the workplace employee relations survey...
TRANSCRIPT
THE WORKPLACE EMPLOYEE RELATIONSSURVEY (WERS) 1997-8
TECHNICAL REPORT
(CROSS-SECTION AND PANEL SURVEYS)
Colin Airey, Jon Hales, Rosemary Hamilton,Christos Korovessis, Anthony McKernan, Susan Purdon
P1700/P1699 September 1999
UK Data Archive Study Number 3955 - Workplace Employee Relations Survey: Cross-Section, 1998
CONTENTS
SECTION ONE INTRODUCTION 1
SECTIO N TWO SAMPLE DESIGN & SELECTION 4
2.1 Design & selection of the sample for thecross-section survey 4
2.2 Design & selection of the panel sample 10
SECTIO N THREE DEVELOPMENT WORK 12
3.1 Introduction 123.2 The pilot surveys 133.3 Quali tative work for the Survey of Employees 163.4 Design of paper questionnaires 173.5 Telephone screening for the panel survey 17
SECTION FOUR CONDUCT OF FIELDWORK 22
4.1 Briefing & interviewer numbers 224.2 Sifting the samples 224.3 Fieldwork progress 264.4 Interviewer workload 284.5 The SEQ 324.6 Fieldwork quali ty control procedures 344.7 Trawl of establishments excluded from
the panel survey 364.8 Computer Aided Personal Interviews
(CAPI) 384.9 Retrieval of Paper Forms 41
SECTION FIVE RESPONSE 43
5.1 Cross-section survey: response amongmanagement respondents 43
5.2 Cross-section survey: response amongworker representatives 53
5.3 Cross-section survey: response to theSurvey of Employees (SEQ) 57
5.4 Panel Survey: overall response amongmanagement respondents 64
5.5 Response to the trawl of establishmentsexcluded from the panel survey 72
SECTION SIX CODING & EDITING OF DATA 78
6.1 Introduction 786.2 The Fact Sheets 786.3 Editing the questionnaires 836.4 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) &
Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) 836.5 Coding of open questions 846.6 Issues concerning interviews with worker
representatives 856.7 Overcodes 86
SECTION SEVEN WEIGHTING THE CROSS-SECTION ANDPANEL SAMPLES 88
7.1 Weighting the cross-section sample 887.2 Weighting the panel sample 92
SECTION EIGHT OTHER ISSUES 94
8.1 Sampling errors(cross-section & panel surveys) 948.2 Archiving of data & confidentiality restrictions 118
SECTION NINE PAPER DOCUMENTS: FIELDWORK AND OTHER
9.1 Cross-section survey9.2 Panel survey and Trawl of excluded establishments9.3 General
SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION
This report documents the conduct of the British Workplace Employee Relations Survey (WERS)1998. It is the fourth in a series of surveys carried out for central government1 and otherfunders2. The previous surveys, known as the Workplace Industrial Relations Surveys (WIRS),were conducted in 1980, 1984 and 1990. For all four surveys, the National Centre for SocialResearch3 has been responsible for sampling and statistical consultancy, the conduct of thefieldwork, coding and preparation of the final data.
For the first three surveys in the series, the survey was conducted among a cross-section ofestablishments in Great Britain with 25 or more employees. The scope of the fourth survey waswidened to include establishments with 10 or more employees. The sample in 1997 was drawnfrom the Inter-Departmental Business Register (IDBR). This consists of a register of businessesoperating in the UK, maintained by the Office for National Statistics. The register covers allsectors of employment; manufacturing, service industries, banking and finance, public sector(including the NHS and education) and private sector.
The achieved sample size for each of the three earlier cross-section surveys was just over 2000establishments. In 1997-84, the total number of establishments at which interviews were achievedwas somewhat greater - just under 2,200 but this number includes over 250 establishmentsclassified, at the time of the interview, as having between 10 and 24 employees. Differentialsampling fractions have been used according to the size (ie number of employees) of theestablishment on the IDBR, with the data being weighted before analysis so as to make thesample properly representative of the designated population.
One or more respondents were interviewed at the selected workplace, each being interviewed as arole holder with specific responsibilities. The management respondent was defined as ‘the seniormanager dealing with personnel, staff or employee relations’ at the establishment. In the greatmajority of cases this person was identified and interviewed at the sampled establishment; in theremainder of cases there was no appropriate respondent at the establishment and the interviewtherefore took place elsewhere in the parent organisation - though still focused on the sampledestablishment.
Interviews were also sought with worker representatives at each of the establishments at which amanagement interview took place. An establishment’s eligibility for the worker representativeinterview was defined during the course of the management interview. It was derived from theanswers to a number of questions. Interviewers sought interviews with the representative of thelargest (in terms of number of members at the site) recognised trade union or staff association.If an establishment did not recognise unions for the purpose of negotiating pay and conditions forany section of the workforce, but did operate a formal consultative committee of employees andmanagers, then the senior employee representative of the committee was sought. Frequently such
1 The Department of Trade & Industry on this occasion. The previous surveys were funded by the (former)Employment Department. Employment relations were among those areas of responsibility transferred from the EDto the DTI in 1995.2 The Economic and Social Research Council, the Policy Studies Institute and (but not in 1980) the Advisory,Conciliation and Arbitration Service.3 For 30 years following its registration as a charitable trust in April 1969, the National Centre for Social Researchoperated under the name Social and Community Planning Research (SCPR). The change of name took place inMay 1999. The conduct of WERS 1997-8 was therefore under the former name which appears passim throughoutthe documentation.4 Unlike the previous surveys, the nine month fieldwork period covered successive calendar years. The greater partof the fieldwork took place in 1998.
consultative committees were found to exist at workplaces where there were no recognisedunions. However this was not always so. In many workplaces consultative committees werefound to co-exist with recognised trade unions. And of course over half of workplaces had noworker representative (of either sort) to be interviewed.
For the first time in the series employees were also included in the remit of the survey. A randomselection of 25 employees was made at each establishment (provided that management agreed tothis further survey) and self-completion questionnaires, along with freepost reply envelopes, wereleft for the selected employees. At establishments with fewer than 25 employees, all employeeswere included in the scope of the survey. A detailed account of the methodology and proceduresrelating to the Survey of Employees is given in Sections Two and Four. Approximately 28,250questionnaires were completed and returned - an average of 15 from each of the 1880 co-operating establishments.
In 1984 and 1990 reinterviews had been carried out with establishments which had taken part inthe previous surveys (ie 1980 and 1984 respectively). This ‘panel’ element of the series wasrepeated in 1997-8 on a larger than ever scale. The issued sample size was 1,301 (randomlyselected from the 2,061 productives in 1990). Nearly 900 interviews5 were achieved. Afundamental difference between the 1997-8 panel survey and its predecessors was in the designand content of the questionnaire. For the first time a quite distinct questionnaire was developedspecifically for use in the panel survey. The reason for this was that the 1997-8 cross-sectionquestionnaire included relatively few questions from 1990. The panel questionnaire thereforecomprised mostly questions repeated from 1990. The remainder of the questions focused onchanges that had occurred in the intervening period. Only the management respondent, defined inthe same terms as above, was interviewed in the panel survey; there were no interviews withworker representatives; and there was no employee survey.
All three face-to-face interviews (cross-section: management and worker representativerespondents; panel: management respondents) were conducted, for the first time in the series, asComputer Aided Personal Interviews (CAPI). There were considerable gains in efficiency fromthis mode of interviewing, compared with the use of paper questionnaires. In particular it led togreat improvements in the data editing and cleaning stages of the survey. Thus it facilitated theavailability of interim working data files for early analysis and report drafting, whilst fieldworkwas still in progress.
A joint steering committee was again established by the WIRS funding organisations to initiateand supervise the project. The planning of the 1997-8 survey began in 1996. A research teamfrom the funding organisations6 was responsible to this committee for the conduct of the survey.From the commissioning of the survey (May 1997) through to the final handover of data(September 1998), there was a parallel team consisting of researchers from the National Centre.
The research team at the National Centre comprised the authors of this report, Colin Airey andJon Hales, being co-directors of the project. Susan Purdon and Christos Korovessis, from theSurvey Methods Centre at the National Centre, provided statistical advice on design, samplingand weighting issues. Anthony McKernan’s areas of responsibility were the development of theCAPI questionnaires and the editing and coding of data after fieldwork. Rosemary Hamilton hada pivotal role in briefing interviewers, fieldwork progress and negotiating agreement with largeorganisations where agreement had to be obtained from Head Offices before establishments couldtake part in the survey.
5 But see Sections Five and Eight.6 There were seven members. Three were from the DTI (Mark Cully, Stephen Woodland, Andrew O’Reilly), threefrom the Policy Studies Institute (Dr Neil Millward, Alex Bryson, John Forth), one from ACAS (Gill Dix). In July1998 Dr Millward and John Forth joined the staff of the National Institute for Social and Economic Research.
There was a degree of continuity within these research teams from previous surveys. Dr NeilMillward and Colin Airey had both worked as principal researchers for their organisations on theprevious three surveys. Rosemary Hamilton had also worked on all of the surveys as aninterviewer, senior fieldwork co-ordinator and as a researcher.
The survey data were lodged with the ESRC Data Archive in January 1999 (cross-section) andJuly 1999 (panel). They are generally available to all bona fide researchers, subject to a numberof limitations:
- there will be no locational identifiers;- industrial classification will be limited to SIC(92) Major groups;- full text answers to open and ‘other specify’ questions will be excluded.
Access to the full data file (without the limitations listed above) will be granted only with theconsent of the WERS steering committee, working through a sub-committee consisting ofrepresentatives of the DTI, ESRC and the National Centre. For further details see Section Eight.
The initial results of the survey are reported in:
• First Findings from the 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey, by Mark Cully,Stephen Woodland, Andrew O’Reilly, Gill Dix, Neil Millward, Alex Bryson, and John Forth(published by DTI on behalf of DTI, ESRC, ACAS and PSI October 1998).
Further publications include:
• Britain at Work: as depicted by the 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey, by MarkCully, Stephen Woodland, Andrew O’Reilly, and Gill Dix, to be published by Routledge inSeptember 1999;
• All Change at Work? British employee relations 1980-98, portrayed by the WorkplaceIndustrial Relations Survey series, by Neil Millward, Alex Bryson and John Forth, to bepublished by Routledge in March 2000.
This Technical Report is Volume Two in a series of documents describing the output andmethodology of the survey. They have been prepared jointly by the funding research teams andthe National Centre’s researchers and are available from the ESRC Data Archive. For furtherdetails see Section Eight (8.2).
SECTION TWO: SAMPLE DESIGN AND SELECTION
2.1 Design and selection of the sample for the cross-section survey
The 1997-8 WERS cross-section sample comprises a sample of establishments and asample of employees at those establishments. The selection of each of these samples isdescribed below.
2.1.1 Selection of the cross-section sample of establishments
The sampling frame used for the 1997-8 WERS is the Inter-Departmental BusinessRegister which is maintained by the Office for National Statistics7. This is undoubtedlythe highest quality sample frame of organisations and establishments in Britain. Inparticular, the sample frame is believed to be the most complete and the most accurate,respectively reflecting the continuous updating of the frame from VAT and PAYEsources and the removal of establishments which no longer exist. However, it has to berecognised that the primary purpose of the IDBR is to provide a basis for ONS statisticalinquiries. It is not maintained for sampling purposes, and has some deficiencies in thisrespect.
The data now held in the IDBR derive in large part from the Census of Employment, andthis relationship is readily apparent in the way address information is organised. There isalso considerable evidence that the Census data have been updated, both in terms of thenames of organisations and in the details of addresses, such as the postcode. Recordshave in many cases retained the local unit identifier which they had on the Census ofEmployment.
The IDBR is used as the basis for various statistical inquiries which contribute tonational accounts and other purposes. It is maintained by reference to PAYE and VATrecords. A feature of these sources is that they do not provide a direct indication ofemployment size. Estimation procedures are used to relate assumed workforce to thefinancial turnover. However, the record is treated as ‘unproven’ until it has been coveredin the Annual Business Inquiry. This is a successor to the triennial Census ofEmployment, and like the latter, is based on a census of establishments with 25employees or over, and a sample of smaller establishments. The consequence of this isthat smaller establishments may remain unproven for some time, but larger ones aregenerally proven within a year or so.
In order to ensure that the sample for the survey would be representative of allestablishments with 10 employees or more (cross-section), it was necessary to includeunproven units in the sampling process. In the event, of the 3,192 addresses issued tointerviewers (see below) only 58 were unproven.
The sampling unit used for the survey was the IDBR’s ‘local unit’ , which in mostinstances corresponds with the definition of an establishment used in the survey8 . Thesample was restricted to local units with 10 or more employees and with a StandardIndustrial Classification (SIC) major group between D and O. The sample thereforeexcludes major groups A-C (ie agriculture; hunting; forestry and fishing; and mining andquarrying) and P,Q (private households with employed persons and extra territorial
7The National Centre was granted access to IDBR data under the WERS contract with strict limitations on the useto which they might be put.8 See Interviewer Handbook pp. 7-14 for discussion of the definition of establishment.
bodies). Previously in the series, mining and quarrying in general had not been excluded,only deep coal mining. Local units located in Northern Ireland were also excluded fromthe sample.
To avoid overlaps with the panel sample, all eligible/in scope addresses from the 1990WIRS (a total of 2,492 cases) were, whenever a match could be found, excluded from theIDBR sampling frame. In practice just 1,036 of the 2,492 were successfully matched toand excluded from the sampling frame, which consisted of some 341,411 local units.
There were, however, limitations in the matching process, which involved comparingunits identified in the 1987 Census of Employment with IDBR units recorded on theIDBR. These limitations were evidenced by the fact that during the course of fieldwork afurther 47 ‘overlap’ units were identified in the cross-section sample. 38 of these werewithdrawn from the issued cross-section sample and no interview was attempted. In theremaining 9 cases the cross-section interview had been completed before the duplicationwas identified and therefore a panel interview could not take place (see Section Five:5.1.1).
All remaining local units on the sampling frame were divided into strata, the strata beingdefined in terms of SIC major groups and employee numbers. The distribution of localunits by these strata is shown in Table 2A9 . The figures in italics are the IDBR countsbefore exclusion of the 1,036 units from 1990 matched in the IDBR.
9 The figures of Table 2B are aggregated across two IDBR databases: proven units and unproven units.
TABLE 2A: IDBR COUNTS AFTER AND BEFORE EXCLUSIONOF THE 1990 WIRS SAMPLE
Number of local units insampling frame
Total number of localunits on IDBR
Number of employees in each unit
SIC92Major Group 10-24 25-49 50-99 100-199 200-499 500+ Total
D 25,195 11,502 6,742 4,402 2,653 801 51,29525,199 11,534 6,783 4,459 2,725 926 51,626
E 340 228 176 144 135 58 1,081340 228 178 149 141 62 1,098
F 8,811 3,100 1,448 659 274 64 14,3568,813 3,115 1,452 667 278 66 14,391
G 45,179 13,031 5,317 2,601 1,537 212 67,87745,183 13,060 5,349 2,635 1,572 230 68,029
H 23,741 5,928 1,890 762 213 56 32,59023,744 5,939 1,901 768 216 56 32,624
I 8,577 3,748 2,248 1,285 686 250 16,7948,582 3,766 2,260 1,297 697 259 16,861
J 9,072 2,960 1,589 750 454 192 15,0179,080 2,966 1,597 760 459 197 15,059
K 23,544 8,271 4,235 2,572 1,304 415 40,34123,549 8,288 4,249 2,585 1,317 437 40,425
L 6,224 3,744 2,612 1,559 931 306 15,3766,228 3,755 2,624 1,575 945 325 15,452
M 13,299 10,096 4,163 1,824 509 262 30,15313,304 10,117 4,186 1,835 511 275 30,228
N 21,019 9,519 3,778 1,295 704 469 36,78421,022 9,527 3,784 1,307 715 523 36,878
O 12,312 3,785 1,636 660 254 64 18,71112,314 3,792 1,641 664 256 73 18,740
Total 197,313 75,912 35,834 18,513 9,654 3,149 340,375197,358 76,087 36,004 18,701 9,832 3,429 341,411
Within each cell of Table 2A a simple random sample of local units was selected. Table2B shows the sample size within each cell. The numbers in italics are the samplingfractions.
TABLE 2B: SAMPLE SIZES AND SAMPLING FRACTIONSBY SIC92 MAJOR GROUP AND EMPLOYMENT SIZE
Number selected;Sampling fraction
Number of employees in each selected unit
SIC92Major Group 10-24 25-49 50-99 100-199 200-499 500+ Total
D 28 56 66 85 111 80 4260.00111 0.00487 0.00979 0.01931 0.04184 0.09988
E 2 7 11 19 38 36 1130.00588 0.03070 0.06250 0.13194 0.28148 0.62069
F 27 40 37 33 30 15 1820.00306 0.01290 0.02555 0.05008 0.10949 0.23438
G 78 100 83 79 100 31 4710.00173 0.00767 0.01561 0.03037 0.06506 0.14623
H 50 53 34 27 16 9 1890.00211 0.00894 0.01799 0.03543 0.07512 0.16071
I 15 29 35 39 45 36 1990.00175 0.00774 0.01557 0.03035 0.06560 0.14400
J 18 27 29 27 35 33 1690.00198 0.00912 0.01825 0.03600 0.07709 0.17188
K 44 65 68 80 86 61 4040.00187 0.00786 0.01606 0.03110 0.06595 0.14699
L 10 29 41 48 61 46 2350.00161 0.00775 0.01570 0.03079 0.06552 0.15033
M 22 78 65 55 33 38 2910.00165 0.00773 0.01561 0.03015 0.06483 0.14504
N 35 74 59 39 46 72 3250.00167 0.00777 0.01562 0.03012 0.06534 0.15352
O 33 45 38 31 25 16 1880.0027 0.0119 0.0232 0.0470 0.0984 0.25000
Total 362 603 566 562 626 473 3192
Thus the main features of the design are as follows:
• the sampling fractions used increase with employment size, in part to give sufficientnumbers within each size band for separate analyses, but also to allow reasonablyefficient employee-based estimates to be derived;
• the sampling fractions were increased for SIC major groups E (Electricity, gas andwater supply), F (Construction), H (Hotels and restaurants), J (Financialintermediation), and O (Other community, social and personal service activities).The aim was to achieve increased sample sizes of 100-150 for groups E, F, H, J, andO10. This ‘over-sampling’ was accommodated by decreasing the sampling fractionwithin SIC major group D (Manufacturing). This is a change from the sample designof previous surveys. In 1990 under-sampling (by a factor of 1 in 4) had been limitedto units classified as Public Administration, Education and Health Services. In 1980and 1984 there was no under or over-sampling in terms of industrial classification.
10 Owing to a higher than anticipated level of out-of-scope establishments, the achieved sample sizes in these SICmajor groups were below the target levels (see Section Five, Table 5E).
SECTION TWO: SAMPLE DESIGN AND SELECTION
The 1987 Census of Employment from which the WIRS 1990 sample was drawn,comprised a similar number of units. There were 142,283 units with 25 or moreemployees, compared with 144,053 on the IDBR in 1997. The intervening decade sawan increase in the number of establishments with under 200 employees and a decline inestablishments over that size. The overall sampling fractions for each establishment sizeband generated by the matrix that comprises Table 2B were very similar to thoseemployed in 1990, with the exception of units with 1,000 or more employees, as Table2C indicates.
The relatively small number of large units is the major difference in the 1997/8 WERSsample design compared with previous surveys in the series. In 1990, 1,007 units withmore than 500 employees were selected, compared with under 500 such units in 1997.
TABLE 2C: COMPARISON OF SAMPLING FRACTIONS WITH 1990
No of1987 1997
Employeesin Unit No of
Units
AverageSamplingFraction
No ofUnits
AverageSamplingFraction
10-2425-4950-99
100-199200-499500-999
1000-19992000+
n/a74,95635,21518,1789,9212,693
960360
n/a111633621722
197,35876,08736,00418,7019,832
) ) 3,249 )
545126643316777
TOTAL 142,283 [44] 144,053* [51]*
* excluding establishments with 10-24 employees
In addition to the number of units sampled, as indicated in the above table, a reserve poolof 500 units was selected to be used should the number of establishments at whichinterviews were achieved fall appreciably below the anticipated level. The selection ofsuch a reserve pool had been the practice in the previous WIRS surveys. However, on nooccasion so far in this series has the reserve sample ever been drawn upon .
2.1.2 Selection of employees for the Survey of Employees
Within each establishment taking part in the survey a sample of 25 employees wasselected (or all employees were selected if the establishment had between 10 and 25employees). The sample was drawn by interviewers using random number sheetsdesigned specifically for the survey. The process is fully described in the InterviewersHandbook. Copies of the documents used in the sampling procedures are included inSection Nine.
The decision to select a fixed number of employees from each establishment, rather thansample using a variable sampling fraction, was influenced by several practicalconsiderations. Firstly, the fixed sample-size approach was simple for interviewers tohandle because he/she did not have to vary the sampling method from one establishment
to the next. With a variable sampling fraction this consistency would be lost. A secondmajor consideration was that the interviewer knew in advance, and importantly, could tellthe establishment in advance, what the sample size would be. Thirdly, the fixed sampleapproach gives control over the final sample size, both overall and within individualestablishments. With a variable sample-size approach, establishments with moreemployees than expected could potentially be asked to provide a very large sample ofemployees.
The main disadvantage of using a fixed sample size is that the probability of selection ofemployees differs from establishment to establishment and this has to be compensated forby weighting the data when the data are aggregated across establishments (see SectionSeven: 7.1.1). Weighting the data leads to some loss of precision in survey estimates.Table 2D shows the range of sampling fractions for employees under the (simplistic)assumption that IDBR employee numbers were accurate at the time of the WERSinterview. The figures demonstrate that, with the exception of employees from the verylargest and the very smallest establishments, within SIC major groups there is relativelylittle variation in the probabilities of selection of employees. In practice the number ofemployees at the time of interview differed from the IDBR count in a considerableproportion of cases. The impact of this was to widen the ranges of sampling fractions foremployees quite considerably.
TABLE 2D: MINIMUM & MAXIMUM PROBABILITIES OFSELECTION FOR EMPLOYEES IF IDBR EMPLOYEE NUMBERS
ARE ACCURATE AT TIME OF WERS INTERVIEW
Probability of selectionfor employees
Number of employees in unit
SIC92 MajorGroup 10-24 25-49 50-99 100-199 200-499 500+
D Minimum 0.00111 0.00248 0.00247 0.00243 0.00105 0.00000Maximum 0.00111 0.00487 0.00489 0.00483 0.00523 0.00499
E Minimum 0.00588 0.01566 0.01578 0.01658 0.00704 0.00000Maximum 0.00588 0.03070 0.03125 0.03299 0.03519 0.03103
F Minimum 0.00306 0.00658 0.00645 0.00629 0.00274 0.00000Maximum 0.00306 0.01290 0.01278 0.01252 0.01369 0.01172
G Minimum 0.00173 0.00392 0.00394 0.00382 0.00163 0.00000Maximum 0.00173 0.00767 0.00781 0.00759 0.00813 0.00731
H Minimum 0.00211 0.00456 0.00454 0.00445 0.00188 0.00000Maximum 0.00211 0.00894 0.00899 0.00886 0.00939 0.00804
I Minimum 0.00175 0.00395 0.00393 0.00381 0.00164 0.00000Maximum 0.00175 0.00774 0.00778 0.00759 0.00820 0.00720
J Minimum 0.00198 0.00465 0.00461 0.00452 0.00193 0.00000Maximum 0.00198 0.00912 0.00913 0.00900 0.00964 0.00859
K Minimum 0.00187 0.00401 0.00405 0.00391 0.00165 0.00000Maximum 0.00187 0.00786 0.00803 0.00778 0.00824 0.00735
L Minimum 0.00161 0.00395 0.00396 0.00387 0.00164 0.00000Maximum 0.00161 0.00775 0.00785 0.00770 0.00819 0.00752
M Minimum 0.00165 0.00394 0.00394 0.00379 0.00162 0.00000Maximum 0.00165 0.00773 0.00781 0.00754 0.00810 0.00725
N Minimum 0.00167 0.00397 0.00394 0.00378 0.00164 0.00000Maximum 0.00167 0.00777 0.00781 0.00753 0.00817 0.00768
O Minimum 0.00268 0.00607 0.00587 0.00590 0.00246 0.00000Maximum 0.00268 0.01189 0.01161 0.01174 0.01230 0.01250
2.2 Design and selection of the panel sample
The fundamental requirement for the WERS 1997-8 panel sample was that it should berepresentative of surviving establishments at which interviews were conducted in 1990.
As a preliminary step, a file of local and reporting unit identifiers from the 1987 Censusof Employment was sent to ONS. Their analysis showed that only 1,130 of the 2,061cases (55%) were still held in their database. Among the other 931, there were 407 caseswhich were identified as having been on the IDBR, but flagged as no longer operating.The other 524 cases have been identified as no longer operating at the time when theCensus of Employment was incorporated into the IDBR, in 1993-94. This was part ofthe basis for assuming that an achieved sample of about 1,000 was a realistic target in1997, although it was recognised that factors such as changes of ownership, address, andorganisational structure might have led to establishments being allocated a new local unitidentifier.
As part of the understanding of changes in the population of establishments with 25employees and over, it would be of considerable value to know the fate of the 1990establishment. For example, where the parent organisation still existed, it might bepossible to establish when the 1990 establishment had ceased to operate and what hadhappened to the activities which had been conducted in 1990.
The National Centre’s initial work on the sample of apparent deaths (see Section Three:3.5) showed that the surviving establishments were likely to exceed 55% by somemargin. For example, some of the establishments which appeared to have ceasedoperating were major hospitals and industrial establishments. It was apparent thatchanges associated with privatisation of former public utilities and the changes in theorganisation of health services had been the basis for old records to be dropped, ratherthan the records being updated with current details.
It was apparent, therefore, that there would be little advantage in using IDBR’s recordsas a basis for sampling. Instead, it was decided to draw a random sub-sample from the2,061 cases, knowing that this included establishments which would have ceased tooperate. Owing to uncertainty about the extent of survival of workplaces from 1990, itwas also considered prudent to draw a reserve sample. With this precaution, a sample ofabout 1,301 cases was drawn to achieve a total of 1,000 interviews. The reserve sampleof 132 was in addition to this.
The panel sample was thus drawn as a stratified random sample from the 2,061productive interviews from the 1990 Workplace Industrial Relations Survey.Establishments were stratified into groups defined in terms of the number of employees atthe time of the 1990 interview and a 63% sample of establishments was selected withineach group.
In 1990 the respondents at 5% of the productive sample (n=108) had not positively saidthat they were willing to be recontacted for further questioning. Some of these hadrefused; some had given an unclear answer or not answered at all. On the grounds thatthese answers have been personal views of respondents who were unlikely still to be inpost, it was decided to include the establishments in the survey11
11 In the event, the issue was not raised during the course of fieldwork by any respondent. The same proportion(5%) of the panel interviews achieved in 1997-8 were at establishments at which non-positive agreement had beenrecorded in 1990.
The issued sample was distributed as follows:
TABLE 2E: PANEL SAMPLE SIZE,BY ESTABLISHMENT SIZE IN 1990
Number of employees in 1990 Sample size
25-49 22150-99 228
100-199 221200-499 206500-999 175
1000-1999 1862000+ 64
Total 1,301
The decision to take a random sub-sample was based on the requirement to increase therange of weights as little as possible. Since the ‘target sample’ was to be representativeof surviving establishments, each establishment would carry the same weight as it had in1990, and the overall result would be estimates which were representative of thepopulation of surviving establishments.
