor Lena Hipp (University of Potsdam/ WZB Berlin Social Science Center) |
| Time | Tuesday 18 July, 09:00 - 10:30 |
| Room | |
In recent years, working time has become increasingly polarized in terms of who works how much, when, and where. This shift is driven by structural, institutional, and demographic changes, as well as exogenous shocks—most recently the COVID-19 pandemic. Against this backdrop, the session aims to stimulate a discussion on the methodological challenges and promises of old and new measurements for working hours.
How accurate are standardized survey questions on “hours usually worked” when employees work remotely, flexible hours, have zero-hour or multiple contracts, or are paid based on output rather than hours? For which groups of workers do standard survey questions produce more and for which groups less reliable results? How can these challenges be overcome? Can digital trace data and alternative survey questions help to accurately measure the time people spend on paid (and unpaid) work? What potential do survey experiments have for informing measurement strategies?
Session presentations can cover a broad range of issues in the field of measuring working time. Priority will be given to contributions that a) compare the advantages and shortcomings of different measurement strategies, b) focus on innovative approaches for measuring working time, c) address the peculiarities and challenges of measuring the working time of (specific groups of) nonstandard employees, and d) discuss the potential and problems of different measurement strategies for uncovering inequalities in working time based on gender, class, and race.
Keywords: flexible work, remote work, nonstandard employment, survey research, survey experiments
Dr Mattis Beckmannshagen (German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin))
Dr Markus Grabka (German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin))
Dr Ralf Himmelreicher (Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA))
Ms Juliane Pehla (Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA)) - Presenting Author
Mr Johannes Seebauer (German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin))
Professor Carsten Schröder (German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin))
In labor economics, hourly wages are critical as proxies for productivity and human capital and as variables in policy interventions. Valid hourly wage calculations require accurate documentation of earnings and working hours. While earnings documentation is strictly regulated, working hours often lack comparable rigor, causing variability in wage estimates based on datasets, definitions of working time, and recording methods.
Three main working time definitions — contractually agreed, employer-recorded, and self-reported actual hours — pose specific measurement challenges. To address these, the German Minimum Wage Commission launched a specialized survey within the German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP), a key labor market data source. This survey, conducted from April to December 2024, focuses on minimum wage employees. While GSOEP regularly collects monthly earnings and weekly working hours data, this initiative introduces a postal drop-off survey for detailed insights into how companies document earnings and working hours. A primary goal is aligning earnings and working hour reference periods to the same calendar month for more valid hourly wage estimates.
By comparing Drop-Off survey data with regular GSOEP data, the study identifies measurement errors from differing reference periods and examines discrepancies between agreed, recorded, and actual working hours. It also investigates whether preparation and follow-up times for jobs are remunerated. Respondents can report hours weekly or monthly, offering insights into reporting preferences across employee groups.
Findings aim to refine future surveys, advancing research on labor markets and minimum wage policies. Enhanced survey designs will enable more accurate analyses of working hours and earnings. Initial results will be shared at the conference, contributing to the broader discussion on innovative methods for measuring working hours.
Dr Nils Backhaus (Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health)
Dr Laura Menze (Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) - Presenting Author
The growing diversity and flexibility of working hours demands precise and multidimensional measurement. To address this challenge, the Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA) has conducted a representative survey for Germany, the BAuA-Working Time Survey (BAuA-WTS), biennially since 2015. This panel study, utilizing computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATI), gathers data from up to 20,000 employees and self-employed individuals working at least 10 hours per week. It examines not only working hours but also working conditions, health, and well-being, with a particular focus on nonstandard employment forms such as shift and night work, telework, flexible schedules, and multiple jobholding.
The BAuA-WTS data provide valuable insights into the methodological challenges and opportunities of working time measurement. Key topics include:
• Working hours: duration (contractual, actual, and preferred) and timing (e.g., start and end time of work, working days per week, shift work, staggered schedules).
• Flexibility: distinctions between employer- and employee-oriented arrangements and variability.
• Working time recording and working time accounts
• Remote work: telework and mobile work arrangements.
Findings from the BAuA-WTS are used in academic research, policy reports, and parliamentary inquiries. The survey data are made available to the scientific community as Scientific Use Files, supporting academic research and analysis.
This presentation will give an overview of the BAuA-WTS, present the various working time measurement strategies employed in the survey and examine their strengths and limitations. It aims to contribute to the broader discourse on improving the precision of working time metrics, offering critical insights to address the changing world of work.
