Statistics Netherlands Mies Bernelot Moens Opinions on revision

Statistics Netherlands Mies Bernelot Moens Opinions on revision of ISCO 1988

Netherlands • Don’t use ISCO 1988 • Have our own National Standard Classification of Occupations 1992 • ISCO and national codes are derived from common more detailed provisional codes with help of algorithms that makes use of (if needed) – employment status – number of workers supervised – level and field of education/training

ISCO not adequate for Dutch purposes because: • number of skill levels is not sufficient (4 in stead of 5) • two major groups have no skill level • it is not detailed and systematic enough for the Dutch labour market ISCO should be adequate to organise/advice on matching of demand supply on the international labour market (wish of the European Employment Agencies)

Criteria for update ISCO • Too much difference in skill level within major and minor groups • Too much heterogeneity of occupations within minor groups • New occupations don’t fit in the minor groups • High frequencies of occupations in heterogeneous rest groups

Non-criteria • location where the job is fullfilled (shop, market, street, contact centre, home) • medium used to provide services, including sales (internet, telephone or face to face) In stead of location or medium the criterion should be: skill specialisation based on the kind of service to be delivered or the kind of product to be sold.

Too much difference in skill level within major and minor groups Support: Splitting skill level 2 in low and intermediate skill level Low = about ISCED 2 (pre)vocational education or 3 C short (or comparable skills) Intermediate = ISCED 3 -4 excluding 3 C short (or comparable skills)

Too much difference in skill level within major and minor groups Support: Introduction and definition of separate front-line managers/ supervisors under 122 and 123 (department managers)

Too much difference in skill level within major groups No support: Splitting up skill level 4 Why? Frequencies become too low in highest level and operationalising is too difficult

Too much heterogeinity Support splitting up : • nursing and midwifery professionals • general and specialised physicians • most other splits

New occupations don’t fit in the minor groups Support: Proposed groups of information technology occupations

Other observations • New label of 6111 (Field crop and vegetable growers) should be Non-perennial crop growers. • Vice versa 6112 • However ‘perennial’ doesn’t seem a good criterion for a classification of occupations (preference for the old labels) • Crop has two agricultural meanings: the plant itself and parts of it (leaves, fruits etc. ) => labels 6111 and 6112 are confusing • Where in 611 do growers of cut flowers, bulbs, ornamental trees and plants, seeds for seeding fit?

Other observations • 6151 Title Aquaculture workers: should be Animal aquaculture workers • It is difficult to judge new unit groups without new descriptions