As with the cross-section sample, a reserve of about 10% of addresses (n = 132) wasselected in case the number of interviews achieved should prove to be too low foradequate analysis. In the event neither the cross-section nor the panel reserve sampleswere used in the fieldwork.
SECTION THREE: DEVELOPMENT WORK
3.1 Introduction
3.1.1 Scope of development work
The piloting and development stages of WERS 97-8 took place during a 5 month period,May to September 1997. The requirement was to cover the final stages of developmentand design of a number of different data collection instruments and procedures. Theycomprised:
• three face-to-face questionnaires for:
- the management respondent (cross-section) - identified throughout fieldwork anddata processing as the MQ ;
- the worker representative (cross-section) - the WRQ;
- the management respondent (panel) - the PQ.
These were to be conducted by interviewers using laptop PCs in CAPI(Computer Aided Personal Interviewing);
• three paper self-completion questionnaires:
- the Employee Profile Questionnaire (cross-section) – EPQ;
- the Basic Workforce Data Sheet (panel) - BWDS
The intention was that these would be filled in by management respondents (ortheir nominees) before the face-to-face interview, thus facilitating any necessaryreference to staff records and also reducing the length of the interview;
- the Survey of Employees Questionnaire (cross-section) - SEQ
These were to be distributed to a sample of employees (maximum 25) at co-operating establishments, subject to management agreement. They were to bereturned individually, generally by post, directly to the National Centre’s office;
• contact procedures for the cross-section sample. It was anticipated that these wouldlargely replicate the procedures used on previous surveys in the series, in spite of thedifference in sampling frame (Inter Departmental Business Register rather than theCensus of Employment). However this presupposition needed to be checked;
• contact procedures for the panel sample. The particular requirement was to developcriteria for determining whether the establishment contacted in 1997-8 had been incontinuous existence since the previous WIRS interviews were last carried out(1990).
3.1.2 Programme of development work
Accordingly the programme of work that was devised comprised a number of discreteactivities:
• two pilot surveys, each one including both main sample and panel addresses. Themanagement and worker representative interviews for both the pilot surveys wereconducted in CAPI. The DTI had conducted some piloting with paper questionnairesprior to commissioning. Conducting further development work on paper was notconsidered worthwhile. Pilot versions of the EPQ, BWDS and SEQ were also tested.It was, however, always the intention that the material from the EPQ and the BWDSwould be keyed by the interviewer at the start of the interview and would thus formpart of the CAPI datafile;
• qualitative work on the content and question wording of the SEQ. Thisquestionnaire had not been as thoroughly tested prior to commissioning as had theother data collection instruments. This work was carried out in tandem with the pilotsurveys;
• design work on the layout of the three paper questionnaires;
• telephone screening of a sample of the 1990 productive interviews, the overall aimbeing to identify the extent to which establishments interviewed seven yearspreviously might have changed but still retained essential continuity.
In the following sections we give account of each of these development stages.
3.2 The pilot surveys
3.2.1 Cross-section: Management Questionnaire (MQ)
A range of sources was used to provide addresses for the two pilot surveys. Mostly thesewere addresses of businesses and organisations that were ‘unused’ from samples drawnfrom recent National Centre surveys. They did not include public sector workplacesbecause these would require Wave 2 access procedures (see Section Four: 4.2.2). Anattempt, therefore, was made to include private educational establishments and privatehospitals, since these might give some indication of public sector problems.
Six interviewers (four of whom had 1990 WIRS experience) participated in Pilot 1 inJuly; nine interviewers (four of whom had worked on Pilot 1) participated in Pilot 2 inAugust. Day-long personal briefing and debriefing sessions were held for each pilot.
62 interviews were achieved in total (22 in Pilot 1, 40 in Pilot 2). There were, however,no indications of likely response rates; interviewers were asked to obtain quotas fromtheir ‘pool’ of addresses. They were asked to interview at larger establishments, wherethe option was available, and to include as wide a range of workplace activities aspossible.
Interviewers were questioned closely at the debriefing sessions about the contactprocedures that they had used and asked for their recommendations for improvement.The combination of telephone and postal contact used in previous surveys still seemed tobe appropriate. However the formal system instigating 4 or 5 stages of contact
(described in Section Four: 4.2.1 and the Interviewer Handbook, Section Six) was basedon material drawn from these pilot debriefings.
The target interview duration was ‘90 minutes average - with nearly all cases rangingbetween 60 and 120 minutes’. The average durations established in the pilots were inexcess of the target figure. They varied by size of establishment but not as much as hadbeen the case in 1990, when smaller establishments were filtered out of large sections ofthe questionnaire.
Weighting the average durations to reflect the likely distribution (by no. of employees) ofthe achieved sample in the survey proper made some difference in Pilot 1 but littledifference in Pilot 2, where the unweighted mean of 102 minutes increased to 103. 80%of interviews in Pilot 2 lasted between 1 and 2 hours.
The questionnaire comprised 13 sections (A-M) of varying lengths. Detailed informationon the duration of each section was provided to the research team. Interviewers wereasked at the debriefing whether any particular sections had seemed to cause therespondent difficulties or irritation. None was mentioned. The research team had aparticular interest in the EPQ, the content of which was appreciably greater than itsequivalent in previous WIRS surveys. Nonetheless none of the interviewers reportedproblems arising from the document per se. It had not always been completed in advance- but that was to be expected. The general view was that staff records in nearly allworkplaces are now computerised, making the EPQ data that much more accessible thanin previous surveys.
Following each of the pilot surveys, the research team made modifications to thewording, ordering and routing of the questions. A substantial number of deletions wasmade after the second pilot with the aim of reducing the interview length to the target of90 minutes. On completion of fieldwork, however, the mean duration proved still to be inexcess of 100 minutes (Section Four: 4.4).
3.2.2 Cross-section: Worker Representative Questionnaire (WRQ)
In total 16 worker representative interviews were achieved at the 62 workplaces in bothpilots (8/22 in Pilot 1; 8/40 in Pilot 2).
Of these, 2 interviews were not with union, but with committee representatives.
Approximately 60% of workplaces had no eligible representatives. The response rateachieved among the remainder was 70%.
There was a marked difference in the interview duration between Pilot 1 and Pilot 2. Inthe first pilot the average length was 62.5 minutes. In the second pilot a number ofdeletions were made, substantially reducing the length. In the main fieldwork, however,the mean duration was 47 minutes, well above the target level of 30 minutes.
3.2.3 Panel: Management Questionnaire (PQ)
An essential feature of the panel questionnaire was the ‘feeding forward’ of data from the1990 questionnaires. In order to replicate this feature in the pilot surveys, the onlypossible source of addresses was the 1990 (/1984) panel of some 540 or so ‘tradingsector’ cases. The development work for the 1998 panel study, therefore, also excludedpublic sector cases.
It proved difficult from this source to provide an adequate number of addresses - locatedsufficiently near to the selected interviewers and allowing for the proportion that wouldbe closed down and so on - to achieve the target number of interviews (20 in each of thepilots).
16 interviews were achieved in Pilot 1. The average duration was 65 minutes, inspite ofdeficiencies in the CAPI programming that meant that some questions were routinely, butwrongly, omitted.
In Pilot 2, in which 19 interviews were achieved, the average length had been reducedonly marginally to 62 minutes - in spite of a number of deletions that were intended tohave a more substantial effect.
After the second pilot further deletions were made from the questionnaire. It was alsodecided, for the main fieldwork, to reduce substantially the amount of data from theBWDS that interviewers were required to key in during the early part of the interview.Only the total employee numbers (male/female, full/part-time and each of the mainoccupational groups) would be keyed. These were integral to the routing throughout theinterview and hence to the CAPI programming.
In spite of these reductions the mean interview length for the main fieldwork proved to bein excess of 60 minutes.
3.2.4 The Survey of Employees (SEQ)
In all cases in Pilot 1 (cross-section and panel) an attempt was made to select a sample ofemployees and distribute a questionnaire, although this was not scheduled to take place atPanel addresses in the main fieldwork.
The attempt was successful at 28 establishments.
Of the 10 establishments which declined to co-operate, two stated that they had justconducted an employee survey as part of the Investors in People accreditation process,and were not prepared to repeat a similar exercise. One manager gave as a reason thepresence of ethnic minorities in the workplace(!); one the fact that redundancies werelooming. Two or three cases could probably have been conversions if it had beenpossible to return at a later date. In two cases the request was referred to a Board ofDirectors who eventually turned the idea down.
In total 640 questionnaires were placed; 20 workplaces took the maximum of 25questionnaires. The remaining 8 workplaces took questionnaires for all the employeesthey had, which amounted to 140 in total.
Two different reminder strategies were adopted:
(A) A reminder letter after 2-3 weeks or so to the management respondent withadditional questionnaires for the (named) non responders.
(B) A similar reminder letter for the management respondent without additionalquestionnaires, followed a further 3 weeks later by a second reminder letter withadditional questionnaires for the non responders.
Response from the two strategies was as follows:
Strategy A Strategy BEstablishments: 13 15Questionnaires placed: 296 344Response pre 1st reminder: 185 (62.5%) 211 (61.3%)Final response: 235 (79.4%) 271 (78.8%)Questionnaires used: 405 440Used/placed: 1.375 1.279
The additional reminder incorporated into Strategy B did not therefore appear to increaseresponse. Additionally there were some indications from interviewers and from contactsdirectly between respondents and the DTI that two reminders following initial agreementto co-operate might be seen as verging on harassment.
Strategy A was therefore adopted for the main fieldwork. It was not anticipated thatresponse in the main fieldwork (for which see Section Five: 5.3) would reach the veryhigh levels achieved in the pilot and this proved, in the event, to be so.
SEQ placements were also made in Pilot 2. In order to reduce costs interviewers wereasked to place at only 20 of the 40 workplaces at which management interviews wereachieved. The level of co-operation received from management was as in Pilot 1. Justover 60% of questionnaires placed were returned completed. No reminders were issuedowing to the lack of time before the start of fieldwork.
A random subset of 100 from the 506 questionnaires received from Pilot 1 were keyed.The marginal totals from this dataset constituted an important tool for the research teamin assessing the wording of questions, the range of answers offered and in determiningpriorities for the necessary cutting of the questionnaire length.
3.3 Qualitative Work for the Survey of Employees
3.3.1 Cognitive testing
Cognitive interviewing highlights where respondents misunderstand survey questions orkey concepts, do not know or cannot recall the needed information from memory, use aninappropriate strategy for making a judgement, or prefer to hide certain information orprovide an ‘acceptable’ answer.
During the last week of July two interviewers were briefed to conduct cognitiveinterviews in three workplaces (in London and the North of England). Agreement fromthe participating workplaces had been gained by the DTI. With the employerspermission, between 7 and 10 employees were selected and invited to see the interviewerat different intervals throughout the day. Each respondent spent at least half an hour,sometimes rather longer, with the interviewer. During the first part of this periodrespondents were asked to complete a copy of the pilot version of the SEQ. Theinterviewer then spent the rest of the time going back over the questions ascertaining howthe respondent went about giving the answers they did.
Approximately 25 people participated in the cognitive exercise.
Researchers from the National Centre and the funding organisations briefed anddebriefed the interviewers. The debriefing took place on the 12th August 1997.
3.3.2 Expert Panel
The research team also made use of an in-house ‘expert panel’ to evaluate the draftversion of the SEQ. The panel comprised a number of National Centre research directorsand researchers. This meets on an occasional basis with the specific purpose ofevaluating and improving draft questionnaires. The procedure draws on the expertiseand fresh perspectives of persons outside any particular project team. The NationalCentre has found such panels to be a fast, economic and effective method of identifyingpotential problems with questionnaires at an early stage in their development.
On this occasion, the panel met with representatives from the funding organisations onthe 12th August, the same day as the debriefing of the interviewers engaged on thecognitive pilot. A large number of points were raised and discussed. Completeconsensus was rare but the research team took away a number of issues forconsideration.
Among the changes suggested, considered and implemented were:
• using terms and language more consistently eg unions/staff associations;• standardising response categories;• coping with the ‘don’t know’ or ‘can’t decide’ consistently;• re-ordering some questions to improve clarity;• considering difficulties in definition eg ‘your workplace’ and ‘manager’;• the wording and use of 3 and 5 point scales;• identifying questions that might be deleted, since the general view was that the
questionnaires needed to be reduced by about a quarter.
3.4 Design of paper questionnaires
The versions of paper questionnaires used in the pilots were documents typed ontostandard A4 white paper. While they served their purpose well, as the high response rateachieved in the pilot survey showed, it was always the intention that the final layout ofthese documents would be created by a professional graphic designer.
The design work, which was subcontracted by the National Centre to DavenportAssociates, was carried out during the months of July and August 1997, in parallel withthe pilot work. The style of all three documents was harmonised, each was colourwashed in a different colour, with white boxes for respondents to enter their answers.The BWDS was similar in content and arrangements to the one used in 1990. The EPQ,although also on 1 x A3 folded to 4 x A4, was a somewhat more extensive documentthan its predecessors. A particular design concern for the SEQ, which was 2 x A3,folded to 8 x A4, was to facilitate optical scanning of the completed sheets, this being theproposed mode of data capture. The final version of the SEQ also incorporated typesetparagraphs of information in six Asian languages.
Copies of the final documents are included in Section Nine.
3.5 Telephone screening for the panel
As has been described in Section Two: 2.2, the DTI had submitted the names andaddresses of the 2,061 establishments that were productive in 1990 to the Office ofNational Statistics in order to ascertain which of them were, according to IDBR records,
still in existence. The result of this analysis was that just over half (n = 1,130) wereclassified as ‘Live’. 524 were classified as having closed down or gone out of business.ONS were unable to trace the remaining 407.
There were some surprising features of the classification. For example, the proportion of‘live’ establishments did not vary according to the size of establishment (ie the number ofemployees) in 1990. Consequently the research team decided to recontact a substantialproportion of the 2,061, across all three IDBR classifications, in order to check thevalidity of the classification.
It was agreed at the outset that the two key characteristics of a continuing establishmentshould be:
• some continuity of activity (ie some activity at all times between 1990 and 1998);• some continuity of employment (ie some employment at all times between 1990 and
1998).
There were, however, no absolute criteria, with a decision on each case being based onthe balance of evidence overall. This meant that there would inevitably be some caseswhere the assessment is that the establishment is likely to be continuing, but when thedata are analysed, it will become evident that there is insufficient continuity formeaningful comparisons to be made.
A subset of approximately 400 establishments was drawn. The selection was randomapart from the exclusion of ‘Wave 2’ addresses which could not be approached atestablishment level (see Section Four: 4.2.2). Those establishments which had not agreedin 1990 to be recontacted (approximately 5% of the 2,061, n = 108) were included on thegrounds that there was a high probability that the person interviewed seven yearspreviously would no longer be present. These establishments were also included at allsubsequent stages of the panel survey.
A short (4 side) questionnaire was devised for use over the telephone (known during theconduct of the whole survey as the TQ). To the questionnaire was attached a copy of the1990 Address Record Form containing the address, telephone number and other details ofthe contacts in 1990. Four interviewers were briefed to conduct this preliminary sift,which took place in August 1997.
It was eventually used as part of the standard contact procedure for all panelestablishments. The topics covered by the TQ are listed below:
• presence of the 1990 respondent: It was intended to establish the interviewer’scredentials, although where the person was still at the establishment they would beappropriate to act as respondent for the checklist questions. However, interviewerswere instructed to ask anyone who was available. For this reason, it was decidedthat questions needed for the interview itself would be repeated with the surveyrespondent;
• change of name: This would never be a critical factor, even when it indicated a
change of ownership, but was important as background information; • change of address: A move to a different address, even outside the locality, would
not be a critical factor. However, a move associated with a change in the structureof the establishment might be significant;
• amalgamation or separation of establishments or departments: The test of
continuity in this case would depend largely on what happened to the establishment’sworkforce. If a majority of the employees (50% or more) had stayed as an entity,then the establishment to be covered in 1997-8 would be where these people were,whether that was the original local or elsewhere. In particular, if the 1990establishment had been closed and the workforce absorbed into another site, then aninterview would be conducted about that other site. This rule is different from thatapplied for the cross-section sample. In that case, a further factor was whether theestablishment to which the move was made had existed at the time of the move, sinceit had a separate chance of selection if it already existed;
• change of activity: The nature of the activity could change quite appreciably andhave no impact on continuity for the survey’s purposes. As an extreme example, amanufacturing site could change into a distribution centre and still qualify, as indeedoccurred in the pilot survey. In this case the distribution involved the same productsas had been manufactured previously, and there was no change of ownership. If boththe products and ownership had changed, then the critical factor would have been thecontinuity of employment;
• change of ownership: A change of ownership, in itself, would not be a criticalfactor;
• number of employees: A major change in the size of the workforce would not, initself, represent a break in continuity. For example, a dairy might have employeddelivery staff in 1990, but have changed to a franchise operation in 1997-8, in whichcase the same individuals, still working as self-employed milkmen, would beexcluded from the establishment’s employed workforce.
It can be seen that no simple criterion was available which would always result in anestablishment being treated as continuing or not. In practice, for the survey to serve itspurpose of charting changes in British employee relations, it needed to be able to copewith quite substantial changes, as well as obvious continuity.
It was thus decided that interviewers should be required to contact the research team tooutline what they had discovered about each establishment, and the researcher would thenreach a decision, either at the time or based on consultation with others.
From this pre-fieldwork screening and the results of the telephone screening, the researchteam devised a definition of a ‘continuing’ establishment. This definition was usedthroughout fieldwork by the research teams at the National Centre, the DTI and PSI inadvising interviewers who had problems with establishment definition. It is set outbelow:
RULES FOR CONTINUING ESTABLISHMENTS
• CHANGE OF NAME
• CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP
• MOVE TO A DIFFERENT ADDRESS
None of the above, in themselves, destroy continuity of existence.
• CHANGE OF ACTIVITY
• ACTIVITIES ADDITIONAL TO 1990 ACTIVITY
There must be continuity of activity of some sort, between 1990 and now. If there has been a break inwhich there was no activity, then the establishment is dead.
• NUMBERS OF EMPLOYEES
There can be more (many more) or fewer (many fewer) employees in 1997-8 than in 1990. The tasksthey do can be widely different. But at no stage can there have been ZERO employees.
• SPLITS (WITHOUT CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP)
A 1990 establishment may have split into a number of parts:
- if any part is still at the 1990 address then interview there provided there are 25 or more employees
- if all parts are at different addresses then follow the largest part provided there are more than 25employees.
• SPLITS INVOLVING A CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP
A 1990 establishment may have been split among two or more employers by the original employerselling off part of the business:
- the part still belonging to the original employer counts as the continuing establishment (providingthe basic test of continuity of employment is met) and there are 25 or more employees at the time ofinterview;
- the part that was sold off is a new establishment and therefore out-of-scope;
- if none of the original 1990 establishment remains with the original employer (or another employerwho took them over) it counts as ‘Closed Down’.
• AMALGAMATIONS
- If the amalgamated unit is at the 1990 address then interview there, even if those who have movedin out-number the pre-amalgamated staff;
- If the 1990 establishment has been amalgamated with one (or more) units at (a) differentaddress(es), then carry out the interview at the address which houses the largest number of 1990employees (or their replacements) provided that the amalgamated unit has 25 or more employees.
It became evident early in the course of the work that a substantial number of theaddresses classified by the IDBR as closed down or untraceable were in truth still inexistence and could be relatively easily identified and contacted by phone. Theinterviewers working on this screening operation did not have access to the sophisticatedmeans of tracing telephone numbers that were employed later in the survey (see SectionFour: 4.7). Nonetheless the overall conclusion - that the IDBR classification was of verylimited value for this particular purpose - was clear. Consequently in selecting the panelsample of 1,301 establishments, the research team took no account of the IDBRclassification, including, pro rata, establishments classified as closed down oruntraceable.
SECTION FOUR: CONDUCT OF FIELDWORK
4.1 Briefing and Interviewer numbers
A series of 12 two-day briefing conferences was held between 3 October and 6November 1997. At these conferences interviewers were briefed on both the cross-section and panel questionnaires. The briefings involved a description of the sampledesign and methodology, a full discussion of the problems of establishment definition, asummary of current employee relations structures in the workplace and procedures forcontacting establishments and selecting respondents. There was considerable emphasison the procedures to be adopted and the techniques required for gaining co-operation atthe different stages of the survey process. A major section of the briefing was devoted toprocedures relating to the SEQ. Time was also spent working through dummy scheduleson the laptop PCs. A copy of the briefing agenda is annexed to this report.
The briefings were conducted by National Centre’s researchers working in conjunctionwith researchers from the funding organisations.
Six of the conferences took place at the National Centre’s London offices. Theremainder were in Glasgow, Liverpool, Leeds, Bristol and Birmingham (2).
In total 156 interviewers were briefed. All of them were trained and experiencedmembers of the National Centre’s interviewing panel. Efforts were made to maximise thenumber of interviewers who had worked on previous WIRS surveys. In the event itproved to be about 20 or so.
4.2 Sifting the Sample
An essential part of the WIRS survey process, developed during previous surveys in theseries, is the sub-division of the sampled addresses prior to fieldwork, into what havecome to be described as ‘Waves’ 1 and 2.
Wave 1 addresses are those which, in the view of the research teams, could safely beapproached by interviewers at establishment level; Wave 2 addresses are those whichbelong to organisations which needed to be approached at corporate (ie Head Office orthe equivalent) level, in order to gain agreement for a subsequent approach to theestablishments.
Once approval has been obtained centrally, it is usually found that managers at theestablishment are extremely co-operative. In many cases, their Head Office will haveidentified the individual best-placed to act as the respondent, and will have copied theircorrespondence to this individual in advance of an interviewer’s approach. However, it isnot always easy to establish the organisation to which a sampled unit belongs (or thestructure of an organisation) even with reference to the IDBR reporting unit. Problemsof this nature lead to contacting Head Offices on more than one occasion seekingpermission to contact a succession of establishments. This can be a source ofembarrassment (to the asker) and irritation (to the asked).
Part of the rationale for this strategy is that it seems extremely important to avoid a HeadOffice receiving a number of separate referrals from their branches. It also recognisesthat a limited number of major employers, accounting for a substantial part of Britishemployment, are constantly being asked to take part in research studies. Their branch
network may be so extensive, as with banks and retail organisations, that virtually everynational study of employment practices is bound to involve selecting a number of theirbranches. There is, therefore, a special requirement in these cases to manage the surveyin a way which ensures as favourable an impression as possible. A refusal to participatefrom the Head Office of an organisation of this sort can have a very detrimental effect onthe representativeness of a national sample.
Generally Wave 2 cases are those where there are two or more units belonging to thesame organisation in the sample. This is not invariably so however. Conversely it wasconsidered, on the basis of the research teams’ previous experience with the surveyseries, that some organisations represented by more than one unit in the sample couldsafely be approached at establishment level.
For the purposes of this sift, cross-section and panel addresses were combined. Thesifting process mainly comprised computer searches, with the aim of grouping togetherunits belonging to the same organisation, or which needed similar treatment, eg firestations, police stations, ambulance services. The sift focused on the Standard IndustrialClassification (SIC92) codes allocated by ONS (or in the case of panel addresses, theCensus of Employment) and within that on the reporting unit for each of the sampledunits. The lists were also scanned visually with the aim of discovering links betweenunits that were disguised by inconsistent keying, titling and so on. The panel reservesample (but not the cross-section reserve) was included in the sift. Before fieldworkbegan, it was thought possible that it might be necessary to draw upon this reserve. Inwhich case it would have been inefficient to seek Head Office approval for additionalinterviews. It was not thought likely that the cross-section reserve would be drawn upon.
4.2.1 Wave 1 addresses
Of the total selected sample of 4,623 addresses (cross-section, panel and panel reserve)over three quarters (3,500-3,600) were classified as Wave 1.
Included with Wave 1 addresses were those classified as Education, Health and LocalAuthorities. Together these accounted for approximately 25% of the total addresses (ieapproximately 1,150). Consideration was given at an early stage to separating thesefrom other Wave 1 addresses and sending a ‘courtesy’ letter to an appropriate ‘HeadOffice’ representative before proceeding to an interviewer contact at establishment level.Early work on this approach was relatively unfruitful. It proved surprisingly difficult toidentify prior to interviewer contact, the appropriate names (and sometimes even theaddresses) of Head Offices. The approach was eventually abandoned and theseaddresses were issued to interviewers as Wave 1 - with hardly any cases necessitatingsubsequent correspondence with Head Offices.
The contact procedures followed by the interviewers’ Wave 1 addresses are described indetail in the Interviewer Handbook (Section Six). In essence they comprised:
Stage 1: a telephone contact with the establishment by the interviewers to identify thename and job title of the appropriate management respondent. Previous experience hadindicated the importance of writing to a named person, rather than a post holder;
Stage 2: the sending (by the interviewer) of a letter from the DTI to the respondentidentified at Stage 1 to explain the nature of the survey and to ask for co-operation;
Stage 3: a further telephone call to make an appointment for the interview with themanagement respondent;
Stage 4: the sending, in advance of the interview, of the Employee Profile Questionnaire(cross-section sample) or the Basic Workforce Data Sheet (panel sample) and theStatement of Anonymity Procedures, accompanied by a letter confirming the date andtime of the appointment.
The materials provided for cross-section and panel contact stages differed in detail, butthe procedures were the same - except in one respect. For panel interviews the telephonecontact (Stage 1) was formalised into a brief telephone questionnaire12, the purpose ofwhich was to enable the interviewer to determine whether the establishment had truly‘continued’ in existence since 1990. The rules developed for determining continuity ofexistence are discussed in Section Three: 3.5.
During these contact stages, interviewers were required to refer to the research team allpanel cases where answers to the telephone questionnaire indicated some doubt aboutwhether the establishment had been in continuous existence since 1990 and was,essentially, the ‘same’ establishment as had been interviewed in 1990.
In Section Three: 3.1.2, we describe how interviewers working on the pre-fieldworkscreening were provided with relevant material from the 1990 fieldwork in order to helpwith the identification of panel addresses. These procedures and routines continued intomain fieldwork for those addresses not covered in the pre-fieldwork exercise. In moredifficult cases, interviewers worked in liaison with office staff who had access to the BTPhone Disk and other software of use in address identification. (These procedures aredescribed in detail in paragraph 7 of this section.)
More generally, interviewers were required to refer back to the research teams all caseswhere they encountered difficulties in gaining co-operation at the contact stages. Initiallythese referrals were to National Centre researchers. A substantial number were thenpassed on to members of the DTI research team who took over the dialogue with the(potential) respondent, either by phone or letter, and reported back through the NationalCentre team when co-operation had been gained (or otherwise).
The DTI estimates that about half of the 400 or so workplaces referred to them duringthe process eventually agreed to take part in the survey.
In addition to dealing with queries initiated by interviewers, the DTI research teamoperated throughout the course of fieldwork a freephone Helpline13, to deal with queriesdirect from (potential) respondents. Approximately 400 calls were dealt with by thisHelpline during the survey.
4.2.2 Wave 2 addresses
Of the total issued sample, between 1,000 and 1,100 addresses (approximately 25%)were categorised in the initial sift as Wave 2 - requiring access to be negotiated at ahigher level in the organisation prior to any contact at establishment level.