Ms Mousumi Sarkar (U.S. Agency for International Development)
Ms Julie de Jong (ICF) - Presenting Author
Surveys frequently ask respondents to report information based on recall, such as about work hours and earnings, participating in programs, or observation of specific phenomena within a given time period. Respondents generally provide an answer, but evidence indicates significant variance in both recall strategies and subsequent responses. Recall challenges have been documented extensively but much of what is known about the variance and mitigation strategies comes from research in high-income countries. In this paper, we present findings from two studies in low- and middle income countries (LMICs) that probed deeper into respondents’ ability to accurately recall and the time period for which they are reasonably able to recall. The first study sought to measure work hours and earnings among participants in USAID’s youth workforce development programs. The second study sought to measure respondents participation in various development programming in the past 12 months; and experience with changes in climate and adaptation strategies across a variety of time periods. Both studies used cognitive interviews with a set of debrief questions probing specifically on recall. In the first study, we conducted cognitive interviews in six countries (the Philippines, Kenya, El Salvador, Rwanda and Kyrgyzstan) in the development phase of the Workforce Outcomes Reporting Questionnaire (WORQ), which measures employment and earnings among beneficiaries of USAID’s youth workforce development programs. In the second study, we conducted cognitive interviews in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Liberia to test new climate adaptation and program participation items for USAID’s Feed the Future population-based surveys and implemented lessons learned to test an approach to reduce variance in recall in Liberia. The studies provide guidance on respondent recall strategies and ability to provide accurate responses. Will will discuss findings and provide recommendations on recall periods and strategies to use for similar surveys.
Dr Daphne Nicolitsas (University of Crete) - Presenting Author
In 2019, the European Court of Justice issued a directive asking the EU-27 Member States to require employers to introduce an objective, reliable, and accessible system for recording working hours. In Greece, the directive's transposition meant using electronic time measurement for most employees. The implementation was phased, starting in July 2022 with supermarkets with more than 250 employees and all banks, continuing from January 1, 2024, with industrial enterprises and retail businesses, and ending in September 2024 with accommodation and food service activities.
The proposed paper uses two methodologies to investigate whether different institutions can lead to differences in reported working time. The first takes advantage of the phased change in the recording of working hours used in Greece, presented above. Using the Labour Force Survey (LFS) for Greece’s panel and cross-sectional dimensions, it assesses the impact of introducing different recording methods on reported hours. The hypothesis is that hours reported will have decreased in the sectors introducing the electronic measurement of working time but not in others. The second methodology uses the European Labour Force Survey (LFS) to test for differences in the length of working hours reported related to the use or otherwise of the annualisation of working hours by different countries. The hypothesis is that the number of working hours is lower in countries where the annualisation of working hours is used.
Dr Kea Tijdens (WageIndicator) - Presenting Author
This paper discusses the measurement problems related to comparing working hours across countries. We consider the 193 countries being members of the United Nations (UN). For these countries we have collected three measures of weekly working hours: the average working hours based on survey data, the legal working hours laid down in labour laws, and the standard working hours. The latter are the full-time hours prevailing in employment contracts and in statutory minimum wages, mostly adapted country wide. As a consequence, overtime hours are defined as the hours worked per week in excess of the standard working week thus forming the basis for overtime premium calculations.
Survey data is available from ILOSTAT, the statistical website of the ILO. ILOSTAT provides weekly working hours for 153 UN member states (min=24.7, max=54.4, mean=40.0). The World Bank presents legal working hours on 187 countries for the maximum number of working days per week and the standard workday; we multiplied these to indicate the maximum weekly working hours (min=39.6, max=56.0, mean=47.56). The WageIndicator Labour Law database contains data on the legal weekly working hours for 136 countries (min=35.0, max=52.0, mean=43.5). In these databases data regarding the standard weekly working hours is not available. Therefore WageIndicator.org has compiled its own database, pooling data on weekly working hours (min=35.0, max=48.0, mean=42.6). Sources are ILOSTAT; World Bank; number of annual hours from OECD; mode statistic of the contractual weekly working hours from the WageIndicator salary survey; working hours agreed in collective agreements from the WageIndicator Collective Agreements Database; standard working hours agreed in the WageIndicator Minimum Wages Database. Where these sources provided mutually different results, Internet search was used.