12 referred to throughout the course of the survey as the TQ. It was the same document as was used in the prefieldwork screening (see Section Three).13 The freephone number was included in the Stage 1 DTI letter.
In broad terms these subdivided into:
Central Government (including majorDepartments, Prisons, MoD establishments,Benefit Offices, Job Centres)………………………………. 190
Police, Fire, Ambulance Services…………………………. 70
Utilities (Electricity, Gas, Water, Nuclear Fuels)…………. 150
Telecommunications, Postal Services……………………… 130
Finance, Banking ………………………………………….. 125
Retail, High streets………………………………………… 270
Transport……………………………………………………. 50
Other (inc major multinationals, TV, broadcasting)……… 90
The number of separate organisations classified as Wave 2 was approximately 160.
The fundamental approach for Wave 2 addresses was for a letter (on DTI heading) to besent to the Personnel/Employee Director, or other similar post holders, at the Head Officeof each organisation, explaining the purpose of the survey, listing the addresses of theselected establishments (separately for cross-section and panel) and asking, providedthere was agreement to co-operate, for the name and telephone number of the appropriaterespondent and/or a contact person at each site. A copy of the standard letter used(which was subject to minor variations during the course of the survey) is appended.These letters were not sent until the name of the post holder had been identified inadvance from directories. In some cases these letters were sent out by the DTI researchteam. In particular all agreements with Civil Service and Government Departments werenegotiated by the DTI research team. Mostly, however, the letters were sent out by theNational Centre. There were a number of outcomes:
• the organisation would ask for more detailed information about the survey and whatthe interview process would involve. To deal with this a short (two side) summary ofthe scope of the survey and the content of the questionnaires was prepared.Sometimes a further organisation-specific letter would be sent; sometimes it wasconsidered that a personal visit and presentation by the DTI research team would beeffective - and this was done;
• there would be no response to the letter. These cases (of which there were asubstantial number - in excess of 50) were passed to the National Centre TelephoneUnit where a small number of interviewers were briefed on the necessary follow-upprocedures. A common reason for non-response was that no trace of the letter couldbe found, in which case duplicates were sent. Very frequently it was found that thename of the person originally specified was no longer appropriate, in which case thecorrect name was ascertained. It was also found that the letter had been addressed toa post holder at an inappropriately high level in the organisation, in which case theinterviewer was directed by a secretary/PA to the level most likely to be productive.
The work generated from the stages outlined above was considerable. It lasted from theend of 1997 through to April/May 1998, involving considerable volumes of time from theresearch teams at the DTI and the National Centre. Both at the DTI and at the NationalCentre there was the equivalent of one researcher working full-time for a period of 6
months on the task of getting agreement to participate. Once the right level of contacthad been reached in an organisation, repeated telephone calls were needed before therewas final agreement to release the establishment addresses. (Generally for Wave 2establishments a contact name, not always that of the proposed respondent, wasprovided.)
4.2.3 Worker representatives
Contact with the Worker Representative at cross-section addresses was only achievedwith the consent of the management respondent. The identification of the appropriateemployee, whether Union or Committee representative, was made by the CAPI program.The request to carry out a second interview at the establishment was raised at the end ofthe management interview. The procedures to be followed and the material prepared forthe Worker Representatives are detailed in the Interviewers Handbook (Section Six).
4.3 Fieldwork Progress
Interviewing for the cross-section survey began in mid-October 1997 immediately afterthe start of the briefing conferences. Late alterations to the CAPI programs meant thatthe panel interviews did not start until November. Interviewing finished in July 1998.Table 4A below sets out the month by which interviews were completed - for each of thetwo samples.
The table shows that approximately 25% of cross-section interviews were completed in1997. By the end of February 1998 50% were completed, and by the end of March 75%.Fewer than 10% of panel interviews had been completed by the end of 1997 but by theend of February, 50% of this sample also were completed. However a relatively highproportion of panel interviews was carried out during the last four months (April to July1998) of fieldwork.
Determined efforts were made by the research teams to reduce the long ‘tail’ of fieldwork- which had been a characteristic of previous WIRS. The difficulty of making speedyprogress with Wave 2 addresses proved, yet again, insuperable. The last addresses werenot issued to interviewers until May 1998. The median month of interview for bothcross-section and panel surveys was February 1998.
TABLE 4A: DATE OF LAST VISIT BYINTERVIEWER TO ESTABLISHMENT
InterviewsCross Section Panel
completed byend of …… No. % Cumulative
%No. % Cumulative
%
1997:OctoberNovemberDecember
1998:JanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJuly
15315230
2782645343071697110
0.714.410.5
12.712.024.414.07.73.20.4
0.715.125.6
38.350.374.788.796.499.6
100.0
06
62
174210154129904215
0.00.77.0
19.723.817.514.610.24.81.7
0.00.77.7
27.451.268.783.393.598.3
100.0
Base: All productives 2193 100.0 882 100.0
Once contact with an establishment had been completed, the final output relating to thataddress was transmitted to the National Centre’s Brentwood office by the interviewersvia telephone modem. The outcome code for each address was integrated into one ofthree databases, created prior to fieldwork, comprising the issued sample for each of thesurveys. Thus fieldwork progress information was updated daily, the information beingavailable for printing out, as requested, on the National Centre’s internal network.
A framework for reporting responses was agreed by the research teams prior tofieldwork. It comprised:
Cross-section and Panel:
• level of ‘cover’ (ie interviews achieved, addresses still with interviewers, addressesnot yet issued to interviewers);
• response (ie out of scope, non contact, refusal etc).
Cross-section only:
• presence of worker representative (eligibility and response);• agreement to participate in SEQ procedure.
SEQ only:
• number placed, number received (by date of arrival), refusals, establishment due forreminder mailings.
Detailed tables analysing the response to date by Size of Establishment and Area wereprinted out weekly and sent to the research teams at DTI and PSI. Examples of theoutput are included in Section Nine.
4.4 Interviewer Workload
Of the 156 interviewers who were briefed for the survey, 5 did not in the event achieveany productive interviews. 142 interviewers worked on both the panel and cross-sectionsurveys. 9 worked only on the cross-section survey.
The mean number of interviews carried out by contributing interviewers was therefore20.4 (cross-section and panel). In 1990, the number of interviewers working on thesurvey was virtually identical (n = 147), although the total number of establishments wassomewhat lower (n = 2,550) and consequently average number of establishments perinterviewer lower (n = 17.4). It has always been the National Centre’s policy throughoutthe WIRS series to employ a highly selective policy in allocating interviewers to thesurvey, with the aim of maximising the volume of each interviewer’s work.
The distribution of work is summarised in Table 4B below.
TABLE 4B:DISTRIBUTION OF INTERVIEWSAMONG THE INTERVIEWER PANEL
Interviews at …. No. of Interviewers
Fewer than 10 establishments
Between 10 & 19 establishments
Between 20 & 29 establishments
30 or more establishments
17
63
51
20
Interviewers working on the survey (excluding those who carried out fewer than 10interviews) were ranked in order of achieved response rate, as a standard fieldworkquality control procedure. The quartile threshold figures from this listing (taking bothcross-section and panel samples into account) were:
Response rate from No. of interviewersUpper quartile 100 - 92% 34Upper middle quartile 91 - 87% 33Lower middle quartile 86 - 79% 34Lowest quartile 79 - 67% 26
<67% 7
The National Centre’s interviewers are graded into 5 bands. The bands broadly indicatelevel of experience, quality of performance and responsibilities within the fieldworkstructure.
} }
Overall response, analysed by interviewer grade, was:
Grade Average response No of interviewers A n/a 0 B 83% 12 C 80% 41 D 84% 32Supervisors 85% 49
The response rates indicated in these paragraphs are on average one or two percentagepoints higher than the true survey response rates shown in Section Five. The calculationson which they are based discount addresses that were never issued to interviewers, beingthose where the Head Office of an organisation refused directly to the DTI.
The average durations of the interviews was as set out below:
Mean MedianCross-section: Management 108 minutes 102 minutes
Worker Rep 47 minutes 45 minutesPanel: Management 66 minutes 60 minutes
29% of management interviews at cross-section establishments lasted 2 hours or longer;30% of panel interviews lasted 75 minutes or longer. The length of the task varied, aswould be expected, according to the size of the establishment. Tables 4C and 4D set outthe extent of the variations.
There was some difference in duration between interviews carried out with workerrepresentatives of recognised unions (Mean: 48 minutes) and those carried out withworker representatives of consultative committees (Mean: 41 minutes).
Data relating to the number of visits required by an interviewer in order to complete allthe necessary work at an establishment are only available for productive interviews. In46% of cross-section interviews one visit was required; in a further 39% two visits. In4% of cases more than three visits were necessary. The distribution is very close to thatof 1990 in spite of the fact that 1997-8 fieldwork procedures incorporated the addedcomplication of the SEQ.
90% of successful panel interviews were the product of a single visit; 2% required threevisits or more.
At 95% (n=2,079) of productive cross-section establishments, the interview wasconducted with a single management respondent. This is a higher proportion than in1990 when no more than 89% of management interviews were conducted with a singlerespondent - quite apart from the requirement in that year to conduct separate interviewswith financial managers. 96% of panel interviews were conducted with a singlemanagement respondent.
SECTION FOUR: CONDUCT OF FIELDWORK
TABLE 4C: CROSS-SECTIO N - LENGTH OF INTERVIEWS BY SIZE OF ESTABLISH MENT
SIZE OF ESTABLISHMENT (NUM BER OF EMPLOYEES)
Base: All Productive Total10-24emps
25-49emps
50-99emps
100-199emps
200-499emps
500-999emps
1000+emps
Workplaces 2193 263 394 393 386 453 185 119
Management Interview:
No information
0 - 59 minutes60 - 89 minutes90 - 199 minutes120 minutes plus
Mean duration (mins)Median duration (mins)
%
3
1244329
108102
%
*
2404612
9390
%
2
1314521
10295
%
3
2244625
106100
%
3
*214234
109105
%
3
1183939
114110
%
5
-174533
118100
%
5
1143248
120120
Worker Rep Interview:
Mean duration (mins)Median duration (mins)
4745
4238
4140
4640
4545
4845
4945
5352
SECTION FOUR: CONDUCT OF FIELDWORK
TABLE 4D: PANEL - LENGTH OF INTERVIEW B Y SIZE OF ESTABLISH MENT
SIZE OF ESTABLISHMENT (NUM BER OF EMPLOYEES)
Base: All Productive Total 25-49 50-99 100-199 200-499 500-999 1000-1999 2000+Workplaces 882 113 159 146 210 98 82 74
No information
0 - 29 minutes30 - 44 minutes45 - 59 minutes60 - 74 minutes75 - 89 minutes90 minutes plus
Mean duration (mins)Median duration (mins)
%
1
*929321713
6660
%
-
3193525127
59-
%
-
1132625169
61-
%
-
-103034189
64-
%
1
-624381616
69-
%
1
-631361214
67-
%
4
-120372319
76-
%
3
-324292519
74-
Relatively few interviews took place away from the site of the sampled establishments.The location of the management interview is as set out in Table 4E below:
TABLE 4E: LOCATION OF INTERVIEW
Cross-Section Panel
At establishment
At Head Office
At Regional Office
At more than 1 site
%
89.4
6.0
3.7
0.9
%
92.0
4.5
3.5
0.0
Base: All productives 2193 882
In the 1990 cross-section survey, 18% of interviews took place, wholly or partly, awayfrom the sampled establishment.
4.5 The SEQ
The Survey of Employees Questionnaire (SEQ) comprised a short paper questionnaire (8x A4 sides) which was left after the completion of the management interview for asample of employees to fill in and return by post.
This part of WERS 97-8 could also only proceed with the agreement of management.Not only did management have to agree in principle but they had to make it practicablefor the interviewer to draw a sample of employees from staff records. In the eventmanagement refused permission for this exercise in 14.4% (n=316) of establishments atwhich an interview was given. The range and distribution of reasons for refusingpermission is shown in Section Five: 5.3, Table 5K.
The aim was to select an equal probability sample of 25 employees at each establishmentthat employed 25 or more persons; at establishments with fewer than 25 employees allemployees were to be included in the survey. For the purpose of the sampling exercise,employees of the establishment were defined as for the EPQ - persons with a contract ofemployment, even though it might be for a fixed period, not open-ended. Freelancers,casual workers, temporary or agency personnel who did not have such a contract at theselected establishment were excluded.
Interviewers were provided with written instructions for the sampling operation, whichtook place at the workplace. In most cases the sample was drawn at the same visit atwhich the management interview took place; in a minority of cases a second visit wasnecessary.
The instructions covered two types of situation:
• where a list or printout of staff names was available for the interviewer to carry outthe sampling him/herself;
• where there were no paper documents available but the information was available on
computer screen and the interviewer had to instruct a member of staff in the samplingprocedures.
These were the only situations that were identified during development work. During theactual fieldwork, interviewers had to cope with some minor variations in the above model(which might necessitate repeat visits to a workplace) - but there were relatively few suchcases. In some cases we were told that employee statistics were held only at HeadOffice, with the result that Head Office staff drew the sample.
The sampling procedure itself required the interviewer or establishment staff member torefer to look-up tables which set out 25 random numbers for different sizes ofestablishment (from 26 to 7000 employees). Copies of these look-up tables and otherdocuments used in the sampling process are included in Section Nine.
Once the sample had been selected the interviewer prepared packs to be handed out to thesampled employees. The packs consisted of a large envelope, overprinted withinstructions and containing:
• a questionnaire; • an explanatory leaflet, designed by the DTI particularly for the Survey of
Employees;
• a Business Return Envelope (Freepost).
The interviewers were required to fix identification labels to the pack envelopes and thequestionnaire before handing out the packs. The label attached to the pack envelopeincluded both the serial number allocated to the establishment and the selected employeeand their name; the label attached to the questionnaire contained only the serial number(along with bar code).
The envelope packs were then handed to the management respondent (or in some cases adifferent ‘SEQ contact’ person nominated by management) for distribution.
The questionnaires once completed by staff members were put into return envelopes andeither posted directly to the National Centre’s offices by the respondents or left at acentral collection point at the workplace. Questionnaires from the collection point weresubsequently returned by management to the National Centre in a large envelopeprovided by the interviewer or (in the minority of cases) picked up by the interviewer ona subsequent visit.
A detailed description of the procedures at the workplace is included in the InterviewerHandbook for the survey (Section Eight).
Reminders were sent within 12-15 working days of placement to all respondents whosequestionnaires had not been received at the National Centre’s Brentwood offices. Thereminder consisted of fresh envelope packs, personally addressed to the selected staffmember (by means of additional labels completed by interviewers after the initial
placement and returned to the office) but enclosing an additional document explaining tothe respondent the need for a high response rate and appealing for his/her co-operation.The reminders were not sent directly to the employees but via the manager or SEQcontact person - who was asked to ensure the pack reached the destination.Questionnaires used in the reminder operation were separately identified so that the effectof the operation could be monitored. In the event 10% (n = 2,864) of the questionnairesreceived were from those sent out at the reminder stage.
This reminder operation had been part of the initial survey operations design. In theevent, during the course of fieldwork, a further problem was identified - that for asignificant proportion of workplaces no questionnaires at all were received from theinitial distribution, in spite of management having agreed to co-operate and theinterviewer having selected the sample and left the packs. Accordingly, all cases wherethe response from an establishment was below 40% at the reminder date (ie replies hadbeen received from fewer than 10 employees), were handed over to the staff of theNational Centre’s Telephone Unit at the Brentwood office where procedures for furthercontacts with the management at the workplace were developed. Where practicablefurther contact by the original interviewer was instituted; where this was not possible orwas considered unlikely to be effective, calls were made by the Telephone Unitinterviewers to the SEQ contact person with the purpose of clearing the bottleneck. Acopy of the form used for this process is in Section Nine.
In excess of 200 cases (more than 10% of establishments that agreed to co-operate) werepassed to the Telephone Unit during the course of fieldwork. Despite this additionaleffort there remained, when fieldwork had been completed, a residue of 14.4% (n=316)of establishments from which no employee questionnaires had been received, in spite ofmanagement’s having agreed to co-operate on the occasion of the interviewer’s visit.
4.6 Fieldwork quality control procedures
In keeping with previous surveys in the WIRS series, where it had been consideredinappropriate for interviewers to be accompanied and supervised during the conduct ofthe interview, postal methods of quality control were employed.
Periodically throughout fieldwork, random subsets of management and workerrepresentative respondents (both from the cross-section and the panel survey) wereidentified. The total number selected amounted to approximately 20% of thoseinterviewed. Each respondent selected was sent a letter thanking them for their co-operation and invited to comment, if they so wished, on the survey and the way it wascarried out. A form on which comments could be entered and a reply-paid envelope wereincluded with the letter. Copies of the letter and the form are included in Section Nine.
442 establishments were selected from the cross-section sample and 197 from the panelsample. The total number of cross-section management respondents was 440 (owing tomultiple respondents at some sites) and of worker representatives 197.
Replies were received as set out below:
Cross-section: Management 159 = 36%Worker Rep 86 = 44%
Panel: Management 89 = 45%
The response rates are lower than were achieved in this exercise on previous WIRS. Theexplanation for the differences may be that until this survey the sending of quality control
letters had been incorporated into clerical booking-in procedures, thus reducing to aminimum the gap between interview and despatch. The computerised batching systemused for mailing in 1998 tended to extend the gap with harmful effects on the responserate.
In a small number of cases (n=<5) the respondent did not confirm the fact of theinterview; these were immediately investigated by field control staff who established thatthe explanations related to persons moving jobs/leaving the employer, or to mis-deliveryof internal post.
64% of all returned forms simply confirmed that the interview had taken place, butcontained no further comments.
An analysis of such comments as were made is set out below in Table 4F:
TABLE 4F: COMMENTS MADE ON QUALITY CONTROL RET URNS
RESPONDENTSCROSS-SECTION PANEL
Base:All returned questionnaires
Managers57
Worker Reps25
Managers37
Comments about Survey/Questionnaire
Too long/too detailed
Questions inappropriate to organisation,industry, bargaining structure
Restrictive answer options; no scope toexpand answers
Questions confusing, difficult to answer
More guidance needed on advancepreparation
Other comments
Comments about arrangement andconductof the interview
Favourable
Unfavourable
Neutral
21
12
2
4
5
17
32
12
9
-
8
9
3
-
7
15
5
5
3
8
3
2
2
6
31
3
3
There was a relatively high level of comment from cross-section managers (whoseinterviews, of course, took considerably longer than those of other respondents). Mostfrequently they mentioned the over-long (in their view) interview. There were alsocomments about the relevance of the questions and the questionnaire structure to therespondents own workplace. This latter comment was also made by those workerrepresentatives who replied to the letter. There was some indication that worker
representatives in particular found the questions too restrictive, offering them no scopefor expanding their answers.
When asked to comment about the way the interview was arranged and carried out, over2 in 3 respondents commented favourably. Fewer than 1 in 5 made comments that werebroadly unfavourable. The substantial majority of these related to the length of time theinterview took. Other comments were made about the technical problems that someinterviewers experienced with their laptop PCs.
4.7 Trawl of establishments excluded from the panel sample
In Section Three: 3.5 of this document we describe telephone interviewing carried outduring the pre-fieldwork development stages of the project and focused on the IDBRclassification of those establishments which yielded productive interviews in 1990. Thiswork led to the rejection of the IDBR classification of the 2,061 establishments. Theresearch team decided that the ‘panel’ sample should be a randomly selected subset (afterstratification by size within the industry) from the complete set of 1990 productives, withno account taken of their 1997 IDBR classification. A sample of 1,301 establishmentswas therefore selected in this way, with a further 133 as a reserve sample. 627 of the1990 productives were therefore ‘excluded’ from the 1997-8 survey. In the event therewas no recourse to the reserve sample, so that effectively 760 establishments wereexcluded.
It had been part of the original research design that all of the 1990 establishments wouldbe recontacted in 1997-8. Contact with those not forming part of the panel sample wasto be limited to establishing their continuing existence as an establishment with 25employees, or otherwise.
The task of recontacting the 760 excluded establishments was undertaken by a team of 4interviewers drawn from the National Centre’s Telephone Unit, located at the Brentwoodoffices. It was closely supervised by the National Centre’s Quality Control Manager.The work took place between April and June 1998.
The telephone interviewers were provided with copies of the relevant sections of the 1990Address Record Form, including details of the job titles and names of the 1990respondents, changes of address, if any, telephone numbers etc. Names, addresses andtelephone numbers of reporting units and ‘ultimate’ controlling companies were alsoavailable in many instances. Interviewers were also provided with such information ashad been gained during the pre-fieldwork screening. In 200 or so cases the TQ had beencompleted as part of the investigation. When this was so, it was also made available tothe telephone interviewers.
In the overwhelming majority of cases the telephone contact with the excludedestablishment at the 1990 telephone numbers was very brief. The recording of nameand/or ownership changes and employee numbers was relatively straightforward at‘switchboard’ level. The information needed to establish whether or not theestablishment continued in existence was limited to whether there had been a change ofname, change of address, change of ownership and whether there continued to be 25 ormore employees.
The definition of a continuing establishment used in the more complex cases is describedin Section Three: 3.5.
Occasionally the 1990 telephone number had been taken over by another establishment(which might be able to provide further follow-up information) or was unobtainable ornot recognised. Other telephone numbers offered or noted in the documentation werethen followed up and, when these were exhausted, checks were made utilising BT PhoneDisk.
The BT Phone Disk proved useful not only for finding numbers of establishments ortheir Head Offices which had not been previously recorded but also for tracing movers orobtaining numbers for other ‘branches’ of the establishment which might be able to assistwith information regarding the fact or nature of its continuance.
When a complete dead-end was reached with the named establishment it sometimesproved possible to use the Phone Disk to establish the telephone number of a post office,newsagent or petrol station in the same area. All of these, potentially, are sources ofinformation about businesses in their vicinity. This sort of follow-up is more likely to besuccessful in a small town, village or suburb. On a few occasions ‘local knowledge’provided information sufficient for an outcome to be coded - “It was demolished fiveyears ago after they were all laid off” for instance or “They call themselves ‘xxxx’now”14. Having obtained a new name it was then usually possible to obtain a telephonenumber and establish directly whether it was a continuing establishment or not. Pickingup a name change in this manner was very much a matter of luck. Success sometimescame more easily with an industry related search.
As with paper Yellow Pages, the ‘EYP Internet Yellow Pages’ is a business directorywith organisations listed within areas by type and activity. It is thus possible to searchfor a particular industry or business type, eg paper manufacturing or local government,within a defined geographical area.
Organisations fitting the criteria entered are listed with name, full postal address andtelephone number. Should the initial search prove fruitless the area of search can beextended to a county, a region and eventually the whole of the UK. EYP proved useful intwo ways - identifying establishments operating at the same address but under acompletely different name to that used in 1990 and identifying other establishmentsoperating within the same sphere of activity as the 1990 panel unit which were able toprovide information on that unit’s current whereabouts or status.
Matchcode software was also used. This provides a full address match to any givenpostcode (or vice versa). It also names businesses occupying the premises (but does notgive the names of any private residents). In several cases it was possible to match anestablishment address to a named organisation, obtain a telephone number for thatorganisation and obtain information from them about the 1990 occupants of theiraddress. In a number of cases they were the 1990 establishment now operating under adifferent name.
In the last resort, internet searches were carried out using search engines, in particularYAHOO and EXCITE. These searches were carried out when other tracing means hadfailed on establishment or parent company names. Confirmation of the closure of acouple of establishments was obtained in this way - and for two establishments that hadchanged ownership, name and address were found.
14 The latter example, after an obliging post-mistress had checked by looking out of the door of her sub-post office!
The above technique were used for some Central Government offices but not all. A smallnumber (10-20) of cases were handed back to the DTI research team who obtained therelevant information.
Two forms were devised for use in the telephone trawl. The Trawl Sheet was to be usedby the interviewer during the actual interview when it might be necessary on occasions totake down verbatim the details of a complex story, of say, change of ownership. TheTrawl Record Document was completed after the interviews, when the establishmentwould be classified into one of a limited range of outcome codes. Copies of these twodocuments are annexed.
In the event only 1 of the 760 excluded establishments was categorised as untraceable.Details of the outcomes achieved are indicated in Section Five: 5.5.
4.8 Computer Aided Personal Interviewing (CAPI)
4.8.1 General
WERS 1997-8 was the first in the series in which CAPI procedures were used15. Thebasic advantage of this mode of interviewing is that, through the efforts put intoprogramming and questionnaire design prior to fieldwork, checks on data quality areperformed and resolved during the interview itself rather than through a separate andlengthy post fieldwork edit process.
Particular advantages of CAPI for the WERS interviews were:
• the figures for the workforce that were collected on the self-completion EmployeeProfile Questionnaire (EPQ) and Basic Workforce Data Sheet (BWDS) forms couldbe entered into the computer and used in the interview. This avoided a separatekeying operation;
• the 1997-8 panel questionnaire could incorporate relatively easily the answers givenat the same establishment in 1990.
4.8.2 Feed forward items
There were 17 items of information obtained from each workplace in 1990 which wereincorporated in the CAPI programme, and thus could be referred to during the course ofthe 1997-8 panel interviews. The items are specified in the table below:
15 For CAPI interviewing, the National Centre uses the BLAISE interviewing programs devised and licensed byStatistics Netherlands. Version III was used for this survey.
TABLE 4G: PANEL S URVEY – FEED FORWARD DATA ITEMS
1. 1990 data item1990 questionnumber
Section where utilised in1998 questionnaire
Total number of employees BWDS, totalemployees
B: Establishmentcharacteristics
Month of interview SCPR admin data C: Respondent’s roleEmployers Association membership B23 D: Management organisationUnion membership density C1 E: Union membership
Number of recognised unionsC11-13 F: Union recognition
Identity of recognised unions C11-13 F: Union recognitionNumber of bargaining units C18 G: Negotiating structureMost important level of negotiationsfor largest bargaining unit
D7 (manual) and F7(non-manual)
J: Collective bargaining
Whether any negotiations overphysical working conditions
D30a (manual) andF30a (non-manual)
J: Collective bargaining
Whether any negotiations overstaffing levels
D30b (manual) andF30b (non-manual)
J: Collective bargaining
Presence of closed shop E2 (manual) and G2(non-manual)
K: The closed shop
Payment by results for manualworkers
K1 N: Payment systems
Payment by results for non-manualworkers
K1 N: Payment systems
Any profit-sharing scheme(s) K24 N: Payment systemsAny non-executive share-ownershipscheme(s)
K24 N: Payment systems
Any joint consultative committee(s) L1 P: Consultation andcommunication
Any formal agreement(s) with unionsover the organisation of work
N20 R: Employment practices
4.8.3 Multi-respondent and multi-site interviews
CAPI incorporates strict routing rules which prevent the interviewer moving on to aquestion until the preceding question is answered. This raised a problem for WERSinterviewing since there were likely to be situations where some parts of the managementinterview would need to be completed by a respondent different from the main one;sometimes the different respondents would be at different sites (typically the sampledworkplace and the Head Office). On occasions the completion of the required interviewsrelating to one workplace necessitates the use of two or more interviewers. The mostcomplex cases are ‘global’ partial interviews where an interviewer collects partial data atthe Head Office relating to a number of sampled sites leaving various interviewers indifferent parts of the country to complete the site interviews.
A number of strategies were devised to cope with these situations:
• for interviewers with sections needing to be filled-in by a secondary respondent, thedevice was used of temporarily keying-in DK to the skipped questions;
• a range of ‘intermediate’ rather than ‘final’ outcomes was introduced allowing aninterviewer to return (and be paid for) incomplete interviews, which could then betransferred (electronically) for completion by another interviewer;
• in cases where there were partial data from Head Offices which had to be transmittedto interviewers carrying out site interviews, the most effective answer was toreproduce the Head Office information on to paper and send it to the relevantinterviewer for keying-in either before or during the interviews;
• the practice slot – a feature of all CAPI surveys – was used for ‘courtesy’ interviews.These are occasioned by interviewers being asked to carry out at a Head Office ademonstration interview, not as part of the survey but to show the range and natureof the questions.
4.8.4 Program updates
A further particular advantage of CAPI is the facility for incorporating questionnaire (orprogram) updates while fieldwork is in progress. Additionally, ‘news messages’ can beissued to interviewers. Both these and program updates are transmitted to the interviewervia the modem. Routing errors in a paper questionnaire are much more difficult toidentify and rectify while fieldwork is in progress
On the cross-section survey there were three program updates. On the dataset, theversion variable indicates whether the interview was conducted after the first releaseprogram (10_01; 5.4%), the second release (10_02; 23.1%) or the third release (12_01;71.5%).
The details of the three release programs are:
Update 1 (27 October 1998)
• Limpcha - remove ‘Show card NNN’• Mrelate - insert Show card M1• Ltricha - take off route when Lmancha = none of these• JLabstB, C & D - move the ENDIF statement so that these are only asked if
Alongdev = yes, just like JLabstA• Admin block, take Date1, Date2 & Totcalls off the route;
Update 2 (27 November 1998)
• Ejoint - change to wording of code frame. 1 Jointly - all recognised unions negotiateover pay as one unit. 2 Each recognised union negotiates independently over pay. 3At least two recognised unions jointly negotiate over pay.
• Binvmang - if binvmang = none, 5 more questions appear on the route which shouldonly appear if binvmang<> non response. They are blinejob, bauthor1, bauthor2,bauthor3 and bsuptrai.
• Jfiterm - code frame problem. The showcard allows and question allows therespondent to say ‘none’, but there is no answer code to cater for it. Create newanswer code.
• Admin block - sampsel & sempmeth are two almost identical questions that are bothon the route. Take sampmeth off the route;
Update 3 (December 1998)
This update was a result of an error in the way the program was set to select theoccupation with the most employees. Professional employees were being treated in thesame way as managers, ie they were excluded from the algorithm that selected theoccupation with the most employees. The small number of cases where thisprogramming mistake had an impact were either recontacted and the correct datacollected, or were issued with an overcode notifying researchers of a potential problem(see Section Eight). There were 14 cases in this latter group.
Only one update was issued (in February 1998) for the panel survey.
Upon checking data from the first 80 interviews in the panel survey, a small error wasdiscovered in the routing for the question on workforce participation in share ownershipschemes (question YNSHPROP). The general effect of the error was to bring thisquestion onto the route in more cases than had been intended; there were very few casesin which the question should have been asked but was missed. Erroneous data wasblanked from the dataset and omitted cases given missing values. The error was alsocorrected in the interview program and new version of the panel questionnaire issued tointerviewers.
In addition a number of small corrections were made to the panel program. These werelargely minor and dealt with at the edit stage by deleting responses to questions that wereasked erroneously, ie of those who were really ineligible for the question. In one case aNews message was issued to interviewers alerting them of forthcoming cases whichwould ask the question YDEA erroneously.
The main program error affected the asking of YFRS. This question was asked when theidentity of the recognised unions had changed between 1990 & 1998. The derivedvariable which was responsible for the routing to this question was not working properlywith the result that the question was asked in all cases rather than just in the appropriatecases. No correction to the program during fieldwork was possible.
4.9 Retrieval of paper forms
4.9.1 EPQ and BWDS
In the cross-section survey all questions appearing on the EPQ were included in the CAPIprogramming and subject to edit checks along with other questionnaire data. In the panelsurvey this did not apply to the BWDS. One of the measures to reduce panel interviewlength, agreed during the piloting and development stages, was to omit from the CAPIinterview some of the occupational group data that had been collected (prior to interview)on the BWDS. The data omitted were the sub-totals (for full-time and part-time malesand females) for the three manual and five non-manual occupational groups. These data(but not the totals from each of the groups, or the totals of full-time/part-time andmale/female employees) were omitted from programming and editing procedures.
Strenuous efforts were made throughout fieldwork to ensure that the paper copies of bothEPQ and BWDS were retrieved by interviewers and returned to the Brentwood office.By the end of fieldwork for over 90% of productive questionnaires from each survey, thepaper copy of the EPQ/BWDS had been retrieved and filed. The non-CAPI data fromthe retrieved BWDS (n = 797) were keyed, and handed over unedited to the fundingresearch teams as a potential aid and for further scrutiny and analysis of the survey data.
4.9.2 Annual Business Inquiry (ABI)
In the cross-section survey, all managers were asked (ASICPROD) whether theirestablishment was part of the ‘production sector’ – defined as manufacturing, electricity,gas or water supply or construction.
419 managers said ‘Yes’ to this question and were consequently routed to MCENPRO inwhich they were asked whether they would be willing for government researchers to usethe information from their recent Annual Business Inquiry return in conjunction with thesurvey data.
Where a manager agreed to this request, (s)he was to confirm this by signing a formwhich would be retained and stored with the WERS 1997-8 paper documents.
There was, however, a substantial mismatch between the respondents’ classification ofthe establishment and the SIC classification that was, in due course, added by theCentre’s coding staff. ‘Production sector’ would have been expected to cover only SICMajor Groups D, E and F. Twenty-three percent of the establishments eventuallyclassified into these groups were not so classified in the interview and 2% of those notultimately classified in these groups were classified as such during the interview. Thedetails are in Table 4H below.
TABLE 4H: CROSS SECTION - AGREEMENT TO USE ABI DATA
SIC92 (OFFICE CODED)16
Base:All establishmentsat which interviews achieved
TotalMajorGroupsD, E, F
MajorGroups
G-O2193 491 1702
Classified as ‘productionsector’in interview;∴ MCENPRO asked
- agreed/signed form obtained- agreed/no form obtained- refused permission- unclear outcome
Not classified as ‘production sector’
No.
419
31954406
1774
No.
378
28550385
113
No.
41
34421
1661
Linked ABI data will not in any event be lodged at the ESRC Data Archive (see SectionEight: 8.2.4) but will be retained at the Department of Trade and Industry.
16 This variable was coded by DP staff on the basis of respondents’ descriptions of the establishment’s main activity(ASICDESC). The classification was checked at the end of the survey and found to be closely correlated (96%agreement at Major Group level) with the SIC classification on the IDBR which was used for the sample design andwhich is the basis for several of the tables in Section Five.
SECTION FIVE: RESPONSE
5.1 Cross-section: Response among management respondents
5.1.1 Overall response
The overall yield of interviews from the sample of 3,192 Local Units selected from theIDBR, by the methodology described in Section Two: 2.1.1, was 69%.
Among units classified as having 25 or more employees, the yield was 71%. In 1990 fromthe sample of units, drawn on that occasion from the 1987 Census of Employment, theyield was slightly lower - 68%.
In contrast, the proportion of units classified as ineligible or out-of-scope was somewhatlower in 1997/8 than in 1990. However refusals, non-contacts and other forms of non-productive outcome were at a higher level in 1997/8 than in 1990.
Only 50% of 1997/8 units classified as having 10-24 employees yielded a productiveinterview. 1 in 3 proved to be out-of-scope - in the great majority of cases because ofhaving fewer than 10 employees at the time of interview. Also response was a fewpercentage points lower among these establishments, than among those with 25 or moreemployees.
Table 5A below indicates the differences and similarities in outcome of the two samples.
TABLE 5A: YIELD FROM SELECTED SAMPLES: 1990 & 1997/8
1990 1997/8Units with …. … 25+
employees… 25+ employees … 10-24 employees
Initial sample ..
Ineligible/Out-of-scope
Non-productive addresses
Interviews achieved
3023 (100%)
531 (17.6%)
431 (14.3%)
2061 (68.1%)
2830 (100%)
340 (12.0%)
479 (16.9%)
2011 (71.1%)
362 (100%)
123 (34.0%)
57 (15.8%)
182 (50.2%)
Addresses classified as Ineligible/Out-of-scope fall into a number of categories:
• those found to have closed down between the last updating of the IDBR and the time ofinterview. There were 158 such cases. It is of note that the proportion of units foundto have closed down in 1990 was very similar (just under 5%) even though there wasthen a clear gap of 3 years between interviewing and the compilation of the frame.There is no explicit information about IDBR updating procedures, although theassumption was made that there would be fewer such cases in 1997/8 than in 1990;
• those addresses found to have fallen below the survey threshold of having 10 or moreemployees at the time of interview. There were 185 such cases. In 1990 179 unitswere found to be below that survey’s threshold of 25 employees;
• those addresses which were found to be vacant or at premises which had beendemolished or where the establishment had moved leaving no trace of a new address.These totalled 45. In 1990 the equivalent number was 74;
• the remaining 75 units classified as out-of-scope included:
- 38 establishments which were already among the 1,301 productives from 1990selected for the 1997-8 panel. ONS had been asked, when the initial sample wasdrawn from the IDBR, to exclude all establishments at which an interview hadbeen achieved in 1990. This process, however, proved to be only partiallyeffective, since the matching process included only those 1990 productives thatthe IDBR recognised as still ‘live’ (1,130 out of 2,061). The National Centre’sinvestigations into the IDBR classification (see Sections Three: 3.5 and Four:4.7) demonstrated that there were a significant proportion of live establishmentsamong those classified by the IDBR as ‘dead’ or ‘not traceable’. There were infact a further 9 such duplicate establishments where the identity was notestablished until after the cross section interview was carried out. In these casesit was no longer possible to give precedence to the panel selection as was thegeneral practice;
- 19 units which on investigation, generally by interviewers, proved not to relate tothe definition of establishment used in this survey, although they had beenclassified by the IDBR as ‘local units’. Typically the address might be that of aLocal Education Authority with employee numbers relating to a county-wideworkforce of peripatetic or supply teachers, with no discernible underlyingstructure of establishments. 21 addresses were similarly classified in 1990;
• there were very few cases in 1997-8 of the category of ‘aggregate returns’ that hadroutinely occurred (but in small numbers) in samples drawn from the Census ofEmployment. These are single returns which cover a number of separateestablishments. For example, there might be one return from a Health Authoritycovering all ambulance staff regardless of which stations they worked from. In suchcases, the procedure involves contacting the organisation responsible, obtaining a listof the establishments covered by the returns, selecting one at random, and weightingthe interview data to correct for the differences in sampling probabilities. Suchexamples as did occur in 1997-8 were in Central Government.
Addresses classified as Non-productive fell into four groups:
• refusals to the DTI. There were 102 such outcomes, rather more than in 1990 to theEmployment Department (36);
• refusals to the interviewer. These numbered 320, virtually the same as the 1990 total(322);
• addresses at which effective contact was never established, in spite of repeatedattempts numbered 82, compared with 52 in 1990;
• other addresses classified as unproductive comprised largely of cases where theinterview was postponed, and/or transferred to another location on so many occasionsthat fieldwork was closed down before an effective conclusion had been reached.These comprised 32.
The overall response rate for the survey was 80.4%. Among establishments sampled ashaving 25 or more employees it was 80.8%. This is 2 percentage points lower than in1990 when overall response was 82.7%.
Setting aside those addresses that were not issued to interviewers the fieldwork responserate was 83.5% (1990 - 83.9%).
Details of the response are shown in Table 5B:
TABLE 5B: CROSS SECTION - OVERALL RESPONSE
No. % No. %
Selected sample 3192 100
Geographic outlier 5 0.2Duplicate with panel sample (∴withdrawn) 38 1.2Interviewed on pilot survey 5 0.2Unit not an establishment 19 0.6Not traced 12 0.4
Closed down 158 4.9
Premises derelict/ vacant/ demolished 10 0.3
Not listed at address - no other information 23 0.7
Amalgamated with other sampled establishment 6 0.2
Fewer than 10 employees 185 5.8
Other reasons for ineligibility 2 0.1
Total ineligible/ out of scope 463 14.5%
TOTAL ELIGIBLE AND IN SCOPE 2729 100
Refusal by establishment to DTI 65 2.4
Refusal by Head office/ regional office: to DTI 37 1.4
Refusal from Head office/ regional office: to interviewer 18 0.7
Refusal at establishment: to interviewer 302 11.1
Total refusal 422 15.5%
Ill/ away for duration of survey 3 0.1Broken appointment - no recontact 29 1.1
Never available/ no contact 50 1.8
Total non contact 82 3.0%
Other reason (inc out of time before end of fieldwork) 32
Total other reasons 32 1.2%
TOTAL UNPRODUCTIVE CASES 536 19.6%
TOTAL PRODUCTIVE INTERVIEWS 2193 80.4%
5.1.2 Response by size of establishment
More than 1 in 3 of establishments classified by the IDBR as having 10-24 employeesproved to be out-of-scope, mostly because of having fewer than 10 employees whencontacted by the interviewer.
Response rates varied consistently according to the size of the establishment. Amongestablishments sampled as having 10-24 employees, the response was 76.2%; amongestablishments with over 500 employees it was 85%; in the intervening size bands thelevels of response increased consistently from the lower to the upper extreme (Table 5C).
Table 5D cross-tabulates the number of employees as sampled with the number at the timeof interview. It indicates a slight decline in the number of employees, overall, between thelast updating of the IDBR and the interview in 1997-8.
63% of establishments interviewed were found to be in the same size band as at sampling.
14% of establishments were in a higher size band at the time of interview.
23% of establishments were in a lower size band at the time of interview.
SECTION FIVE: RESPONSE
TABLE 5C: CROSS SECTIO N - RESPONSE BY SIZE OF ESTABLISH MENT (IDBR)
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES (IDBR)
Base: All Issued (A)
TOTAL
3192
10-24
362
25-49
603
50-99
566
100-199
561
200-499
626
500-999
309
1000 +
165
Out of Scope (B)
Unproductive (C)
Productive (D)
463
536
2193
123
57
182
75
122
406
80
111
375
68
95
398
62
88
476
29
39
241
26
24
115
B x 100 A
D x 100 C+D
%
14.5
80.4
%
34.0
76.2
%
12.1
76.9
%
13.4
77.2
%
11.9
80.7
%
9.7
84.4
%
9.4
86.1
%
15.8
82.7
SECTION FIVE: RESPONSE
TABLE 5D: CROSS SECTIO N – SAMPLED SIZE OF ESTABLISH MENT BY SIZE AT TI ME OF INTERVIEW
NO. OF EMPLOYEES AT TIME OF INTERVIEW
Base: All Productives TOTAL
2193
10-24
263
25-49
394
50-99
393
100-199
386
200-499
453
500-999
185
1000+
119
Size Band (IDBR):
10 - 24 employees
25 – 49
50 – 99
100 – 199
200 – 499
500 – 999
1000 – 1999
2000 +
No.
182
406
375
398
476
241
80
35
No.
148
66
15
9
17
5
2
1
No.
23
270
69
14
10
3
3
2
No.
8
52
227
69
18
13
4
2
No.
2
7
46
243
75
8
3
2
No.
-
6
13
53
314
57
8
2
No.
-
3
3
4
33
129
13
0
No.
1
2
2
6
9
26
47
26
5.1.3 Response by industrial classification
Table 5E analyses both the yield and the response among the major SIC(92) groups thatwere incorporated in the sample design (see Section 2: 2.1).
There were substantial differences in the proportion of sampled units that proved to be out-of-scope. Particularly high levels were found in:
Other business services: 23.8%Hotels and restaurants: 21.0%Financial services: 20.0%
Lower levels were found in:
Manufacturing: 8.5%Education: 5.4%
Response varied also among the SIC(92) major groups but not substantially.
The highest response rates were found in:
Public admin: 91.5%Education: 86.2%Health : 88.2%Electricity, Gas, Water: 87.0%
The lowest response rates were found in:
Business/Computing: 73.0%Manufacturing: 72.8%Construction: 73.7%
In 1990 the previous Standard Industrial Classification (SIC80) had been used so directcomparisons are not readily available. However, there are overall similarities in the patternof response. In 1990, Public services (including Health and Education) response wasparticularly high; response among units categorised as Construction was lower thanaverage.
SECTION FIVE: RESPONSE
TABLE 5E: CROSS SECTIO N - RESPONSE BY INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICA TION
SIC (92): MAJOR GROUPS
TOTAL D E F G H I J K L M N O
Base: All Issued (A) 3192
Manufactur ing
446
Electr icity/Gas/Water
109
Construction
183
Wholesale& Retail
457
Hotels &Restaurants
186
Tr ansport &Communi-
cations
197
FinancialServices
167
OtherBusinessServices
403
PublicAdmin.
228
Education
298
Health,
327
OtherCommunity
Services
179
Out of Scope (B)
Unproductive (C)
Productive (D)
463
536
2193*
38
111
297
17
12
80
33
38
112
49
86
322
39
20
127
31
30
136
33
33
101
96
83
224
29
17
182
16
39
243
47
33
247
35
34
110
B x 100 A
D x 100 C+D
%
14.5
80.4
%
8.5
72.8
%
15.6
87.0
%
18.0
73.7
%
10.7
78.9
%
21.0
86.4
%
15.7
81.2
%
20.0
75.4
%
23.8
73.0
%
12.7
91.5
%
5.4
86.2
%
14.4
88.2
%
19.6
76.4
* The total includes 12 productive cases that were not coded to SIC(92) on the IDBR
5.1.4 Regional response variations
Regional variations in response (Table 5F) were relatively slight. The North East, theEastern region, Wales and Scotland had particularly high levels of response - 85-89%; theNorth West and Merseyside were relatively low - 77%. Response in London was also at77%.
Again no direct comparison can be made with 1990 because of a change in theclassification. The patterns of variation, however, are broadly similar.
SECTION FIVE: RESPONSE
TABLE 5F: CROSS SECTIO N - RESPONSE WITHI N GOVERNMENT OFFICE REGIONS
GOVERNMENT OFFICE REGIONS
Base: All Issued (A)
TOTAL
3192
NorthEast
134
NorthWest
313
Merseyside
60
YorksHumber
239
EastM idlands
217
WestM idlands
299
Eastern
275
London
507
SouthEast
437
SouthWest
251
Wales
124
Scotland
293
NotCoded
43
Out of Scope (B)
Unproductive (C)
Productive (D)
463
536
2193
12
17
105
45
59
209
5
16
39
26
47
166
18
38
161
38
65
196
28
27
220
104
94
309
73
76
288
39
36
176
11
16
97
40
39
214
24
6
13
B x 100 A
D x 100 C+D
%
14.5
80.4
%
9.0
86.1
%
14.4
78.0
%
8.3
70.9
%
10.9
77.9
%
8.3
80.9
%
12.7
75.1
%
10.2
89.1
%
20.5
76.7
%
16.7
79.1
%
15.5
83.0
%
8.9
85.8
%
13.7
84.6
%
[55.8
[68.4
5.2 Cross-section: Response among worker representatives
Interviewers were required to seek interviews with senior employee representatives of thelargest recognised trade union or staff association at each establishment at whichmanagement interviews were obtained. If no trade unions were recognised at theestablishment but there was a formal consultative committee of employees and managersthen an interview was sought with the senior employee representative of that committee.
In the event there proved to be no eligible worker representative of either sort at 1,036(47%) out of the 2,193 establishments at which management interviews were obtained.Interviews were achieved with 947 worker representatives of the remaining 1,157establishments. This was a response rate of 81.9%. 877 of the interviews achieved werewith representatives of recognised trade unions; 70 were with ‘committee’ representatives.
The presence of recognised trade unions and/or a formal consultative committee at aworkplace was strongly associated with the size of the workplace. Among establishmentswith 10-24 employees, only 24% proved to have an eligible employee representative. Incontrast 81% of establishments with 500 or more employees offered eligiblerepresentatives (Table 5G).
TABLE 5G: CROSS SECTION - ELIGIBILITY FOR WORKERREPRESENTATIVE INTERVIEWS
SIZE OF ESTABLISHMENT (NO. OF EMPLOYEES)Base: Total 10-24 25-49 50-99 100-199 200-499 500-999 1000+All Productives (A) 2193 263 394 393 386 453 185 119
No WR interviewrequired (B)
WR interviewrequirednot obtained (C )
WR interviewobtained (D)
1036
210
947
199
13
51
258
28
108
230
30
133
160
38
188
131
65
257
38
27
120
20
9
90
B x 100 A
D x 100 C+D
%
47.2
81.8
%
75.7
79.7
%
65.5
79.4
%
58.5
81.6
%
41.5
83.2
%
28.9
79.8
%
20.5
81.6
%
16.8
90.9
Aside from the presence or not of eligible employee representatives, the response ratesachieved among worker representatives tended to be higher among the largerestablishments - though not by a wide margin (Table 5G).
Table 5H indicates where the requirements were met for a worker representative interviewamong the major SIC groups.
Relatively low levels of workplaces with worker representatives were found inHotels/Restaurants, Business and Computing, Wholesale and Retail Trades andConstruction. High levels were found in Public Administration and the Utilities. Responseamong worker representatives was also lower than average in Business/Computing andWholesale/Retail units.
SECTION FIVE: RESPONSE
TABLE 5H: CROSS-SECTIO N - ELIGIBILIT Y FOR WORKER REP INTERVIEWS
SIC (92): MAJOR GROUPS
TOTAL D E F G H I J K L M N O
Base: All Productives (A) 2193*
Manu-factur ing
297
Electr icity/Gas/Water
80
Construction
112
Wholesale& Retail
322
Hotels &Restaurants
127
Tr ansport &Communications
136
FinancialServices
101
OtherBusinessServices
224
PublicAdmin.
182
Education
243
Health
247
OtherCommunity
Services
110
No WR interviewrequired (B)
Interview required butnot obtained (C)
Interview obtained (D)
1036
210
947
124
25
148
1
12
67
70
9
33
193
51
78
114
1
12
41
11
84
45
12
44
177
13
34
16
24
142
75
24
144
111
16
120
60
11
39
B x 100 A
D x 100 C+D
%
47.2
81.8
%
41.8
85.5
%
1.2
84.8
%
62.5
[78.6]
%
60.0
60.5
%
89.8
[92.3]
%
30.1
88.4
%
44.6
78.6
%
79.0
72.3
%
8.8
85.5
%
30.9
85.7
%
44.9
88.2
%
54.5
78.0
* The total includes 12 units not coded to SIC(92) on the IDBR [ ] indicates bases of fewer than 50
Interviews with worker representatives were only sought with the permission ofmanagement at the site. The most frequent reason for failing to obtain an interview wasthe refusal by management (at the site or at a Head or Area Office) to agree to an approachbeing made (Table 5I). A similar pattern was found in 1990.
TABLE 5I: REASONS FOR NOT ACHIEVING INTERVIEWSWITH WORKER REPRESENTATIVES
Base: All workplaces eligible for Worker Representative Interviews
TOTAL1157
Interviews achieved:
- with Union Rep
- with Committee Rep
Interviews not achieved:
- Refusal by management at establishment
- Refusal by management at Head/Area Office
- Refusal by management to DTI
- Refusal by respondent
- Respondent ill/away for duration
- No contact
- Couldn’t be arranged in fieldwork period/ran out of time
- No eligible worker rep on site
- Other reason
No.
877
70
60
47
10
8
17
17
10
21
20
%
75.8
6.1
5.2
4.1
0.9
0.7
1.4
1.4
0.9
1.8
1.7
5.3 Cross-section: Response to the Survey of Employees (SEQ)
86% of management respondents accepted the SEQ proposals, agreeing to theinterviewers drawing a sample of employees and to the distribution of questionnairesalong the lines proposed.
However, from nearly 5% of workplaces within the co-operating 86%, no employeequestionnaires were ever received, in spite of their being recontacted by the interviewerand in spite of the additional reminder measures indicated in Section Four: 4.5.
There is a strong association between the size of the establishment and management’swillingness to participate in the SEQ procedures. Small workplaces (which were lesslikely to participate in the WERS project overall), surprisingly, proved more likely toagree to the SEQ - even though, proportionally, a greater effort - in terms of numbers ofemployees - was required (Table 5J).
SECTION FIVE: RESPONSE
TABLE 5J: CROSS-SECTIO N - AGREEMENT TO SEQ PROCEDURE BY SIZE OF ESTABLISHMENT
SIZE OF ESTABLISHMENT (NO. O F EMPLOYEES)
Base: Total 10-24 25-49 50-99 100-199 200-499 500-999 1000+
All ProductiveWorkplaces 2193 263 394 393 386 453 185 119
Management AGREES to SEQ procedure (1+ returns)
Management AGREES to SEQ procedures but NIL returns
Management DOES NOT AGREE
No
1783(81.3%)
97(4.4%)
313(14.3%)
%
86
9
5
%
87
5
9
%
83
4
13
%
79
3
18
%
75
4
21
%
81
2
17
%
76
4
20
The reasons given for not agreeing to SEQ procedures are set out in Table 5K.
In very few cases were there practical problems relating to the availability oraccessibility of computer files. Nearly all of the non co-operating managers refused forone reason or another. Most frequently the reason for refusal was categorised asunwillingness to ask the employees.
The level of corporate ‘blanket’ refusals is somewhat higher than might seem from thetable. It is estimated that nearly half of refusals fell into this category, most of thembeing categorised by the interviewer as ‘Unwilling to ask employees’.
TABLE 5K: CROSS-SECTION - REASONS FOR NOTAGREEING TO SEQ PROCEDURES
Base:
All productive workplaces
TOTAL
2193
Management agrees to SEQ procedures
Management does not agree
Reason:
No computer files available
Computer files available but not for complete establishment
Computer files available but for larger unit than establishment
Computer files exist but difficulties of access meant interviewer ran out of time
Confidentiality - against company policy
Refusal: too much trouble
Refusal: unwilling to ask employees
Refusal: no reason given
Head office agreed with DTI; interviewer told not to proceed
Other reasons
No.
1880
313
10
7
8
19
14
28
151
11
52
13
%
85.7
14.3
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.9
0.6
1.3
6.9
0.5
2.4
0.6
There was a return of some sort in respect of 67% of the 44,300 questionnaires placed.In 64% of cases the outcome was a completed questionnaire; the remaining 3% was madeup of refusals (1.3%), out of scope placements (0.8%) and others (0.7%) (Table 5L).
SECTION FIVE: RESPONSE
TABLE 5L : CROSS-SECTION - RESPONSE TO SEQ PLACE MENT BY SIZE OF ESTABLISH MENT (1997-8)
SIZE OF ESTABLISHMENT (NUM BER OF EMPLOYEES)
TOTAL 10-24 25-49 50-99 100-199 200-499 500-999 1000+Base: All SEQs placed 44283 4183 8826 8486 7787 8862 3821 2318
No return of any sort
Returned: Productive
Returned: Out-of-scope
Respondent left after selection
Respondent away for long period
Returned: Non-productive
Refusal
Other Reason
Other returns
After cut-off date
From establishment, ultimately classified as non-productive
14811 (33.4%)
28237 (63.8%)
299 (0.7%)
63 (0.1%)
499 (1.1%)
69 (0.2%)
140 (0.3%)
165 (0.4%)
%
42
53
1
*
1
*
*
2
%
37
61
1
*
1
*
*
*
%
32
65
1
*
1
*
*
*
%
29
68
1
*
1
*
*
*
%
31
66
1
*
1
*
1
*
%
33
65
*
*
1
*
1
*
%
34
64
1
0
1
*
*
0
In respect of management agreement, the smaller the establishment the more likely themanagement respondent was to agree. However employees from the smallestestablishments (those with fewer than 50 employees) were less likely than others to returntheir questionnaires (Tables 5L and 5M).
Tables 5M and 5N analyse SEQ response by the workplace’s industry classification. Afew differences are evident:
• public sector managers, including those of schools and hospitals, were more likely toagree to cooperate. There was also a relatively high level of response from theemployees of these establishments;
• at establishments in SIC Major Group K (Other business services) there was a lowlevel of agreement to co-operate;
• a high proportion (75%) of questionnaires placed at Financial Services
establishments were returned;
• a low proportion (44%) of questionnaires placed with Hotels and Restaurants andsimilar establishments were returned. The level of management agreement in theseestablishments was also relatively low.
SECTION FIVE: RESPONSE
TABLE 5M: CROSS- SECTIO N - AGREEMENT TO SEQ PROCEDURES BY INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICA TION
SIC (92): MAJOR GROUPS
TOTAL D E F G H I J K L M N O
Base: All productiveworkplaces 2193*
Manu-factur ing
297
Electr icity/Gas/Water
80
Construction
112
Wholesale& Retail
322
Hotels &Restaurants
127
Tr ansport &Communi-
cations
136
FinancialServices
101
OtherBusinessServices
224
PublicAdmin.
182
Education
243
Health
247
OtherCommunity
Services
110
ManagementAGREESto SEQ procedure(1+ returns)
ManagementAGREESto SEQ procedurebut NIL returns
Management DOESNOT AGREE
No.
1783(81.3%)
97(4.4%)
313(14.3%)
%
78
4
18
%
86
8
6
%
78
3
19
%
76
3
21
%
80
12
8
%
82
8
10
%
83
4
13
%
72
7
21
%
87
1
12
%
88
2
10
%
88
4
8
%
82
6
12
* The total includes 12 productive cases that were not coded to SIC(92) on the IDBR
SECTION FIVE: RESPONSE
TABLE 5N: CROSS- SECTIO N - RESPONSE TO SEQ PLACEMENT BY INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICA TION OF ESTABLISHMENT
SIC (92): MAJOR GROUPS
TOTAL D E F G H I J K L M N O
Base: All SEQs placed 44283*
Manu-factur ing
5934
Electr icity/Gas/Water
1747
Construction
2099
Wholesale& Retail
5895
Hotels &Restaurants
2643
Tr ansport &Communi-
cations
2898
FinancialServices
2075
OtherBusinessServices
3940
PublicAdmin.3869
Education
5201
Health
5326
OtherCommunity
Services
2206
No return of any sort
Returned: Productive
Returned: Out-of-scope
Respondent left after selection
Respondent away for long period
Returned: Non-Productive
Refusal
Other reason
Other returns:
After cut-off date
From establishment, ultimately classified as non-productive
14811 (33.4%)
28237 (63.8%)
299 (0.7%)
63 (0.17%)
499 (1.1%)
69 (0.2%)
140 (0.3%)
164 (0.4%)
%
30
67
1
*
1
*
*
*
%
32
65
*
*
1
0
2
0
%
32
64
1
*
*
1
*
1
38
60
*
*
1
*
*
*
53
44
1
*
2
*
*
*
37
60
*
*
1
*
*
*
21
75
1
*
2
*
*
0
33
64
1
*
2
*
*
0
24
73
1
*
1
*
1
*
31
67
*
*
1
*
*
*
34
64
1
*
1
*
*
*
40
58
1
*
1
*
*
*
* The total includes 450 questionnaires at establishment that were not coded to SIC(92) on the IDBR
5.4 Panel: Overall response among management respondents
Of the issued sample of 1,301 addresses, 20% (n = 261) were classified as deadwood, ieout of scope to the survey. Over half of these (n = 136) were identified as having closeddown, with closure implicit for a further 33 (not traced, derelict etc). A similar level ofclosure was found in the Trawl sample (see paragraph 5.5). 6.5% (n = 84) ofestablishments were found still to be in existence but with fewer than 25 employees.
Out of scope units were at a higher level than for the previous WIRS panel survey, whenthe gap was six years (1984 to 1990) rather than seven to eight.
Overall, productive response was 85%, two and a half percentage points lower than forthe 1990 panel.
Refusals (to the DTI and to the interviewer) and non-contacts by the interviewer were atthe same level as in 1990 - 9% and 2% respectively. However other reasons for non-productivity were higher than in 1990. They included the difficulty of getting anappointment before the end of fieldwork (in spite of the protracted fieldwork period) andnine duplicate addresses between the cross-section and the panel samples, where theduplication was not identified until after the cross-section interviews had been carried out(Table 5O).
The extent to which establishments proved to be out-of-scope proved to be closelyassociated with the size of the establishment in 1990. 32% of units with fewer than 100employees in 1990 were out-of-scope. For only 9% of units with 1000 or moreemployees was this true. For none of the size bands shown in the table did response dropbelow 80% (Table 5P).
Table 5Q tabulates the extent to which the size of establishments changed between 1990and 1997-8. The change was in the direction of establishments being smaller in 1997-8than in 1990, for example:
44% of establishments were in the same size band in 1990 and 1997-8;
16% of establishments were 1 size band higher in 1997-8;6% of establishments were 2 or more size bands higher in 1997-8;
24% of establishments were 1 size band lower in 1997-8;10% of establishments were 2 or more size bands lower in 1997-8.
TABLE 5O: PANEL - OVERALL RESPONSE
No. % No. %
Total interviews achieved in 1990 2061
Excluded from the survey 760
Selected sample 100% 1301 100
Not traced 16 1.2%
Closed down 136 10.5%
Premises derelict/ vacant/ demolished 4 0.3%
Different occupant at address; no other information 13 1.0%
Amalgamated with other sampled establishment 3 0.2%
Fewer than 25 employees 84 6.5%
Other ineligible (inc 1990 unit not an establishment) 5 0.4%
Total ineligible/ out of scope 261 20.1%
TOTAL ELIGIBLE AND IN SCOPE 1040 100
Claimed prior refusal to the National Centre / DTI 17 1.6%
Refusal by Head office/ regional office 10 1.0%
Contact made, person refused 69 6.6%
Total refusal 96 9.2%
Ill / away for duration of survey 5 0.5%
Never available 8 0.8%
Broken appointment - no recontact 11 1.1%
Total non contact 24 2.3%
Duplicate with Cross-section sample -not identified before fieldwork; Cross-section
interview carried out 9 0.9%
Other reason (inc ran out of time) 18 1.7%
Total other unproductive 27 2.6%
Data computed; interview lost during transmission 4 0.4%
Interview received after cut off date 2 0.2%
Rejected in analysis; not a continuing establishment 5 0.5%
Total interviews carried out but not in final datafile 11 1.1%
TOTAL UNPRODUCTIVE CASES 158 15.2%
Productive at selected establishment 815 78.4%Productive at head office 46 4.4%Productive at other location 21 2.0%
TOTAL PRODUCTIVE INTERVIEWS 882 84.8%
SECTION FIVE: RESPONSE
TABLE 5 P: PANEL - RESPONSE BY SIZE OF ESTABLISH MENT IN 1990
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES (1990)
Base: All Issued (A)
TOTAL
1301
25-49
221
50-99
228
100-199
221
200-499
206
500-999
175
1000-1999
186
2000 +
64
Out of Scope (B)
Unproductive (C)
Productive (D)
261
158
882
77
27
117
67
26
135
33
30
158
39
18
149
25
28
122
17
24
145
3
5
56
B x 100 A
D x 100 C+D
%
20.1
84.8
%
34.8
81.3
%
29.4
83.9
%
14.9
84.0
%
18.9
89.2
%
14.3
81.3
%
9.1
85.8
%
4.7
91.8
SECTION FIVE: RESPONSE
TABLE 5Q : PANEL - CHANGE IN NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES 1990 : 1997/8
NO. OF EMPLOYEES IN 1997/8
Base: All Productives TOTAL
882
25-49
113
50-99
159
100-199
146
200-499
210
500-999
98
1000-1999
82
2000+
74
Number of employees in 1990:
25 - 49
50 - 99
100 - 199
200 - 499
500 - 999
1000 - 1999
2000 +
No.
117
135
158
149
122
145
56
No.
73
24
13
1
2
-
-
No.
27
67
43
13
6
2
1
No.
7
27
62
32
12
6
-
No.
3
12
32
84
54
22
3
No.
5
3
3
9
30
44
4
No.
1
2
2
7
14
42
14
No.
1
-
3
3
4
29
34
Establishments in SIC(80) Division 8 - Finance - were more likely than others to haveclosed down, dropped below the 25 employee threshold or be otherwise out-of-scope.The opposite was true for Division 9 - Education, Health and Public Admin (Table 5R).
The only SIC Division in which the response rate was significantly below 80% wasDivision 5 - Construction (Table 5R).
Wales was the only region in which response, at 76%, was below 80% (Table 5S).
Table 5T analyses the overall yield from the issued sample against the IDBRclassification of the addresses, in 1997, into Live, ‘Dead’ and Not Traceable.
Against an average yield of 69%, 78% of addresses classified as Live were productive.Among those classified as ‘Dead’, 57% were productive; a similar proportion of thoseclassified as untraceable (56%) was productive.
Non-productives (ie refusals, non-contacts) were at the same level for all three IDBRgroupings. Such differences as there were lay, as would be expected, in the proportion ofunits classified as out-of-scope.
Over 30% of ‘Dead’ and untraceable units were found to be out-of-scope. 20% of the‘Dead’ (but only 20%) were found to have closed down. This was true of 17% of theuntraceable.
In contrast, only 11% of units classified by the IDBR in 1997 as Live were classified asout-of-scope.
SECTION FIVE: RESPONSE
TABLE 5R: PANEL - RESPONSE BY INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICA TION
SIC (80): DIVISI ON
Base: All Issued (A)
TOTAL
1301
1
Energy,Water
32
2
Minerals
66
3
Metal
182
4
Manufacturing
149
5
Construction
48
6
Hotels,Distr ibution
200
7
Transpor t,Communication
104
8
Finance
130
9
Education,Health, Pub
Admin
390
Out of Scope (B)
Unproductive (C)
Productive (D)
261
158
882
8
4
20
10
4
52
39
25
118
37
23
89
13
10
25
41
22
137
23
12
69
36
19
75
54
39
297
B x 100 A
D x 100 C+D
%
20.1
84.8
%
[25.0]
[83.3]
%
15.1
92.9
%
21.4
82.5
%
24.8
79.5
%
[27.0]
[71.4]
%
20.5
86.2
%
22.1
85.2
%
27.7
79.8
%
13.8
88.4
[ ] = base fewer than 50 establi shments
SECTION FIVE: RESPONSE
TABLE 5S: PANEL - RESPONSE WITHI N REGION
STANDARD REGION
Base: All issued
TOTAL
1301
Nor th
68
Nor thWest
139
York s/Humber
128
WestMi dlands
113
EastMi dlands
83
EastAnglia
44
SouthWest
98
SouthEast
218
London
216
Wales
59
Scotland
135
Out of Scope (B)
Unproductive (C)
Productive (D)
261
158
882
15
5
48
21
26
92
23
17
88
27
8
78
16
12
55
7
4
33
17
6
75
52
23
143
47
27
142
10
12
37
26
18
91
B x 100 A
D x 100 C+D
%
20.1
84.8
%
26
91
%
15
80
%
18
84
%
24
91
%
19
82
%
16
89
%
17
93
%
24
86
%
22
84
%
17
76
%
19
83
TABLE 5T: PANEL - RESPONSE BY IDBR CLASSIFICATION
IDBR CLASSIFICATION (1997)
Base: All issued Total Live Dead Not Traceable1301 717 331 253
Out of scope:
Closed down < 25 employees No trace/different occupier Vacant/derelict Other ineligible
Non productive:
Refusal at establishment Refusal at H.O. etc Non contact, ill, away Other reason
Interview achieved:
- not in final dataset
- in final productive dataset
136 10.5%84 6.5%29 2.2%4 0.3%8 0.6%
20.1%
86 6.6%10 0.8%24 1.8%27 2.0%
11.2%
11 0.9%
882 67.8%
29 4.1%42 5.9%4 0.6%1 0.1%1 0.1%
10.8%
54 7.5%7 1.0%7 1.0%
10 1.3%10.8%
5 0.7%
557 77.8%
65 19.7%20 6.1%15 4.5%2 0.6%3 0.9%
31.8%
17 5.1%2 0.6%9 2.7%8 2.4%
10.8%
4 1.2%
186 56.2%
42 16.6%22 8.7%10 3.9%1 0.4%4 1.7%
31.3%
15 5.9%1 0.4%8 3.2%9 3.6%
13.1%
2 0.7%
139 54.9%
5.5 Response to the trawl of establishments excluded from the Panel sample
The background to and procedures for the conduct of the Trawl are described in SectionFour: 4.7
83% of 1990 Trawl addresses were classified as valid establishments (ie continuing inexistence and having, in 1997-8, 25 employees or more). Within the 83%, 53% were atthe same address and under the same ownership; 17% were at the same address with adifferent owner. In total, 62% of establishments were found to have been in the sameownership since 1990.
The remaining 17% of 1990 addresses were found either to have closed down (11.5%) orcurrently to have fewer than 25 employees (5.2%). The number of cases whereinterviewers were unable to establish any information (1 no trace; 3 refusals) wasinsignificant (Table U).
Table 5U also analyses the outcomes of the telephone trawl by the 1997 IDBRclassification of establishments. There is a relationship between the trawl outcome andthe IDBR classification - but it is not a strong one.
Of those establishments classified as Live (n = 413), only 7% were found (in 1998) tohave closed down. Within the remaining 93% of establishments, 4% were found to havebeen below the survey threshold of 25 employees.
Of those establishments classified as Dead (n = 193), 20% were confirmed as havingclosed down and 7% as being below the 25 employee threshold, but the remainder werefound to be still in existence and in scope.
Of those establishments the IDBR was unable to trace (n = 154), 12% were found tohave closed down and 6% as being below the 25 employee threshold. Virtually all theothers were found to be still in existence and in scope. Only in a single case did theinterviewers accept that the establishment could not be traced.
SECTION FIVE: RESPONSE
TABLE 5U: TRAWL - RESPONSE BY IDBR CLASSIFICATION
IDBR 1997 CLASSIFICATION
Base: All issued Total Y - Li ve D - Dead N - Not traceable760 413 193 154
Out of Scope:
No trace
Closed down/vacant
< 25 employees
Valid establi shments:
Same owner/same address
Different owner/same address
Same owner/different address
Different owner/different address
Other valid establi shment
Information refused:
No.
1 (0.1%)
88 (11.5%)
39 (5.2%)
405 (53.3%)
131 (17.2%)
68 (9.0%)
22 (2.9%)
3 (0.4%)
3 (0.4%)
No.
- (0.0%)
29 (7.0%)
17 (4.1%)
260 (63.0%)
69 (16.7%)
28 (6.8%)
7 (1.7%)
1 (0.2%)
2 (0.5%)
No.
- (0.0%)
40 (20.3%)
13 (6.8%)
66 (34.4%)
42 (21.9%)
21 (10.9%)
8 (4.2%)
2 (1.0%)
1 (0.5%)
No.
1 (0.7%)
19 (12.3%)
9 (5.9%)
79 (51.3%)
20 (13.0%)
19 (12.3%)
7 (4.5%)
- (0.0%)
- (0.0%)
Tables 5V, 5W and 5X analyse the trawl outcomes by the size of the establishment (ienumber of employees in 1990), industrial classification (SIC 80) and region in 1990.
The size of an establishment in 1990 makes some difference to the likelihood of itsclosure in the subsequent seven years - though not as much as might have beenanticipated. 15% of establishments that had fewer than 100 employees in 1990 hadclosed down, compared with 10% of establishments that had 100 or more employees.Medium size establishments (100-199 employees) are more likely to have stayed in thesame ownership than either smaller or larger establishments (Table 5V).
Among establishments of different industries, closures are markedly more likely to havehappened among metal goods and manufacturing establishments (SIC Divisions 3 and 4)than among others. 21% of establishments from these two Divisions had closedcompared with 8% of all others (Table 5W).
In terms of regional variations, closures were found to have occurred more frequently inthe South East than in the rest of the country. 13% of establishments in East Anglia,London and the South East were found to have closed, compared with 9% in the rest ofGreat Britain (Table 5X).
SECTION FIVE: RESPONSE
TABLE 5V : TRAWL - RESPONSE BY SIZE OF ESTABLISH MENT IN 1990
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES (1990)
Base: All issued
TOTAL
760
25-49
133
50-99
127
100-199
131
200-499
127
500-999
100
1000 +
142
Out of Scope:
No trace
Closed down/vacant
< 25 employees
Valid establi shments:
Same owner/same address
Different owner/same address
Same owner/different address
Different owner/different address
Other valid establi shment
Information refused:
No.
1 (0.1%)
88 (11.6%)
39 (5.1%)
405 (53.3%)
131 (17.2%)
68 (8.9%)
22 (2.3%)
3 (0.4%)
3 (0.4%)
No.
1 (0.8%)
20 (15.0%)
21 (15.8%)
62 (46.6)
14 (10.5%)
13 (9.8%)
1 (0.8%)
- -
1 (0.8%)
No.
- -
19 (15.0%)
10 (7.9%)
65 (51.2%)
13 (10.2%)
13 (10.2%)
6 (4.7%)
1 (0.8%)
- -
No.
- -
11 (8.4%)
3 (2.3%)
78 (59.5%)
22 (16.8%)
13 (9.9%)
4 (3.1%)
- -
- -
No.
- -
16 (12.6%)
3 (2.4%)
73 (57.5%)
23 (18.1%)
7 (5.5%)
4 (3.1%)
- -
1 (0.8%)
No.
- -
13 (13.0%)
2 (2.0%)
45 (45.0%)
22 (22.0%)
12 (12.0%)
4 (4.0%)
1 (1.0%)
1 (1.0%)
No.
- -
9 (6.3%)
- -
82 (57.7%)
37 (26.1%)
10 (7.1%)
3 (2.1%)
1 (0.7%)
- -
SECTION FIVE: RESPONSE
TABLE 5W: TRAWL - RESPONSE BY INDUSTRIAL CLA SSIFICATION IN 1990
SIC (80): DIVISI ON
Base: All Issued
TOTAL
760
1
Energy,Water
21
2
Minerals
34
3
Metal
102
4
Manufactur ing
104
5
Construction
24
6
Hotels,Distr ibution
110
7
Transpor t,Communicatio
n
51
8
Finance
74
9Education,Health, Pub
Admin
240
Out of scope:
No trace
Closed down/vacant
< 25 employees
Valid establi shments:
Same owner/same address
Different owner/same address
Same owner/different address
Different owner/different address
Other valid establi shment
Information refused
1 (0.1%)
88 (11.6%)
39 (5.1%)
405 (53.3%)
131 (17.2%)
68 (8.9%)
22 (2.9%)
3 (0.4%)
3 (0.4%)
No.
-
4
-
7
8
2
-
-
-
No.
-
1
1
26
4
1
2
-
-
No.
-
19
1
54
24
-
2
-
-
No.
1
24
6
44
13
11
5
-
-
No.
-
2
1
13
1
4
3
-
-
No.
-
12
6
69
11
10
1
-
1
No.
-
6
6
19
11
7
1
1
-
No.
-
1
8
43
7
12
3
-
-
No.
-
19
10
130
52
19
6
2
2
SECTION FIVE: RESPONSE
TABLE 5 X: TRAWL - RESPONSE BY REGION IN 1990
STANDARD REGIONS
TOTAL
760
Nor th
46
Nor thWest
97
York s/Humber
55
WestMi dlands
64
EastMi dlands
46
EastAnglia
35
SouthWest
56
SouthEast
140
London
110
Wales
31
Scotland
80
Out of Scope: No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
No trace 1 (0.1%) - - - - - - 1 - - - -
Closed down/vacant 88 (11.6%) 7 13 3 4 3 7 5 17 20 3 6
< 25 employees 39 (5.1%) 4 5 1 1 1 3 5 5 8 2 4
Valid establi shments:
Same owner/same address 405 (53.3%) 22 52 27 38 25 19 32 8 49 15 45
Diff owner/same address 131 (17.2%) 8 14 16 11 7 4 4 26 18 6 17
Same owner/diff address 68 (8.9%) 2 11 4 9 7 1 6 8 9 4 7
Diff owner/diff address 22 (2.9%) 3 2 2 - 2 1 3 2 5 1 1
Other valid establi shment 3 (0.4%) - - - 1 1 - - - 1 - -
Information refused: 3 (0.4%) - - 2 - - - - 1 - - -
SECTION SIX: CODING & EDITING OF DATA
6.1 Introduction
Coding and editing of the questionnaires was carried out at the National Centre’sBrentwood offices by an experienced Data Processing (DP) team of four, supported by asmall number of clerical workers. There was continuous involvement of the researchteam from the funding organisations as well as the National Centre’s researchers.Individuals from the teams made regular day-long visits to Brentwood throughout theediting and coding stages of the project. WERS 98 saw an improvement in the efficiencyof the post-interview operations largely owing to CAPI. Nevertheless there was still aconsiderable operation necessary to prepare the data. This is described under fourheadings:
• The Fact Sheets;• Editing of questionnaires;• Coding of open and ‘other specify’ answers;• Overcodes.
6.2 The Fact Sheets
6.2.1 General
It was important to be alerted at the earliest moment to cases where there was anapparent mismatch between the sampled size or SIC classification of the sampledestablishment and the information obtained within the interview. In such cases theinterviewer might have interviewed at the wrong establishment or about the wrong set ofemployees.
Such cases could only be resolved by researchers after investigation. For this reason‘Fact Sheets’ were developed, and they became the main basis and forum for editing thequestionnaires.
A Fact Sheet was created for each productive interview. It contained an array ofinformation taken from the sample set-up files (the IDBR in the case of the cross-sectionsurvey, or 1990 Survey data in the case of the panel) and data collected at the interview.Also printed on the Fact Sheet were the Notepad comments keyed in during the interviewby the interviewer. Specimen Fact Sheets are included in the Annex to this report.Checks were performed during the production of the Fact Sheets so that cases whichfailed the checks were automatically flagged ‘Refer to Researcher’. The checks fell intotwo categories, those based on the EPQ/BWDS and those based on the rest of thequestionnaire data.
6.2.2 Fact Sheet checks based on the EPQ/BWDS
One task that had been onerous in the previous surveys in the series, was the handling ofthe employee numbers recorded on the grid of the occupational groups within theworkplace. In WERS 1997-8, the EPQ grid was a 45 cell matrix (see below). TheCAPI program itself contained a number of checks to ensure that the data collected wereas consistent as possible. There were, however, circumstances when it was not readilypossible for the interviewer to resolve the inconsistency that activated the check duringthe course of the interview, and subsequently the check was suppressed. The Fact Sheettherefore listed those interview checks that had been suppressed.
It is worth commenting on these checks in more detail although full information on all thechecks and editing is covered in Parts B (of Volumes 5 and 6) in the WERSdocumentation (see Section Eight).
The interview checks which were visible on the Fact Sheet were as follows:
• a check if the 4 subtotals (full time male and female workers plus part time male andfemale workers) did not equal the total number of employees. This is labelled ‘Check1’;
• a check if the nine occupational totals did not sum to the total number of employees(‘Check 2 ’).
The reasons why these checks might have been suppressed can broadly be put into twocategories: managers completing the EPQ did not have sufficient information, thereforeforcing the interviewer to record a ‘refusal’ or ‘don’t know’ in the grid; and, errors intranscribing the data from the paper version of the EPQ on to the CAPI computerprogramme. On relatively few occasions were these checks suppressed: Check 1 - 16cases, Check 2 - 61 cases.
It was imperative that these discrepancies were resolved as the information in these cellscontained what the researchers called ‘core information’ that was essential for eachworkplace. For example, it is essential to have the number of part-time employees as this
T O T A LE m p lo y e e s
F U L L T IM E P A R T T IM E 6 2M a le F e m a le M a le F e m a le T o ta l
4 5 1 5 1 1
F U L L T IM E P A R T T IM E T o ta lM a le F e m a le M a le F e m a le o u t
M a n a g e r s 4 3 0 0 7 0
P r o fe s 2 2 1 0 5 0
T e c h 3 0 0 0 3 0
C le r i c a l 0 3 0 1 4 0
C r a ft 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 0
P e r s o n a l 1 0 5 0 0 1 2 3 1
S a le s 5 0 0 0 5 0
O p e r a t i v e 8 0 0 0 8 0
R o u t i n e 1 0 0 0 1 03 1
o u t 0 2 0 0 25 O U T
C h e c k 1 S u p p r e s s e N o 1 1 8 .1 A ' S C O R EC h e c k 2 S u p p r e s s e N o 2 B ' S C O R E
group, as a proportion of the entire workforce, is an important break variable used toanalyse the rest of the data. In the few cases where these checks were suppressed, themanagerial respondent was usually contacted by a member of the research team and thematter resolved.
The Fact Sheet was also used to consider any further discrepancies within the rest of theemployment grid. An algorithm was devised to add up each row and column in thematrix, and total the amount that this sum deviated from the numbers in the total boxes.This was defined as the ‘mis-match’ figure. The ‘mis-match’ was printed on the FactSheet along with notification of which row/column did not add up (see ‘OUT’ in exampleabove). Thus, at the bottom of each column, and the end of each row was a figure whichwas ‘0’ if the figures in the rows and columns equaled their subtotal. If the figures in onecolumn were two short of the column total, and one of the rows was three greater than therow total, then a mis-match of ‘5’ was recorded. This was the A score and wasexpressed as a percentage of the total number of employees. Any A score greater than20% was automatically referred to researchers. This happened only in 9 cases of thecross-section productive interviews. The ‘B score’, which is the number of rows andcolumns that were incorrect, would be 2 in the example just given, because one columnand one row were responsible for the mis-match. This did not, in itself, trigger a referralto researchers. It was used simply to determine which values were inconsistent.
Editors and researchers changed the EPQ data on some occasions, but only if it wasfairly clear why the figures did not add up. The A & B scores sometimes pointed to aparticular cell where the interviewer may have copied the data into the wrong cell, or,alternatively, transposed some numbers. Editors and researchers were reluctant tochange data because once one figure is changed, then it has an impact on the rest of therow/column and the whole grid would then have to be artificially rebuilt just to make thefigures match.
The fact sheet checks on the BWDS data in the Panel Survey were much simpler sinceonly parts of the occupational grid were keyed in during the interview, the remainder ofthe BWDS being keyed in at the end of fieldwork. Just two BWDS checks were includedon the Fact Sheets. Both identified queries that had been suppressed during the course ofthe interview. The first checked that the male/female and full-time/part-time totalsequalled the total number of employees at the establishment; the second checked that thesum of employees in each occupational group also equalled the total number employed atthe establishment.
6.2.3 Fact sheet checks on the remainder of the interview data
Not only was the Fact Sheet the mechanism to check the internal consistency of the EPQand BWDS, a number of other answers from the questionnaire were also included. Someof these were simply useful pieces of information to help in the initial edit. Other piecesof information were included because checks had been designed around them. Therewere seven such checks on the cross-section survey and 25 additional checks on thePanel. These checks were put on the Fact Sheet (rather than in the questionnaire edit)because researchers, rather than editors would need to be involved in their resolution.
The checks on the cross-section questionnaires (management and worker representative)were as follows:
i) size check: This check compares the total number of employees on the EPQ(variable name: ZALLEMPS) with the figure shown on the IDBR. If there was a
large discrepancy, defined by reference to the bands in the table below, theresearchers would be alerted;
FigureFigure
on IDBRon EPQ {greater than} {or less than}10-24 >5025-49 >10050-99 >200 <25
100-199 >500 <50200-499 >1000 <100500-999 >2000 <200
1000-1999 <5002000 + <1000
ii) SIC check: This check was activated when the first 2 digits of the SIC did notmatch the first 2 digits of the SIC recorded on the IDBR.
iii) worker representative check: This check was activated if information from themanagement interview says that either a union representative or a committeerepresentative should have been interviewed and has not been done, or the wronginterview took place (eg where the management interview indicated that a unionrepresentative should have been interviewed, but a committee representative was,for some reason, interviewed instead.
iv) other outcome check: This ensures that if no Worker RepresentativeQuestionnaire was expected, that the outcome codes correspond and no WRQwas completed.
v) public sector query: This check was activated when information in themanagement interview suggested that the workplace should have been coded aspublic sector (private sector) but was not. This check was primarily based onthe nature of the activity which took place at the selected establishment.
vi) workplace employment turnover: This check was activated when there was adiscrepancy in the data from the EPQ which recorded labour turnover. If thediscrepancy was outside the permitted bands, the research team was to benotified.
vii) outlier checks: A number of checks were written which don’t appear on thefactsheet in the same way as the checks above because they were expected to bemore rare. Most of the checks activated when a figure was particularly high,such as the proportion of employees who are over 51 years of age or the numberof employee representatives was greater than 20 per cent of total employment.
On the cross-section survey 29% of all cases had to be ‘Referred to researcher’. Most ofthese were due to checks i) and ii). Plausible explanations for the differences wereusually observed either by looking at the nature of the industry or telephoning either theinterviewer or the respondent. It was not uncommon for IDBR to record the SIC of theorganisation’s activity which could differ markedly from the activity of the localestablishment that was the subject of the interview.Where checks iii) and iv) were activated, it was usually because of some confusion aboutthe classification of the worker representative. Confusion was mostly of two forms: thecommittee representative being a union member was incorrectly classified as a union
representative; or, the union representative said that they sat on a committee ofrepresentatives, which the interviewer then classified that person to be a committeerepresentative. These had to be rectified by re-contacting the representative, confirmingthe information, and collecting any information that was missing because they had beenrouted down a wrong set of questions. This rarely proved difficult. (see Section 6.6 formore detail on this problem).
The public sector check (v) was triggered relatively infrequently. It proved, however, tobe somewhat ineffectual identifier of errors. On closer inspection of the data, theresearch team found a large number of workplaces that, although being publicly listed,(or part of an organisation that was) recorded themselves as being part of the publicsector. The public sector check did not pick these cases up. They were identified bylooking at the name of the organisation to which the workplace belonged and thereforerequired each case to be looked at individually. Only a few subsequent questions in theinterview were routed on the answer to this question, therefore, only a small amount ofadditional data had to be collected by re-contacting the workplace.
It was extremely difficult to resolve the inconsistencies in the employee turnover data. Ina minority of cases these errors could be resolved because they resulted from an incorrecttranscription of data from the EPQ to the CAPI programme. For the remainder it wasmore difficult. It became apparent that those workplaces that gave inconsistent data didso mainly because it was not possible to give an entirely accurate estimate. Rather thandelete these data, it was decided by the research team that it should be left unchanged butresearchers who intend to use this information should be made aware of its potentialproblems. It is then up to the individual researcher to decide what to do.
The additional checks on the panel survey Fact Sheets served two purposes: firstly, toverify that the interviews had been carried out at a consistently defined establishment inboth 1990 and 1998, and secondly, to identify outlying values or inconsistent data withinthe 1998 interview. Similar checks had been imposed on the previous panel surveys inthe WIRS series.
Checks on the validity of the surveyed unit in 1997-8 consisted of comparisons with theestablishment’s employment numbers, industry, workforce composition and union statusin 1990. Cases were referred to researchers for further examination if the data showedsubstantial differences between the two time points, such as a large rise or fall in totalemployment at the establishment or a substantial shift in the balance between manual andnon-manual employees. Checks on the internal consistency of the 1997-8 interview dataconsisted of tests on the plausibility of the occupational profile, the formal status of theestablishment (i.e. public or private sector), the number of unions and the distribution ofearnings, among others. A full list of the checks employed on the Panel Survey factsheets is contained within Volume 6 (Part B) of the WERS 1997-8 Documentation (seeSection Eight).
In aggregate, 38% of cases in the panel survey were referred to researchers as a result ofthe checks included on the fact sheets. The size of this figure reflects the fact that the netwas cast fairly widely, and many of the referrals were swiftly dealt with. Cases that werereferred to the research team because of internal inconsistencies within the 1998 datawere subject to further investigation and the data edited where appropriate. Overcodeswere added where this editing involved changes to BWDS data. Overcodes were alsoadded to cases in which further investigation generated continued concerns about theconsistency of definition of the establishment, in order that the research team might beable to identify such establishments and resolve outstanding doubts about the validity of
any comparison before beginning to analyse the data. The full range of overcodes used atthis stage of the Panel Survey are outlined later in this Section (6.7).
6.3 Editing the questionnaires
Once the problems which had caused the case to be referred to the research teams wereresolved, it was then sent back to the editors in the Data Processing team. Editing is amuch simpler process in CAPI surveys because so much of the potential for error isremoved at the design and testing stage. Whereas in a paper questionnaire it is difficultto correct internal inconsistencies at the time of the interview, within the CAPIprogramme such checks were possible. For example, if a management respondent said atone point in the interview that there was a consultative committee at the workplace, butelsewhere did not refer to it, at the relevant point in the interview the interviewer wouldbe made aware of this inconsistency and asked to clarify. This feature of CAPI,combined with the way that the Fact Sheets were used as the major medium for editingthe questionnaires, resulted in only a relatively small number of new checks introducedfor editors. Thus, when an editor came to check the questionnaire, all, or nearly all thelikely queries had been dealt with. Even the notes and remarks left by an interviewer inthe questionnaire were printed on the Fact Sheet and looked at before opening thequestionnaire for editing. Where relevant, rules and guidance were adopted in the light ofsuch comments. Along with the other tasks editors performed when looking atquestionnaires, these are documented in Volume 3, Part B of the WERS 1997-8Documentation (see Section Eight).
6.4 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) & Standard Occupational Classification(SOC)
All addresses sampled by the Office for National Statistics and issued for the cross-section survey had already been classified according to the UK Standard IndustrialClassification of Economic Activities (SIC 92). Five digit codes had been used.
Cross-section management survey respondents were asked at the beginning of theinterview about the ‘main activity’ at their establishments. Their answers were printedout on the Fact Sheet and independently coded at Brentwood to SIC 92. As mentioned in6.2, discrepancies between the ONS classification and the National Centre’s coding at the2-digit level were investigated by researchers. The most common cause of discrepancywas that the IDBR classification referred to the organisation’s activity which could differmarkedly from the activity of the local establishment that was the subject of theinterview. Where a plausible explanation could not be found from looking at the FactSheet, respondents were telephoned and asked to clarify the nature of their activity. Inthese cases it was not unusual to find an establishment involved in more than one activityand probing would bring about the clarification needed. The public sector establishmentsgave rise to over half of these SIC discrepancies.
The panel sample had been coded to the previous Standard Industrial Classification (SIC1980). Recoding to SIC 92 was an option considered by the research team but, in theevent, rejected. SIC discrepancies at the 2 digit level were treated with particular care onthe panel survey. Accepting a change in the SIC could, on occasions, result in a ‘falsepositive’, that is, a subtle change of activity being classified as something much morefundamental than was actually the case. A case in point would be the banking industrywhere the language used to describe banking activities has changed but the researchersfelt that the case should still be classified as part of the banking sector.
The classification of employees in the cross-section survey (the EPQ) was based on theOPCS Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) first introduced for governmentsurveys in 1991. Managers were asked to classify the employees of the establishmentinto the nine ‘Major Groups’ (1. Managers Administrators …..9. Other Occupations).The computer automated certain sections of the questionnaire so that they related towhichever of these groups was the largest (i.e. most numerous) at the establishment -apart from management. In addition, computer checks ensured that respondents couldnot, for example, answer ‘the sales staff’ to a particular question, if on the EPQ, no salesstaff had been entered.
For the Panel survey, SOC coding was not used. The BWDS retained the classificationof employees used in previous WIRS, categorising the workforce into three manual andfive non-manual groups.
6.5 Coding of open questions
The number of verbatim questions to be coded was as follows:
Cross-section PanelOpen 22 39‘Other specify’ 53 21
The frames for coding these answers were developed from complete listings printed outfrom the Blaise program for substantial numbers of questionnaires (900 cross-section;600 panel). There was considerable involvement in the process by the research teamsfrom the funding organisations. The two code frame books, listing the code frames incomplete detail, are included in Volume 5, Part A of the WERS 1997-8 Documentation(see Section Eight).
During the preparation of the frame, discussions were held with the DP team responsiblefor initial scrutiny of the factsheets and questionnaires. In addition researchers from theNational Centre and the funding organisations were making regular visits to the office toclear up the queries (whether coding or editing) which had been referred. This ofteninvolved telephone calls to interviewers, respondents or the studying of questionnaires inBlaise.
Coding of text questions was not done ‘inside’ the Blaise questionnaire edit program.The methodology involved the stripping of all relevant answers from the questionnairesand assembling them in Excel files, one file per question. This brought two distinctadvantages:
i) coding could be done intensively one question at a time, rather than onequestionnaire at a time;
ii) the Excel files could be sorted by different criteria to aid in the coding andsupervision of the exercise. For example, it was common for respondents toanswer some questions in similar ways such as ‘Amalgamation with anotherorganisation’. Sorting the text answers would bring most of the ‘amalgamations’together and therefore made coding more consistent and efficient. Similarly,supervision and checking of the coding was made easier because cases whichwere flagged for referral could be brought together as could all the answers listedunder one particular code. This avoided the need to scroll through pages ofanswers.
On the cross-section survey the process worked well. The panel survey proved moreproblematic since the extraction of the verbatim answers into Excel files prevented thesimultaneous amending of numerical and text data during editing. The complex routingin the panel survey, made all the more involved by the ‘feeding-forward’ of 1990 data(see Section Four: 4.8.2), meant that numerical information often needed to be consideredand amended in tandem with verbatim answers.
The coding of open questions was carried out by DP and clerical staff using laptop PCs.Once it was complete, procedures needed to be devised to reintegrate the Excel files withthe main body of the questionnaire data.
6.6 Issues concerning interviews with Worker Representatives
One of the checks on the cross-section survey Fact Sheet alerted researchers to thepossibility of an interview having been conducted with the wrong worker representative.This was possible because the program had identified, by the end of the managementinterview, the role and title of the eligible worker representative. These details wereplayed back to the interviewer and respondent in a question which asked the manager forpermission to seek contact with the worker representative. The computer also recordedthe answer to the question which asked the worker representative if they were “therepresentative of the largest recognised union or a representative of a joint committee thatdeals with the largest range of issues”. Where there was a disagreement between thesetwo, this would be apparent on the Fact Sheet.
With hindsight an internal consistency check performed just at the beginning of theworker representatives interview would have helped. This is because the wrong workerrepresentative seems to have been interviewed on a number of occasions. We cannotknow the actual number because this would have meant re-contacting all the workerrepresentatives and management respondents concerned. We know that the check alertedus to a possible difficulty in around 5 per cent of cases. For each of these telephone callswere made to the interviewer, worker representative, and sometimes managementrespondents to try to resolve the issue. It was not possible to obtain a completeexplanation in all cases, however, it was rare for any data to be changed as a result ofthese contacts.
We know that in a number of cases the management respondent simply led theinterviewer to the wrong worker representative. If interviewers did feel that the wrongworker representatives had been interviewed, it was often not until the end of theinterview that this concern was expressed (evidenced by a comment on the Fact Sheet).Again these workplaces were contacted and, where practicable, problems resolved.
One other factor that was identified as a cause of some difficulties for interviewers wasthe need to occasionally interview worker representatives who were not based at thatestablishment. These cases arose where the establishment belonged to a largerorganisation, with worker representatives representing employees at several sites withinthe organisation, rather than just those at the workplace where the representative wasbased. In some of these cases, interviewers sought out a worker representatives based atthe establishment and subsequently either did not find one or found the wrongrepresentative (either one not from the largest recognised trade union or a committeerepresentative when it should have been a lay-representative). They were probably ledinto doing this because the relevant question identifying the worker representative in themanagement questionnaire included the phrase ‘at this establishment’ which was notnecessarily valid in these situations. Again, this difficulty was resolved through a calleither to the worker representative or to the manager who was originally interviewed.
6.7 Overcodes
6.7.1 General
Overcodes are variables that serve two purposes in this dataset. They identify caseswhere a (major) change has been made to an interview after its completion, or where theresearch team had reason to be concerned about a particular set of responses. Most ofthese overcodes were added before the handover of data from the National Centre. Somewere added subsequently by the funding research teams. Researchers using either thecross-section or panel datasets should take note of the codes, and it is left to their owndiscretion whether or not they chose to use the data in these cases.
6.7.2 Overcodes for the cross-section sample
For the cross-section five overcodes were used. They appear in the deposited data sets asXCODE1 to XCODE5.
XCODE1 identifies cases where EPQ data was completed with reference to theorganisation to which the workplace belonged rather than the workplace itself. After theinterview, the management respondent was re-contacted and asked to again complete theEPQ. Workplace data was obtained for Questions 1 and 2 only, with the remainingquestions either being unanswered or the research team were not sufficiently satisfiedwith the responses. Questions 3 through 11 were as a result coded as missing data17. Inaddition, the research team checked that the data collected in the MQ interview referredto the workplace and not the organisation.. ............................................................4 cases
XCODE2 identifies cases where the total number of employees was changed at the editstage. This happened when incomplete data for the EPQ was collected at the time of themanagement interview, but was obtained subsequently. There is some overlap betweenthese cases and those in XCODE1 and XCODE3..................................................5 cases
XCODE3 identifies cases with the same problem as those with a XCODE1 flag, butwhere only very limited workplace data was subsequently collected. After the interview,the management respondent was recontacted and asked to again complete the EPQ.Workplace data was obtained only for the total number of employees present at theworkplace. All remaining questions were coded as missing data18. The research teamchecked that the data collected in the course of the MQ interview referred only to theworkplace and this was always found to be the case. ........................................... 10 cases
XCODE4 refers to two types of problems that occurred in interviews with workerrepresentatives. The first related to cases where there was a query about the workerrepresentative who was interviewed. Specifically, these were cases where a person otherthan the most senior representative of a union or committee was interviewed.Members of the research team checked the reason for this happening and were satisfied ineach instance that the representative was a valid role holder. The second problem relatedto cases where there were doubts about the classification of the worker representative(i.e. as a union representative or a committee representative). A number of union
17 There was one exception and this was the treatment of the union data. An answer had to be given to at least oneof the following questions: how many union members were at the workplace; or, were there any union memberspresent at the workplace? In most cases, it was only possible to get an answer to the second of these questions.18 The same applied here as in XCODE 1 with respect to the union membership question.
representatives were coded as committee representatives in circumstances where they saton a workplace committee that consisted of several recognised unions (i.e. single tablebargaining). Alternatively, a number of committee representatives were coded as unionrepresentatives when they were union members themselves. Where these discrepanciesarose, a member of the research team re-contacted the respondent, and where possible,collected the additional data required as a result of reclassifying the respondent19. Thesecases were given an overcode, and where no data was collected, the case was deleted (seeSection Eight: 8.3) ............................................................................................. 15 cases
XCODE5 identifies cases where there was a doubt about whether the interviewer hadcorrectly identified the largest occupational group. There were two reasons for this query.First, they resulted from an error in the CAPI programme that was initially issued tointerviewers. It caused employees classified as ‘Professionals’ to be excluded from thealgorithm which identified the largest occupational group. The other reason for aworkplace to be given this overcode was where managers were the dominant employeegroup in the workplace and the respondent thought it reasonable to talk about this group,although they should properly have referred to the largest non-managerial occupationalgroup. ............................................................................................................... 14 cases
6.7.3 Overcodes for panel survey
For the panel survey six overcodes were used. They appear in the deposited datasetwithin the variable YZ0VCOD1, which takes the following values:
13 identifies cases where the 1990 establishment had split into two or more parts, butwhere it was unclear whether the rules for pursuing whether the correct part of the split20
had been followed.................................................................................................3 cases
21 identifies cases where some of the employees classified as manual in 1990 wereclassified as non-manual in 1997-8.......................................................................4 cases
22 identifies cases where some of the employees classified as non-manual in 1990 wereclassified as non-manual in 1997-8.......................................................................6 cases
23 identifies cases where BWDS occupational totals were changed in 1997-8. The errorwas clear from comparision with the 1990 data….................................................8 cases
24 identifies cases where the BWDS data obtained in 1997-8 were incomplete. Revisedoccupational totals have been entered on the basis of 1990 data.............................2 cases
25 identifies cases where the 1997-8 BWDS occupational totals were internallyinconsistent and were changed during editing.........................................................5 cases
19 Many questions in the WRQ were routed according to whether the respondent was a union or non-unionrepresentative.20 For the rules in dealing with splits and amalgamations see Section Three. 3.5
SECTION SEVEN: WEIGHTING THE CROSS-SECTION AND PANEL SAMPLES
7.1 Weighting the cross-section sample
7.1.1 The sample of establishments
To derive unbiased estimates from the sample of establishments the data has first to beweighted to compensate for the fact that establishments had differing probabilities ofselection for the survey. The weights derived are calculated as the inverse of theestimated probability of selection, scaled back to the achieved sample size after a processof trimming for extreme values.
The probability of selection for an establishment is determined by three factors:
(i) the SIC major group and size band it was assigned to on the IDBR;(ii) whether the local unit on the IDBR is an ‘establishment’ according to the
definition applied in the survey;(iii) the probability that the establishment was selected for the 1990 WIRS.
The third factor is included because of the fact that, as far as possible, the 1990 WIRSsample was excluded from the 1997-8 WERS cross-section sample to avoid overlap withthe panel sample.
The overall probability of selection for an establishment can be written as:
( )p selection) = p(selection from IDBR once 1990 WIRS records excluded)
1 - p(record excluded from IDBR)
(
×
where the first term is determined by the first two factors listed above. To calculate thisprobability with any degree of accuracy a good estimate of the term
p(record excluded from IDBR)
is needed, but in practice it proved impossible to achieve this. For its estimation theminimum data needed per 1997-8 sampled establishment was SIC and size at the time ofthe 1987 Census of Employment. Although information was collected fromestablishments on their employment size in 1990 (which would have been a reasonableproxy for employment size in 1987) this information was missing for a relatively largeproportion of 1998 cases and could not be reliably used. Consequently, attempts toestimate accurately the probability of a record being excluded from the IDBR wereabandoned. A very approximate estimate was used in its stead, namely the proportion ofIDBR records in each SIC and size band combination that were matched to the 1990sample (The numbers can be derived from Table 2A.) This approximation to theprobability will be too large for establishments that were created between 1987 and 1998,and will usually be too small for establishments that had a relatively large number ofemployees in both 1987 and 1990. The impact of using the approximation will be tointroduce a bias in the survey estimates towards new establishments and away from largeestablishments that existed both in 1987 and in 1990. However, we expect that any suchbias will be small.
In instances where the local unit on the IDBR is an ‘establishment’ (as defined by thesurvey), the probability of selection from the IDBR (after WIRS 1990 records have beenexcluded) is simply the sampling fraction given in Table 2A. Experience on previousWIRS surveys suggested however that occasions would arise where the IDBR local unitwas either found to be several establishments or was found to be a sub-section of anestablishment. These were identified and dealt with slightly differently.
(1) IDBR local unit = two or more establishments
In these instances (of which there were three), one establishment was selected at randomfrom the establishments covered by the local unit. The probability of selection for theestablishment then becomes:
p(selection of local unit)
number of establishments at the local unit
(2) IDBR local unit = sub-section of an establishment
To identify cases where the IDBR local unit represented just a sub-section of anestablishment, ONS were asked to supply a file showing details for all local units thatshared the same postcode as the sampled unit. This file was subsequently reducedfurther by excluding any local units at the same postcode that had a different IDBRreporting unit21. The remaining records were then manually checked to determinewhether there was evidence that the WERS establishment was the sampled local unit or acombination of local units at the same address. This manual checking involved checksagainst SIC and employee numbers, looking over interviewer/editing notes whereavailable, and in remaining ambiguous cases, checking either with the interviewer or withthe establishment itself. In total 76 IDBR local units were found to be sub-sections of anestablishment. In each of the 76 cases the true probability of selection was computed.22
As noted earlier, having estimated the probability of selection for each establishment, theestablishment weight was calculated as the inverse of this probability.
7.1.2 Trimming the extreme weights
In some instances the IDBR local unit was found to equate to an actual establishment butthe number of employees was found to be very different to the number recorded on theIDBR. In these instances the inverse probability weight for an establishment would bevery different to the weights applied to establishments of similar size. For example, anestablishment with 1,000 employees in SIC major group D would have an inverseprobability weight of 10 if the IDBR employee count was similar, but would have aninverse probability weight of 52 if the IDBR gave an employee count of between 100 and199. Although the use of inverse probability weights gives unbiased estimates, the effectof this potentially large variation in weights within SIC and size groups is to increase
21 All IDBR local units are attached to a reporting unit. The reporting unit is the address to which governmentinquiries are sent.22 It was subsequently discovered that, in about 15 cases, the local unit was a sub-section of an establishment butthe other local units within the establishment had a different reporting unit. These were not identified at the time aspotentially problematic cases. Consequently, the weights for these establishments do not reflect the fact that theestablishment had more than one chance of selection for the survey.
standard errors considerably. To avoid this the following formula for trimming relativelylarge or small weights was applied:
applied weight = min(inverse probability weight, 3*expected weight) if inverse probability weight > expected weight;
and
applied weight = max(inverse probability weight, expected weight/3) if inverse probability weight <= expected weight;
where the expected weight is the inverse probability weight that would have been appliedif the IDBR record matched the survey record. This trimming was not applied to anyestablishments for which the calculation of the inverse probability weight was non-standard (i.e. where the IDBR local unit was judged not to be an establishment). Noequivalent procedure had been used in the earlier WIRS surveys.
7.1.3 Scaling the weights
Finally, the establishment weights were scaled to equal the achieved sample size of 2,193,although the unscaled weights were kept so that grossed estimates for establishmentscould be derived.
7.1.4 The sample of employees
As with the establishment sample, to derive unbiased estimates about the population ofemployees based on data from the SEQ, the sample has to be weighted by the inverse ofthe probability of selection. In this instance the probability of selection for an employeeis given by:
p(selection of employee) = p(selection of establishment)
p(selection of employee within the establishment).×
The probability of selection of the employee within the establishment is given as
( )min ,25 number of employees
number of employees
The numerator in the above takes account of the fact that at establishments with 25 orfewer employees all employees were selected.
Following this, the employee weight can be calculated as
employee weight = establishment weight number of employees
number of employees)×
min( ,25
The establishment weight is the trimmed version of the inverse probability weightdescribed in Section Seven 1.1.
7.1.5 Additional weighting to adjust for non-response bias
In practice, some establishments did not agree to co-operate with the employee survey,and some employees, although they received an SEQ, failed to return it. A non-responseanalysis was undertaken, the objective being to estimate the probability of response, andto adjust the employee weight accordingly.
The probability that an employee returned an SEQ was assumed to break down asfollows:
p(employee returns SEQ) = p(establishment selected)
p(establishment agrees to take part)
p(employee sampled)
p(employee returns SEQ once sampled).
×××
The employee weight is then calculated as the inverse of this probability.
To calculate the weights, estimates were needed of:
(1) p(establishment agrees to take part); and(2) p(employee returns SEQ once sampled).
A logistic regression model, using independent variables selected from the establishmentquestionnaire23, identified industry and employee size (100 or more employees) assignificant predictors of non-response. The probability of taking part was subsequentlyestimated for size and SIC combinations using a rim weighting procedure.
The probability that an employee returns a completed SEQ was estimated by comparingnumbers of full-time and part-time workers by sex, and numbers by occupation groupfrom the returned SEQs, with the numbers that would have been expected if all hadresponded. These expected numbers were derived from the establishment employeeprofile questionnaire, completed by management before or at the outset of their interview.There are potentially some comparability problems between the establishmentquestionnaire and the SEQ, but overall it appeared that the following groups were lesslikely than average to return a completed SEQ: those in part time work (particularlymen); and those in the occupation groups: craft and skilled service; personal andprotective service; sales; operative and assembly. The probability of responding wasestimated, again using a rim weighting procedure, the marginals (or ‘rims’) being derivedfrom the aggregated establishment questionnaires.
Since weighting for non-response involves an implicit assumption that non-responderscan be ‘replaced’ by responders, it should be noted that the non-response weighting foremployees makes no attempt to replace non-responders with responders from the sameestablishment.
23 Variables tested in the model were: SIC of establishment (as reported in survey); size of establishment (asreported in survey); union recognition; public/private status, whether establishment has equal opportunities policy;percentage of staff on fixed-term contracts; percentage of staff regularly doing overtime; management representativerating of employee/management relations.
Having derived estimates of the probability of response, the inverse probability weightwas calculated in the usual way. Finally, the employee weights were scaled to the totalSEQ sample size of 28,240.
7.1.6 Identification of weights in the cross-section data sets
• Management Questionnaire (MQ), Worker Representative Questionnaire (WRQ):
Variable name: est_wt:Description: Establishment weight, scaled to 2,193 observations. This is thestandard establishment weight, compiled using the procedure described in Sections7.1.1-7.1.3. This weight must be used in all instances where what is required is anunbiased estimate of the incidence of a particular characteristic within the populationrepresented by the sample of establishments.
Variable name: grosswt:Description: Establishment weight, scaled to the estimated population of workplacesin Britain with 10 or more employees. It was derived by multiplying the unscaledversion of 'est_wt' by a scaling factor, based on information from the IDBR. It isintended to provide an estimate of the total number of GB workplaces (with 10 ormore employees) that possess a particular characteristic. Grosswt should be usedwith caution since the accuracy of estimates relies upon the accuracy of the IDBRand the similarity of the way in which workplaces are defined in the IDBR and inWERS.
Variable name: emp_wt:Description: Employee weight, reflecting the number of employees that wereemployed in surveyed establishments at the time of interview. It is derived from'est_wt' multiplied by the total number of employees in each establishment(ZALLEMPS), multiplied by a scaling factor. It provides estimates of the proportionof employees working in establishments with a particular characteristic.
• Survey of Employees Questionnaire (SEQ)
Variable name: empwt_nr:Description: Employee weight. This is the standard employee weight, compiled usingthe procedure described in Sections 7.1.4-7.1.5. This weight must be used in allinstances where what is required is an unbiased estimate of the incidence of aparticular characteristic within the population represented by the sample ofemployees.
7.2 Weighting the panel sample
7.2.1 General
The weights to be applied to the panel data were calculated as the inverse of theprobability of being selected for and agreeing to take part in the survey. This probabilitycan be broken down as follows:
P(in survey and responding) = P(being in 1990 survey) x P(selected for panel) x P(responding),
and the panel weight is then estimated as:
( )
panel weight =1
P(being in 1990 survey) P(selected for panel) P(responding)
1990 weightP(responding)
× ×
= × ×
1 1
2061
1300
1.
To estimate the probability of responding to the panel survey, a logistic regression modelwas fitted to the data using independent variables selected from the 1990 establishmentquestionnaire24.
Just two of these variables were found to be significant predictors of response: legalstatus (trading public corporation/nationalised industry) and the union-related limits onthe organisation of work. Both were associated with a greater likelihood of response tothe panel survey. The model-predicted probability of responding was used directly in thecalculation of the panel weight.
7.2.2 Identification of weights in panel dataset
There is a single weight: PWEIGHT. This is an establishment-level weight and shouldbe used for all establishment-level analyses (whether the observation comes from 1990 or1998). Weighting the sample by PWEIGHT gives data that are intended to berepresentative of all ‘continuing’ establishments. These are establishments with 25 ormore employees in WIRS industries in 1990 that were still in scope (ie still in existencewith 25 or more employees, in WIRS industries in 1998).
24 Namely: location of interview (establishment or elsewhere); region; establishment size; legal status; whetherindependent or group establishment; whether manager is specialist or non-specialist; whether a union is recognised;relative financial performance; where decisions on senior appointments are made; where decisions on unionrecognition are made; whether a member of a employer’s association; management views on union membership;whether there are any joint consultative committees of employees and managers; any workforce reductions inprevious 12 months due to lack of demand; whether opposition from union representatives limits organisation ofwork; whether lack of management expertise limits organisation of work; proportion of staff from ethnic minoritygroups; company UK or foreign owned; similarity of company and its subsidiaries; rating of management/employeerelations; industry (SIC80, 1 digit).
1301
SECTION EIGHT: OTHER ISSUES
8.1 Sampling Errors
8.1.1 Cross-section: Sample of establishments
The standard errors of a cross-section survey are affected by the sample design, particularly bythe effect of sampling weights, clustering, and stratification. As already described, the WERS1997-8 sample design for the cross-section survey is a one-stage stratified design with unequalselection probabilities per establishment. It is important to take these factors (sampling weightsand stratification) into account when calculating correct estimates of standard errors, valid p-values and confidence intervals. Ignoring the sample design (i.e. assuming simple randomsampling and taking into account only sample size and population variance) results in estimatedstandard errors that will be too small.
For WERS 1997-8, establishments were allocated to 72 strata defined by the cross-classification of SIC major groups and employee numbers, based on data from the IDBR(Section Two). Because of the unequal probabilities of selection per strata, there are 72compensatory weights at this stage. Experience on previous WIRS surveys suggested, however,that occasions would arise where the IDBR local unit was either found to be severalestablishments or was found to be a sub-section of an establishment. These cases (79 in total)were identified and weighted slightly differently. Finally, in some instances, the IDBR local unitwas found to equate to an actual establishment but the number of employees was found to bevery different to the number recorded on the IDBR. This had the effect of increasing thevariation in weights quite considerably. Therefore, relatively large and small weights weretrimmed. The details of the weighting procedures used are set out in Section Seven.
Most surveys are (like WERS) based on random sampling without replacement. Withoutreplacement sampling generally increases the precision of the estimates. If the number ofsampling points (here establishments) is large relative to the total number of units in thestratum, then this increase in precision can be substantial. For these cases (large establishmentswhere sampling fractions are high), this increase in precision can be reflected by using a ‘finitepopulation correction’ (FPC) term in the variance estimator. Since FPC (and sometimesstratification if the stratifiers are correlated with what the survey is trying to measure) makessampling errors smaller, ignoring it is usually conservative. However, in order to get thesmallest possible ‘correct’ sampling error estimates, FPC should be used25.
Tables 8A and 8B show the estimated complex standard errors (using STATA26) associatedwith a number of estimates based on the management data. These estimates are mainlyproportions, but also include some means and some sub-group proportions (cross-tabulations).The associated design factor (DEFT) is also presented. This is defined as the ratio of thecomplex design-based standard error to the standard error we would have obtained if we hadcarried out a similar survey using simple random sample of the same size (SRS -also given inTable 8A). The DEFT is a measure of how the survey design affects variance (standard error)estimates. A DEFT of 1 indicates that the standard error for the complex design is no differentfrom the error from SRS. A DEFT greater than 1 shows the degree to which estimates from thesample with a complex design are less precise. For example, a DEFT of 1.3 means that that thecomplex design-based standard error is 30% higher than the standard error from SRS.
25 STATA, the software used to calculate standard errors, can only calculate FPC if the sampling fraction within strata isconstant. Therefore, this was assumed for the purpose of calculating sampling errors, even though this was not strictly truefor the strata containing the 79 establishments which were found to be several establishments or sub-section of anestablishment. However, the effect of this on the sampling error is negligible as the FPC was found to correct the samplingerror estimates only marginally.26 STATA version 6.0 (1985-1999) User’s Guide, Stata Press, College Station, Texas.
As can be seen from Tables 8A and 8B, the stratification and disproportionate samplingfractions have generally led to the standard errors being greater than would have been the case ifsimple random sampling had been used. In fact, the average DEFT from Table 8A is around1.527. In other words, the sample design has had the effect of increasing the standard errors ofsurvey estimates by about 50%28 on average. Using this average design factor, it is possible topresent a look-up table (Table 8C), which gives the standard errors for various percentages andsample sizes. So, an estimate of a 95% confidence interval would be plus or minus twice thestandard error presented in Table 8C. For example, an estimate that around 60% ofestablishments have a certain characteristic, based on a sub-sample size of around 750, wouldhave an associated standard error of around 2.68 percentage points, so a 95% confidenceinterval would be 60% plus or minus 5.36, i.e. 54.6% to 65.4%.
Users of the WERS 1997-8 data might find table 8C a useful “rule-of-thumb” guide to theprecision of survey estimates. However, the wide range of standard errors shown in Tables 8Aand 8B should also be noted. Using an “average” design effect is clearly a simplification whichcould lead to severe distortions for some variables. Where possible, the reader is advised toperuse Tables 8A and 8B and identify variables which are similar to the particular estimate ofinterest. If the design factors for these “similar” variables appear to average around 1.5, thenthe figure from Table 8C should give a reasonable estimate of the standard error. Otherwise, asuitable adjustment should be made based on design factors from Table 8A. For example, itcan be seen from Tables 8A and 8B that estimates of quantities highly correlated with eithernumber of employees or SIC are likely to have standard errors that are smaller than that impliedby Table 8C.
27 We assume for simplicity that the average design factor calculated using the whole management data is the same as forany sub-sample. In practice this may not be true as the design factor can be either the same or smaller (if the sub-sample isnot spread in the same way across the strata as in the whole sample).28 Note that for the past 3 surveys it was estimated that the sample design would increase the sampling errors by about 25%(DEFT=1.25). The increase of the sampling errors for WERS 1997-8 is partly due to the differences in the sample design(mainly the use of two stratifiers, namely workplace size and SIC92 group) which resulted in more complex stratificationand more variable sampling weights, and partly due to the fact that the estimate for the WIRS 90 design factor was basedon DEFTs of 9 variables based on social class and union membership (compared with more than 170 variables in theWERS 1997-8).
TABLE 8A: COMPLEX ST ANDARD ERRORS FOR SURVEY ESTIMATES
N WERS Design SRSVARIABLE (unweighted) Estimate S.E S.E. DEFT
Workplace size (NEMPSIZ1)25 to 49 employees 396 52.44% 1.20% 1.14% 1.0550 to 99 employees 393 25.00% 0.78% 0.99% 0.79
100 to 199 employees 387 12.24% 0.40% 0.75%0.53200 to 499 employees 456 7.68% 0.25% 0.61%0.42
500 or more employees 297 2.64% 0.09% 0.36%0.26
Organisation size (NORGSIZE)Less than 100 employees 220 29.58% 1.97% 1.07%1.84
100 to less than 1000 employees 382 17.24% 1.23% 0.89%1.381000 to less than 10000 employees 582 25.90% 1.75% 1.03%1.70
10000 employees or more 631 27.29% 1.66% 1.05%1.58
Sector (NPRIVATE)Private 1317 71.83% 1.33% 1.02% 1.30Public 612 28.17% 1.33% 1.02% 1.30
Organisational status (NSINGLE)Stand-alone workplace 365 26.89% 1.80% 1.01%1.78
Part of a wider organisation 1564 73.11% 1.80% 1.01%1.78
Industry (NSICODE)Manufacturing 286 17.84% 1.07% 0.87% 1.23
Electricity, gas and water 79 0.40% 0.03% 0.14% 0.23Construction 96 3.68% 0.48% 0.43% 1.12
Wholesale and retail 282 17.66% 1.10% 0.87% 1.27Hotels and restaurants 97 5.91% 0.46% 0.54%0.87
Transport and communications 127 5.28% 0.54% 0.51%1.06Financial services 91 3.37% 0.21% 0.41% 0.52
Other business services 184 9.07% 0.75% 0.65%1.14Public administration 173 5.74% 0.27% 0.53% 0.50
Education 214 14.33% 0.80% 0.80% 1.01Health 213 12.77% 0.85% 0.76% 1.12
Other community services 87 3.94% 0.37% 0.44% 0.83
Occupation (NHIOCC)Professional 307 15.08% 0.98% 0.82% 1.20
Associate professional and technical 178 6.81% 0.92% 0.58%1.58Clerical and secretarial 302 14.47% 1.50% 0.81%1.86Craft and skilled service 205 11.92% 1.38% 0.74% 1.86
Personal and protective service 181 13.78% 1.30% 0.79%1.64Sales 203 11.92% 1.20% 0.74% 1.61
Operative and assembly 294 15.15% 1.26% 0.82%1.53Routine unskilled manual 222 10.87% 1.08% 0.72% 1.51
Proportion of part-time workers (NPTPROP)No part-time employees 226 15.76% 1.60% 0.83%1.92
10% or less 666 26.49% 1.62% 1.01% 1.61More than 10% to 25% 297 14.37% 1.16% 0.80% 1.45More than 25% to 50% 307 17.02% 1.28% 0.86% 1.50More than 50% to 75% 290 17.89% 1.48% 0.88% 1.69
More than 75% 128 8.47% 1.20% 0.64% 1.88
TABLE 8A: COMPLEX ST ANDARD ERRORS FOR SURVEY ESTIMATES - CONTINUED
N WERS Design SRSVARIABLE (unweighted) Estimate S.E S.E. DEFT
Proportion of part time workers (cont.)(NPRTPROP)
1914 0.28 0.011 0.006 1.65
Proportion of women employed (NFPROP)10% or less 232 11.19% 1.25% 0.72% 1.74
More than 10% to 25% 290 16.15% 1.53% 0.84% 1.81More than 25% to 50% 413 20.16% 1.60% 0.92% 1.75More than 50% to 75% 582 24.22% 1.35% 0.98% 1.37More than 75% to 90% 265 15.22% 1.34% 0.82% 1.63
More than 90% 132 13.05% 1.40% 0.77% 1.81
Proportion of women employed (cont.)(NFEMPROP)
1914 0.51 0.011 0.007 1.56
Union density (NDENS)No union members 597 46.16% 1.78% 1.14% 1.57
1% to less than 25% 306 14.00% 1.29% 0.79%1.6325% to less than 50% 260 10.81% 1.22% 0.71%1.7350% to less than 90% 530 20.54% 1.30% 0.92%1.4190% to less than 100% 130 4.62% 0.54% 0.48%1.12100% union members 30 1.76% 0.37% 0.30% 1.25
Members present 76 2.11% 0.34% 0.33% 1.03
Union density (cont.) (NDENSITY) 1853 26.612 1.037 0.756 1.37
Rate of dismissals (NPROPDIS) 1843 1.523 0.156 0.073 2.14
Rate of IT claims (NITRATE) 1897 1.722 0.231 0.134 1.72
Industrial action during the last 12 months(NSTRIKE)
Yes 82 1.90% 0.29% 0.31% 0.92No 1846 98.10% 0.29% 0.31% 0.92
Union recognition (NRECOG)No union present 597 46.80% 1.79% 1.15% 1.56
Unions present no recognition 161 8.33% 0.98% 0.64%1.55Recognised unions 1131 44.88% 1.70% 1.14%1.48
Proportion of employees from a non-white ethnicgroup (NETHNICB)
None 657 52.12% 1.95% 1.16% 1.681% to less than 5% 773 27.76% 1.64% 1.04% 1.585% to less than 10% 171 8.30% 1.10% 0.64% 1.7210% to less than 25% 159 6.19% 0.70% 0.56%1.25
More than 25% 104 5.62% 1.12% 0.53% 2.10
Proportion of employees from a non-white ethnicgroup (cont.) (NETHNIC)
1864 4.67 0.50 0.25 2.03
TABLE 8A: COMPLEX ST ANDARD ERRORS FOR SURVEY ESTIMATES - CONTINUED
N WERS Design SRSVARIABLE (unweighted) Estimate S.E S.E. DEFT
Occupation with the most employeesProfessional 307 15.08% 0.98% 0.82% 1.20
Associate professional and technical 178 6.81% 0.92% 0.58%1.58Clerical and secretarial 302 14.47% 1.50% 0.81%1.86Craft and skilled service 205 11.92% 1.38% 0.74% 1.86
Personal and protective service 181 13.78% 1.30% 0.79%1.64Sales 203 11.92% 1.20% 0.74% 1.61
Operative and assembly 294 15.15% 1.26% 0.82%1.53Routine unskilled manual 222 10.87% 1.08% 0.72% 1.51
Proportion of all employees earning less than 350pper hour (NLPAYB)
No low pay 1250 65.21% 1.79% 1.10% 1.62Less than 10% 373 17.67% 1.41% 0.88% 1.59
10% to less than 25% 118 7.88% 0.96% 0.62%1.5425% to less than 50% 47 2.88% 0.50% 0.39% 1.2950% to less than 100% 76 6.36% 1.00% 0.57%1.77
Age of workplace at present and any previousaddress (NAGE)Less than 5 years 173 9.31% 1.34% 0.67%2.00
5 to 9 years 196 12.77% 1.37% 0.77% 1.7810 to 24 years 617 33.59% 1.81% 1.09% 1.66
25 or more years 886 44.33% 1.93% 1.15% 1.68
Age of workplace at present and any previousaddress (cont.) (NAGE1)
1872 33.55 1.92 1.00 1.92
UK or foreign ownership (NCONTROL)
Wholly UK owned 995 80.58% 2.02% 1.09% 1.85Partly foreign owned 98 6.36% 1.54% 0.67% 2.29
Predominantly or wholly foreign owned 215 13.07% 1.53% 0.93%1.64
Establishment has IiP status (NIIP)Yes 620 32.11% 1.87% 1.08% 1.74No 1260 67.89% 1.87% 1.08% 1.74
Use of atypical workers (NATYPIC)Contractors and others 1317 59.46% 1.90% 1.12%1.70
Others only 89 4.34% 0.80% 0.47% 1.72Contractors only 444 30.79% 1.79% 1.06% 1.70
None used 64 5.41% 0.96% 0.52% 1.85
Is this establishment accredited as an Investor inPeople? (BEWARD)
Yes 620 32.11% 1.87% 1.08% 1.74No 1260 67.89% 1.87% 1.08% 1.74
What proportion of experienced LOGs have hadformal off-… (COFFJOB)
All (100%) 300 17.07% 1.40% 0.86% 1.62Almost all (80-99%) 250 10.49% 0.94% 0.70% 1.33
Most (60-79%) 237 8.81% 0.96% 0.65% 1.47Around half (40-59%) 219 8.30% 0.94% 0.63% 1.49
Some (20-39%) 330 15.81% 1.40% 0.84% 1.67Just a few (1-19%) 354 22.14% 1.88% 0.95% 1.97
None (0%) 205 17.37% 1.63% 0.87% 1.87
TABLE 8A: COMPLEX ST ANDARD ERRORS FOR SURVEY ESTIMATE - CONTINUED
N WERS Design SRSVARIABLE (unweighted) Estimate S.E S.E. DEFT
On average, how much time did these experiencedLOGs spend … (CTRAIN)
No time 11 0.60% 0.26% 0.19% 1.34Less than one day 136 7.49% 0.88% 0.65%1.36
1 to less than 2 days 466 28.70% 2.04% 1.11%1.832 to less than 5 days 634 36.37% 2.01% 1.18%1.705 to less than 10 days 260 15.92% 1.68% 0.90%1.87
10 days or more 152 10.93% 1.41% 0.77% 1.84
What proportion, if any, of LOGs work in formallydesignated... (CTEAMS)
All (100%) 717 39.08% 1.90% 1.11% 1.71Almost all (80-99%) 413 16.37% 1.34% 0.84% 1.59
Most (60-79%) 234 9.47% 1.11% 0.67% 1.67Around half (40-59%) 96 5.31% 1.01% 0.51% 1.98
Some (20-39%) 148 6.83% 0.91% 0.58% 1.58Just a few (1-19%) 104 5.83% 0.87% 0.53% 1.63
None (0%) 210 17.11% 1.60% 0.86% 1.87
System of briefings for any section or sections ofthe… (DBRIEF)
Yes 1744 85.81% 1.59% 0.79% 2.01No 183 14.19% 1.59% 0.79% 2.01
Any committees of managers and employeesprimarily… (DJOINT)
Yes 963 33.87% 1.74% 1.08% 1.61No 963 66.13% 1.74% 1.08% 1.61
Any consultative committee in your organisationthat operate… (DHIGHLEV)
0 567 35.47% 1.91% 1.10% 1.74Yes 786 36.11% 1.81% 1.10% 1.64No 540 28.41% 1.76% 1.04% 1.69
Do you have groups that solve specific problems…(DCIRCLES)
Yes 968 41.79% 1.90% 1.12% 1.69No 957 58.21% 1.90% 1.12% 1.69
Any employees who are a member of a trade union(EANYEMP)
Yes 1332 53.84% 1.78% 1.14% 1.57No 597 46.16% 1.78% 1.14% 1.57
Do the members of the recognised unions have anyrepresentat… (ESTEWARD)
0 798 55.95% 1.68% 1.13% 1.48Yes 932 31.72% 1.58% 1.06% 1.49No 192 12.33% 1.13% 0.75% 1.51
TABLE 8A: COMPLEX ST ANDARD ERRORS FOR SURVEY ESTIMATE - CONTINUED
N WERS Design SRS
VARIABLE (unweighted) Estimate S.E S.E. DEFTDo any employees receive payments or dividends
from… (FVARPAY1)Profit-related payments or bonuses 725 33.11% 1.78% 1.07%1.66
Deferred profit-sharing scheme 36 1.28% 0.33% 0.26%1.30Employee share ownership schemes 95 3.06% 0.44% 0.39%1.13
Individual or group performance-related 220 6.95% 0.66% 0.58%1.15Other cash bonus 175 12.16% 1.55% 0.74%2.08
None of these 675 43.45% 1.70% 1.13% 1.51
What proportion of non-managerial employees havetheir … (FMEASPR)
All (100%) 978 64.34% 1.94% 1.23% 1.58Almost all (80-99%) 124 7.45% 0.93% 0.67% 1.38
Most (60-79%) 89 4.39% 0.68% 0.52% 1.29Around half (40-59%) 85 6.02% 0.81% 0.61% 1.33
Some (20-39%) 103 6.14% 1.12% 0.61% 1.82Just a few (1-19%) 146 11.67% 1.61% 0.82% 1.95
What types of issues are covered by the procedures(GISSUES1)
Pay and conditions 1022 83.43% 1.52% 1.06% 1.44Redundancy 92 6.66% 0.95% 0.71% 1.34
Organisation of work 102 9.16% 1.18% 0.82% 1.43Health and Safety 13 0.73% 0.25% 0.24% 1.02
Other specific answer, not codeable to 1-4 1 0.03% 0.02% 0.05%0.51
Is there a formal procedure for dealing withindividual… (HPROCEDU)
Yes 1844 91.49% 1.36% 0.64% 2.14No 83 8.51% 1.36% 0.64% 2.14
Is there a formal procedure for dealing withdiscipline… (HOTHPRO)
Yes 1867 92.25% 1.54% 0.61% 2.53No 61 7.75% 1.54% 0.61% 2.53
Does this workplace have a formal written policy onequal… (IPOLICY)
Yes 1593 70.83% 1.92% 1.04% 1.86No 332 29.17% 1.92% 1.04% 1.86
Are non-managerial employees entitled to any ofthe following (IFAMILY1)
Parental leave 828 34.24% 1.78% 1.08% 1.64Working at or from home in normal working hours 138 5.77% 0.70% 0.53%1.31
Term-time only contracts 124 7.93% 1.14% 0.62% 1.85Switching from full-time to part-time employment 324 17.71% 1.51% 0.87%1.73
Job sharing schemes 40 1.89% 0.39% 0.31%1.26Workplace nursery or nursery linked with workplace 5 0.20% 0.13% 0.10%1.29
Financial help/subsidy to parents for child care 8 0.20% 0.10% 0.10%0.96None of these 449 32.06% 1.85% 1.07% 1.74
Has there been any reductions in the number ofemployees in… (JREDUCT)
Yes 827 32.67% 1.71% 1.07% 1.60No 1099 67.33% 1.71% 1.07% 1.60
TABLE 8A: COMPLEX ST ANDARD ERRORS FOR SURVEY ESTIMATES – CONTINUED
N WERS Design SRSVARIABLE (unweighted) Estimate S.E S.E. DEFT
Over the past five years, has this establishmentbenchmarked … (KBNCHMA)
Yes 1059 47.77% 1.96% 1.14% 1.71No 849 52.23% 1.96% 1.14% 1.71
How would you rate the relationship betweenmanagement and … (MRELATE)
Very good 584 39.19% 1.95% 1.11% 1.75Good 1097 50.93% 1.96% 1.14% 1.72
Neither good nor bad 220 8.02% 0.76% 0.62% 1.23Poor 24 1.82% 0.85% 0.30% 2.79
Very poor 2 0.05% 0.04% 0.05% 0.79
TABLE 8B: COMPLEX ST ANDARD ERRORS FOR SURVEY ESTIMATES:CROSS-TABULATIONS
Sector (NPRIVATE) – Row %
Industry (NSICODE) Private S.E DEFT Public S.E DEFTManufacturing 99.13% 0.61% 1.11 0.87% 0.61% 1.11
Electricity, gas and water 84.71% 7.90% 1.95 15.29% 7.90% 1.95Construction 87.91% 2.94% 0.88 12.09% 2.94% 0.88
Wholesale and retail 99.71% 0.17% 0.53 0.29% 0.17% 0.53Hotels and restaurants 96.05% 2.33% 1.18 3.95% 2.33% 1.18
Transport and communications 78.41% 4.91% 1.34 21.59% 4.91% 1.34Financial services 100.00%
Other business services 86.61% 6.24% 2.49 13.39% 6.24% 2.49Public administration 100.00%
Education 12.72% 2.74% 1.20 87.28% 2.74% 1.20Health 57.23% 5.51% 1.63 42.77% 5.51% 1.63
Other community services 70.67% 6.34% 1.30 29.33% 6.34% 1.30Total 71.83% 1.33% 1.30 28.17% 1.33% 1.30
Union Density (NDENSITY)
Workplace size (NEMPSIZ1) Mean WERS SRS DEFTS.E S.E
25 to 49 employees 23.11 1.69 1.01 1.6950 to 99 employees 26.55 1.61 1.56 1.04
100 to 199 employees 31.89 1.64 2.20 0.75200 to 499 employees 37.73 1.59 2.74 0.58
500 or more employees 42.21 1.82 4.48 0.41
Proportion of women employed (NFEMPROP)
Occupation (NHIOCC) Mean WERS SRS DEFTS.E S.E
Professional 68.37% 1.56% 1.23% 1.27Associate professional and technical 34.47% 2.27% 1.97% 1.15
Clerical and secretarial 56.07% 2.72% 1.20% 2.27Craft and skilled service 23.89% 2.49% 1.60% 1.56
Personal and protective service 76.14% 2.15% 1.60% 1.35Sales 61.35% 3.07% 1.45% 2.11
Operative and assembly 27.15% 1.75% 1.22% 1.44Routine unskilled manual 51.83% 3.58% 2.12% 1.69
TABLE 8B: COMPLEX ST ANDARD ERRORS FOR SURVEY ESTIMATES:CROSS-TABULATIONS - CONTINUED
Union recognition (NRECOG) - Row %
Workplace size (NEMPSIZ1) No unions DEFT No recognised DEFT Recognised DEFT25 to 49 employees 54.17% 1.18 6.55% 1.25 39.28% 1.16
S.E. 2.97% 1.56% 2.85%50 to 99 employees 47.95% 1.06 11.43% 1.18 40.62% 0.99
S.E. 2.70% 1.91% 2.47%100 to 199 employees 34.09% 1.06 8.91% 1.15 57.00% 1.03
S.E. 2.59% 1.69% 2.62%200 to 499 employees 22.96% 1.08 9.79% 1.06 67.25% 1.04
S.E. 2.17% 1.50% 2.33%500 or more employees 14.22% 0.87 7.91% 1.15 77.87% 0.96
S.E. 1.78% 1.82% 2.34%Total 46.80% 1.56 8.33% 1.54 44.88% 1.49
1.79% 0.98% 1.70%
Organisational status Row %
Industry (NSICODE) Stand-alone organisation DEFT Part of wider organisation DEFTManufacturing 40.07% 1.85 59.93% 1.85
S.E. 5.36% 5.36%Electricity, gas and water 2.26% 1.05 97.74% 1.05
S.E. 1.76% 1.76%Construction 59.82% 1.43 40.18% 1.43
S.E. 7.16% 7.16%Wholesale and retail 14.38% 1.89 85.62% 1.89
S.E. 3.95% 3.95%Hotels and restaurants 24.74% 1.25 75.26% 1.25
S.E. 5.49% 5.49%Transport and communications 11.08% 1.59 88.92% 1.59
S.E. 4.44% 4.44%Financial services 14.34% 1.59 85.66% 1.59
S.E. 5.86% 5.86%Other business services 43.15% 1.78 56.85% 1.78
S.E. 6.50% 6.50%Public administration 3.46% 1.07 96.54% 1.07
S.E. 1.49% 1.49%Education 15.17% 1.10 84.83% 1.10
S.E. 2.70% 2.70%Health 34.97% 1.82 65.03% 1.82
S.E. 5.95% 5.95%Other community services 43.37% 1.61 56.63% 1.61
8.56% 8.56%Total 26.89% 1.78 73.11% 1.78
1.80% 1.80%
SECTION EIGHT: OTHER ISSUES
TABLE 8C: APPROXIMATE STANDARD ERRORS FOR VARIOUS PERCENTAGESAND SAM PLE SIZ ES FOR THE MANA GEMENT DATA
Sample size% 100 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 200010 4.50 2.85 2.01 1.64 1.42 1.27 1.16 1.08 1.0120 6.00 3.79 2.68 2.19 1.90 1.70 1.55 1.43 1.3430 6.87 4.35 3.07 2.51 2.17 1.94 1.77 1.64 1.5440 7.35 4.65 3.29 2.68 2.32 2.08 1.90 1.76 1.6450 7.50 4.74 3.35 2.74 2.37 2.12 1.94 1.79 1.6860 7.35 4.65 3.29 2.68 2.32 2.08 1.90 1.76 1.6470 6.87 4.35 3.07 2.51 2.17 1.94 1.77 1.64 1.5480 6.00 3.79 2.68 2.19 1.90 1.70 1.55 1.43 1.3490 4.50 2.85 2.01 1.64 1.42 1.27 1.16 1.08 1.01
8.1.2 Cross-section: Sample of employees
We have not presented here any explicit estimates of standard errors for survey estimates basedon the employee data. In general, the design factors associated with estimates for employees arelikely to be slightly greater than those for establishments, owing to the clustering of employeeswithin establishments. This is, of course, counter-balanced by the much larger sample size ofemployees than of establishments. Table 8D presents some guidance to the likely size ofstandard errors for estimates based on the employee data. These figures are based on anassumption of an average design factor of 1.7. While we believe that this provides a useful“ rule-of-thumb” guide, where the accurate calculation of precision is important, there is ofcourse no substitute for the direct estimation of the actual standard error in question.
TABLE 8D: APPROXIMATE STANDARD ERRORS FOR VARIOUS PERCENTAGESAND SAM PLE SIZ ES FOR THE EMPLOYEE DATA
Sample size% 500 1000 2000 5000 10000 15000 20000 30000 4000010 2.28 1.61 1.14 0.72 0.51 0.42 0.36 0.29 0.2620 3.04 2.15 1.52 0.96 0.68 0.56 0.48 0.39 0.3430 3.48 2.46 1.74 1.10 0.78 0.64 0.55 0.45 0.3940 3.72 2.63 1.86 1.18 0.83 0.68 0.59 0.48 0.4250 3.80 2.69 1.90 1.20 0.85 0.69 0.60 0.49 0.4360 3.72 2.63 1.86 1.18 0.83 0.68 0.59 0.48 0.4270 3.48 2.46 1.74 1.10 0.78 0.64 0.55 0.45 0.3980 3.04 2.15 1.52 0.96 0.68 0.56 0.48 0.39 0.3490 2.28 1.61 1.14 0.72 0.51 0.42 0.36 0.29 0.26
8.1.3 Panel Survey: General
The sample design for the WERS 1990-1998 panel survey of establishments is a one-stagestratified random design, drawn from the 2,061 productive interviews from the 1990 WorkplaceIndustrial Relations Survey (WIRS 1990). The number of employees per establishment at thetime of the 1990 interview (grouped in 7 groups) was used as the stratification variable and a63% random (i.e. equal probabili ty) sample was selected within each stratification group. Thisresulted in a sample of 1,301 establishments, of which 882 were handed over by the NationalCentre in October 1998 as productive interviews. Subsequent deletions by the funding researchteams reduced this number by 36 (see Section Eight: 8.2). The sampling errors were calculatedafter these further deletions and therefore are based on the reduced sample size of 846 cases.The sampling weights applied to the 1998 panel were the product of the 1990 cross section
SECTION EIGHT: OTHER ISSUES
weights, the inverse of the sampling fraction used (2,061/1,301) and a non-response weight tocorrect for non-response bias. The sample design and weighting for the panel survey areoutlined in Sections Two and Seven of this report. The above aspects of the sample design(stratification and sampling weights), should be taken into account when calculating estimatesof standard errors. A 'finite population correction' (FPC) term was also used in the varianceestimator to obtain greater precision (see Section Eight: 8.1).
8.1.4 Panel Survey: Sampling errors of point estimates from the 1998 survey
Here we report on the standard errors associated with point estimates (proportions) from the1998 (and 1990) observation of the 1990-98 panel survey data set (establishments interviewedon both occasions).
Tables 8E and 8F show the estimated complex (WERS) standard errors associated with anumber of estimates based on the 1998 panel data. These estimates are proportions and sub-group proportions (cross-tabulations) and cover a range of classification and headline variables.The design factor (DEFT), which is a measure of how survey design affects the standard errorsof survey estimates (see section 8.1 of this report) is also presented. Using these DEFTs, it isestimated that the average DEFT for the 1998 panel observation is around 1.5. In other words,the sample design has had the effect of increasing the standard errors of survey estimates byabout 50% on average29. As already mentioned in section 8.1, using an 'average' design factor isa crude approximation, which could lead to severe distortions for some variables. This isbecause the DEFT varies a lot between variables. The reader is advised where possible toinstead use Tables 8E and 8F in order to estimate the correct DEFT for a particular variable orfind variables which are similar (i.e. highly correlated) to the particular estimate of interest.
Using this average design factor, it is possible to present a look-up table (8G), which gives thestandard error for various percentages and sample sizes. An estimate of a 95% confidenceinterval would be plus or minus twice the standard error presented in Table 8G. For example,an estimate that around 70% of establishments have a certain characteristic, based on the 1998panel of establishments (846 cases), would have an associated standard error of around 2.36percentage points. We could therefore be 95% confident that, in the population represented bythe panel data, the true incidence of the characteristic would lie within the interval 70% plus orminus 4.63%, i.e. 65.37% to 74.63%.
Since the 1990-98 panel survey dataset consists of paired observations (each establishment hasbeen interviewed in both 1990 and 1998), the 1990 observation is subject to the same designissues as the 1998 observation (i.e. same weighting and stratification mechanism). The DEFTor an individual estimate arising from the 1990 observation will only differ from the DEFT forthe equivalent estimate arising from the 1998 observation if the two variables are differentlycorrelated with the sampling stratifier or weight. As long as the correlations between the 1990variables and their 1998 equivalents are high, the DEFTs for the 1990 variables will be verysimilar to those presented in Tables 8E and 8F.
Investigation showed that these correlations were generally high. The average design factor forthe 1990 observation can therefore be taken to be the same as for the 1998 observation, i.e. 1.5.
29 In theory, because the 1990-1998 panel design was very similar to the 1990 cross-section, the DEFT for the 1990-1998panel should just be the product of the 1990 cross-section DEFT and an additional DEFT due to non-response in 1998 andthe subsequent weighting. However (see section 8.1), the estimated DEFT of 1.25 for the 1990 cross-section was based ononly 9 variables (compared with around 80 variables in the 1990-1998 panel), and thus the 1990 DEFT may have beenunderestimated. Therefore, the apparent difference in design factors between the 1990 cross-section and the 1990-1998panel may partly be due to the choice of a different set of variables for DEFT estimation. We have already noted that thedesign effect varies a lot between variables and thus, to estimate the true difference in DEFTs between the cross-sectionand the panel one should estimate the correct DEFT for the variables (or similar variables) of interest using the presentedtables.
SECTION EIGHT: OTHER ISSUES
Hence, Table 8G can also be used as a look-up table to provide approximate standard errors forvarious percentages from the 1990 observation of the panel survey. However, as we have notedearlier in this section, the DEFT can vary substantially between variables. In order to estimatethe correct DEFT for a particular variable from the 1990 observation, the reader is thereforeadvised to identify a variable in Tables 8E and 8F that is highly correlated with the 1990estimate in question. In most cases, this will be its 1998 equivalent.
8.1.5 Panel Survey: Sampling errors of differences between point estimates (1998) andpoint estimates (1990)
Because the 1990 and 1998 panel observations are correlated (paired) rather than independentsamples (i.e. the data comes from the same set of sampled establishments), the calculation ofthe standard error for the difference between two given percentages from the two surveys musttake this factor into account. For example, consider the standard error of the difference betweenthe percentage of establishments that had 25-49 employees in 1990 (47.3%) and the percentageof cases that had 25-49 employees in 1998 (42.6%), i.e. a percentage difference of 4.7%. Incalculating this standard error we need to know the proportion of cases that fall into thefollowing types of pairs:
1990 panel 1998 panel Proport ion25-49 employees 25-49 employees P11
25-49 employees More than 50 employees P12
More than 50 employees 25-49 employees P21
More than 50 employees More than 50 employees P22
The formula for the standard error of the difference between two paired groups (for example,establishments that had 25-49 employees in 1990 and 1998) is:
deft*1n
)pp(ppse
221122112
−−−+
=
If p1 is the proportion of cases with 25-49 employees in 1990 (p1=0.473) and p2 the proportionof cases with 25-49 establishments in 1998 (p2=0.426), then:
P1 = P12 + P11 , andP2 = P21 + P11
Therefore the above formula for the standard error becomes:
deft*1n
)pp(p*2ppse
2211121
−−−−+
=
This means that in order to calculate the standard error of the difference between two (paired)percentages, apart from the percentages themselves, the sample size30, and the design factor, wealso need to know the percentage of cases that did not change over time (P11). Or, in otherwords, the percentage of cases that had the same characteristic in both years. For example, weneed to know the percentage of establishments that had 25-49 employees both in 1990 and in1998.
Table 8H shows the estimated design factors (DEFTs) associated with a number of differencesbetween point estimates from the 1990 and 1998 panel observation. These estimates are
30 Missing cases in either 1990 or 1998 panel observation are excluded.
SECTION EIGHT: OTHER ISSUES
percentages covering a range of classification and headline variables. Apart from the complex(WERS) standard error, the standard error under simple random sampling and the DEFT, thepercentage difference31 between 1990 and 1998 and the percentage of cases that did not changeover time (P11) are also given, for reference. For example, the DEFT associated with the 4.7%difference in the percentage of establishments with 25-49 employees between 1990 and 1998(where 36.3% of establishments had 25-49 employees in both years) is 1.55. Using the DEFTsfrom Table 8H, it is estimated that the average DEFT for differences between estimates fromthe 1990 panel observation and the 1998 panel observation is around 1.5.
Using this average design factor, it is possible to present a look-up table (Table 8I), which givesthe standard error of the difference between various percentages from the 1990 and 1998 panelobservation. For simplicity, a sample size of 846 is assumed throughout. As stated above, apartfrom the 1990 and 1998 point estimates, we also need to know the percentage of cases (roundedto the nearest multiple of 5) that did not change over time, and subtract this percentage from the1990 and 1998 percentage respectively. For example, suppose that in 1990 50% percent ofestablishments had a certain characteristic, and that in 1998 this percentage had gone down to30%. Also suppose that 15% of establishments had this characteristic in both years. Then thestandard error associated with the difference of 20% (=50%-30%) can be found in Table 8I asthe cell corresponding to row (or column) "35%" (=50%-15%), and column (or row) "15%"(=30%-15%). This gives a standard error of 3.50. A 95% confidence interval associated withthe difference between 50% in 1990 and 30% in 1998, when 15% stayed the same over timewould be 20% plus or minus 6.86%, i.e. 13.14% to 26.86%.
31 A positive difference means that the characteristic of interest was more prevalent in the 1990 panel observation and viceversa.
SECTION EIGHT: OTHER ISSUES
TABLE 8E: COMPLEX STANDARD ERRORS FOR 1990-1998 PANEL ESTI MATES32
WERS SRS33
N34 Estimate S.E S.E. DEFT
Workplace size (YAALLEM5)25 to 49 employees 112 42.64% 2.40% 1.70% 1.4150 to 99 employees 156 29.54% 2.35% 1.57% 1.50
100 to 199 employees 144 14.58% 1.32% 1.21% 1.09200 to 499 employees 205 10.51% 1.00% 1.05% 0.95
500 or more employees 229 2.73% 0.38% 0.56% 0.68
Industry (YBSIC80B)Energy and water supply industries 20 0.58% 0.24% 0.26% 0.91
Extraction of minerals/ores; manufacturing of metals,minerals & chems
47 4.20% 1.03% 0.69% 1.49
Metal goods, engineering & vehicles industries 124 6.52% 1.08% 0.85% 1.28Other manufacturing industries 87 6.94% 1.19% 0.87% 1.36
Construction 24 3.83% 1.01% 0.66% 1.54Distribution, hotels & catering, repairs 134 19.88% 2.17% 1.37% 1.58
Transport and communications 64 6.93% 1.38% 0.87% 1.58Banking, finance, insurance, bus services & leasing 71 9.16% 1.64% 0.99% 1.65
Other services 275 41.96% 2.83% 1.70% 1.67
Industry and ownership (YBINDOWN)Private manufacturing 256 17.59% 1.80% 1.31% 1.37
Private services 324 46.06% 2.80% 1.71% 1.64Public sector 266 36.34% 2.78% 1.65% 1.68
Whether single independent establishment or par t oflarger organisation(YBSINGLE)Single independent establishment 120 19.68% 2.30% 1.38% 1.66
Part of larger organisation 707 78.32% 2.35% 1.43% 1.64Sole UK establishment of a foreign organ 19 2.01% 0.66% 0.48% 1.38
Whether single independent establishment, branch oflarger organisation or… (YBSING2)
Single independent 120 19.69% 2.30% 1.37% 1.68Branch establishment 620 73.33% 2.51% 1.52% 1.65
Head off ice 104 6.98% 1.34% 0.88% 1.53
Whether UK or f oreign-owned (YBUKFO2)UK owned/controlled 450 84.82% 2.22% 1.50% 1.48
Foreign owned/controlled 126 15.18% 2.22% 1.50% 1.48
Percentage of employees that are female (YAFPC3B)0-24% 280 29.47% 2.50% 1.58% 1.5825-74% 402 43.29% 2.69% 1.71% 1.57
75% or more 154 27.24% 2.70% 1.54% 1.75
Percentage of employees that work part-ti me(YAPTPC3B)
None 104 10.78% 1.73% 1.07% 1.621-24% 490 49.64% 2.77% 1.73% 1.60
25% or more 243 39.58% 2.83% 1.69% 1.67
32 Even though we have presented survey estimates of percentages to 2 decimal places in order to aid understanding of thedesign effect calculations, we would not recommend that survey estimates should be presented to that accuracy.33 Standard error under simple random sampling34 Unweighted sample size
SECTION EIGHT: OTHER ISSUES
TABLE 8E: COMPLEX STANDARD ERRORS FOR 1990-1998PANEL ESTI MATES – CONTI NUED
WERS SRSN Estimate S.E S.E. DEFT
Whether respondent is a personnel specialist(YCSPEC)
Yes 419 20.11% 1.75% 1.44% 1.22No 359 79.89% 1.75% 1.44% 1.22
Whether a member of an employers' association(YDEAMEM)
Yes, and association listed 66 8.19% 1.33% 1.12% 1.19No 502 86.39% 1.92% 1.41% 1.36
Yes, but association unli sted 27 5.42% 1.48% 0.93% 1.60
Whether any personnel representation on the boardof directors or t op governing body of the organisation
(YDBOARD2)Yes 365 68.68% 3.56% 2.07% 1.72No 139 31.32% 3.56% 2.07% 1.72
Whether any union members at the establi shment(YEMEM)
Yes 676 67.18% 2.67% 1.61% 1.65No 170 32.82% 2.67% 1.61% 1.65
Percentage of employees that are union members(YEUDENS6)
None 170 33.85% 2.73% 1.66% 1.641-24% 102 10.74% 1.61% 1.09% 1.4825-49% 102 12.59% 1.99% 1.17% 1.7150-74% 201 17.69% 2.22% 1.34% 1.6575-89% 131 11.66% 1.70% 1.13% 1.5190-99% 81 7.35% 1.31% 0.92% 1.43100% 22 6.13% 1.54% 0.84% 1.83
Whether any recognised unions at the establi shment(YFRECOG2)
Yes 587 54.71% 2.80% 1.71% 1.64No 259 45.29% 2.80% 1.71% 1.64
Total number of recognised unions (YFTOTRE4)One 178 41.69% 3.65% 2.04% 1.79Two 169 38.82% 3.64% 2.01% 1.81
Three 82 9.14% 1.90% 1.19% 1.60Four or more 158 10.34% 1.90% 1.26% 1.51
Percentage of employees covered by collectivebargaining (YGCOVPC6)
100% 206 43.40% 3.88% 2.11% 1.8480-99% 146 14.23% 2.39% 1.49% 1.6150-79% 72 11.80% 2.46% 1.37% 1.7920-49% 21 5.31% 1.96% 0.95% 2.061-19% 15 3.42% 1.82% 0.77% 2.36None 92 21.85% 3.28% 1.76% 1.87
SECTION EIGHT: OTHER ISSUES
TABLE 8E: COMPLEX STANDARD ERRORS FOR 1990-1998PANEL ESTI MATES – CONTI NUED
WERS SRSN Estimate S.E S.E. DEFT
Number of bargaining groups (YGGROUP4)One 178 41.69% 3.65% 2.04% 1.79Two 169 38.82% 3.64% 2.01% 1.81
Three 82 9.14% 1.90% 1.19% 1.60Four or more 158 10.34% 1.90% 1.26% 1.51
Whether negotiates with unions over physicalworking conditions (YJNPHY)
Yes 393 76.72% 2.97% 1.79% 1.65No 162 23.28% 2.97% 1.79% 1.65
Whether negotiates with unions over staffing levels(YJNSTF)
Yes 262 48.81% 3.84% 2.12% 1.81No 293 51.19% 3.84% 2.12% 1.81
Whether any Joint Consulti ve Committee (YPJCC)Yes 454 38.78% 2.66% 1.68% 1.58No 391 61.22% 2.66% 1.68% 1.58
Whether any profit-sharing scheme at theestablishment (YNPROFIT)
Yes 354 48.07% 3.22% 2.02% 1.59No 258 51.93% 3.22% 2.02% 1.59
Whether any share-ownership scheme at theestablishment (YNSHARE)
Yes 284 30.59% 2.72% 1.86% 1.46No 328 69.41% 2.72% 1.86% 1.46
Respondent's rating of management/employeerelations at the establishment (YVIR)
1. Very good 226 39.11% 2.78% 1.68% 1.662 166 22.36% 2.36% 1.43% 1.65
3. Good 380 31.98% 2.38% 1.60% 1.484 55 4.02% 0.88% 0.68% 1.31
5. Poor 15 2.06% 0.91% 0.49% 1.876 1 0.19% 0.19% 0.15% 1.28
7. Very poor 3 0.26% 0.20% 0.18% 1.15
SECTION EIGHT: OTHER ISSUES
TABLE 8F: COMPLEX STANDARD ERRORS FOR 1990-1998PANEL ESTI MATES – CROSS TABULATIO NS
Whether any union member at the establi shment(YEMEM) – Row %
Member DEFT No member DEFT
Industry(YBSIC80B)
Energy and water supply industries 99.31% 0.37 0.69% 0.37S.E 0.68% 0.68%
Extraction of minerals/ores; manufacture of metals,… 72.10% 1.95 27.90% 1.95S.E 12.73% 12.73%
Metal goods, engineering & vehicles industries 64.41% 2.05 35.59% 2.05S.E 8.83% 8.83%
Other manufacturing industries 47.29% 1.58 52.71% 1.58S.E 8.47% 8.47%
Construction 57.32% 1.27 42.68% 1.27S.E 12.87% 12.87%
Distribution, hotels & catering, repairs 29.87% 1.14 70.13% 1.14S.E 4.50% 4.50%
Transport and communications 90.08% 1.81 9.92% 1.81S.E 6.77% 6.77%
Banking, finance, insurance, bus services & leasing 38.46% 1.56 61.54% 1.56S.E 9.03% 9.03%
Other services 91.03% 1.69 8.97% 1.69S.E 2.91% 2.91%
67.18% 1.65 32.82% 1.65Total S.E 2.67% 2.67%
Total number of recognised unions (YFTOTRE4) – Row %One DEFT Two DEFT Three DEFT Four DEFT
Size of work place(YAALLEM5)
25-49 employees 44.63% 1.56 46.49% 1.56 7.04% 1.54 1.85% 0.86S.E 7.31% 7.33% 3.73% 1.10%
50-99 employees 40.27% 1.58 40.67% 1.63 6.79% 1.53 12.28% 1.95S.E 6.19% 6.41% 3.09% 5.13%
100-199 employees 51.10% 1.62 25.12% 1.55 9.84% 1.29 13.93% 1.58S.E 6.75% 5.59% 3.19% 4.55%
200-499 employees 33.06% 1.55 35.79% 1.76 15.22% 1.52 15.93% 1.48S.E 5.08% 5.89% 3.82% 3.78%
500+ employees 11.53% 1.50 12.57% 1.48 25.83% 2.72 50.07% 2.45S.E 3.16% 3.25% 7.86% 8.11%
41.69% 2.15 38.82% 2.17 9.14% 1.92 10.34% 1.82Total S.E 3.65% 3.64% 1.90% 1.90%
SECTION EIGHT: OTHER ISSUES
Respondent’s rating of management/employee relations at the establishment (YVIR) – Row %1. Very
goodDEFT 2. DEFT 3.
GoodDEFT 4. DEFT 5.
PoorDEFT 6. DEFT 7. Very
poorDEFT
Industry andownership
(YBINDOWN)Private
manufacturing34.85% 1.89 23.15% 1.84 32.15% 1.66 7.26% 1.53 1.12% 1.00 1.11% 1.68 0.38% 0.86
S.E 5.63% 4.85% 4.84% 2.48% 0.66% 1.10% 0.33%Privateservices
36.86% 1.52 25.17% 1.49 31.29% 1.38 4.96% 1.33 1.29% 1.66 0.00% - 0.42% 1.17
S.E 4.07% 3.60% 3.55% 1.60% 1.04% - 0.42%Publicsector
44.04% 1.67 18.43% 1.66 32.78% 1.49 1.26% 0.72 3.50% 1.87 0.00% - 0.00% -
S.E 5.08% 3.95% 4.30% 0.49% 2.11% - -39.11% 1.66 22.36% 1.65 31.98% 1.48 4.02% 1.30 2.06% 1.86 0.19% 1.27 0.26% 1.14
Total S.E 2.78% 2.36% 2.38% 0.88% 0.91% 0.19% 0.20%
Percentage of employees that are female (YAFPC3B) – Row %0-24% DEFT 25-74% DEFT 75% or more DEFT
Size of workplace (YAALLEM5)25-49 employees 24.42% 1.08 34.24% 1.07 41.34% 1.12
S.E 4.37% 4.82% 5.22%50-99 employees 33.52% 1.21 43.79% 1.20 22.69% 1.29
S.E 4.58% 4.76% 4.31%100-199 employees 36.09% 1.22 55.17% 1.23 8.73% 1.01
S.E 4.90% 5.08% 2.38%200-499 employees 30.30% 1.45 60.45% 1.46 9.25% 1.12
S.E 4.64% 4.98% 2.26%500+ employees 25.90% 2.54 51.20% 2.16 22.91% 1.98
S.E 7.36% 7.13% 5.51%29.47% 1.59 43.29% 1.58 27.24% 1.76
Total S.E 2.50% 2.69% 2.70%
Whether any profit sharing scheme at theestablishment (YNPROFIT) – Row %Yes DEFT No DEFT
Respondent’s rating of management/employeerelations at the establishment (YVIR)
1. Very good 44.01% 1.74 55.99% 1.74S.E 5.74% 5.74%
2 55.67% 1.74 44.33% 1.74S.E 6.69% 6.69%
3. Good 45.66% 1.97 54.34% 1.97S.E 5.03% 5.03%
4 50.73% 1.82 49.27% 1.82S.E 12.28% 12.28%
5. Poor 88.03% 1.46 11.97% 1.46S.E 12.22% 12.22%
6 0.00% - 100.00% -S.E - -
7. Very poor 21.48% 0.98 78.52% 0.98S.E 23.32% 23.32%
48.07% 1.87 51.93% 1.87Total S.E 3.22% 3.22%
SECTION EIGHT: OTHER ISSUES
TABLE 8G: APPROXIMATE STANDARD ERRORS FOR VARIOUSPERCENTAGES AND SAM PLE SIZES FOR THE 1998 OBSERVATION OF
THE 1990-1998 PANEL SAM PLE
Sample size% 1998 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 846
10 4.50 3.18 2.60 2.25 2.01 1.84 1.70 1.59 1.5520 6.00 4.24 3.46 3.00 2.68 2.45 2.27 2.12 2.0630 6.87 4.86 3.97 3.44 3.07 2.81 2.60 2.43 2.3640 7.35 5.20 4.24 3.67 3.29 3.00 2.78 2.60 2.5350 7.50 5.30 4.33 3.75 3.35 3.06 2.83 2.65 2.5860 7.35 5.20 4.24 3.67 3.29 3.00 2.78 2.60 2.5370 6.87 4.86 3.97 3.44 3.07 2.81 2.60 2.43 2.3680 6.00 4.24 3.46 3.00 2.68 2.45 2.27 2.12 2.0690 4.50 3.18 2.60 2.25 2.01 1.84 1.70 1.59 1.55
SECTION EIGHT: OTHER ISSUESTABLE 8H: COMPLEX STANDARD ERRORS FOR THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN 1990 AND 1998 PANEL E STIMATES 35
N36 No WERS SRS37
1990 1998 Diff change S.E. S.E. DEFT
Workplace size (X/YAALLEM5) 84625 to 49 employees 47.35% 42.64% 4.71% 36.29% 2.22% 1.43% 1.5550 to 99 employees 27.89% 29.54% -1.65% 15.87% 2.38% 1.74% 1.37
100 to 199 employees 14.79% 14.58% 0.21% 7.48% 1.27% 1.31% 0.98200 to 499 employees 7.00% 10.51% -3.51% 4.97% 0.98% 0.94% 1.05
500 or more employees 2.97% 2.73% 0.24% 1.71% 0.37% 0.52% 0.71
Industry (X/YBSIC80B) 846Energy and water supply industries 0.58% 0.58% 0.00% 0.58% 0.00% 0.00% 1.00
Extraction of minerals/ores; manuf of metals, minerals &chems
4.23% 4.20% 0.03% 4.00% 0.23% 0.23% 1.03
Metal goods, engineering & vehicles industries 5.85% 6.52% -0.67% 5.85% 0.27% 0.28% 0.98Other manufacturing industries 6.96% 6.94% 0.02% 6.72% 0.24% 0.23% 1.01
Construction 4.07% 3.83% 0.24% 3.78% 0.21% 0.20% 1.05Distribution, hotels & catering, repairs 20.00% 19.88% 0.12% 19.66% 0.30% 0.26% 1.15
Transport and communications 7.03% 6.93% 0.10% 6.93% 0.11% 0.11% 0.98Banking, finance, insurance, bus services & leasing 9.24% 9.16% 0.08% 9.16% 0.08% 0.10% 0.78
Other services 42.04% 41.96% 0.08% 41.89% 0.14% 0.16% 0.86
Industry and ownership (X/YBINDOWN) 844Private manufacturing 17.01% 17.70% -0.69% 16.79% 0.39% 0.37% 1.08
Private services 44.88% 45.86% -0.98% 43.84% 0.90% 0.60% 1.50Public sector 38.11% 36.45% 1.66% 36.25% 0.82% 0.49% 1.66
Whether single independent establishment or par t oflarger organisation(X/YBSINGLE)
846
Independent 18.63% 19.68% -1.05% 14.44% 1.62% 1.06% 1.54Group38 81.37% 80.32% 1.05% 76.14% 1.62% 1.05% 1.54
Whether single independent establishment, branch oflarger organisation or… (X/YBSING2)
844
Single independent 18.65% 19.69% -1.04% 14.46% 1.62% 1.06% 1.54Branch establishment 77.36% 73.33% 4.03% 68.04% 1.93% 1.31% 1.48
Head off ice 4.00% 6.98% -2.98% 1.48% 1.44% 0.97% 1.49
Whether UK or f oreign-owned (X/YBUKFO2) 529UK owned/controlled 90.34% 85.27% 5.07% 81.68% 2.15% 1.51% 1.43
Foreign owned/controlled 9.66% 14.73% -5.07% 6.07% 2.15% 1.51% 1.43
Percentage of employees that are female (X/YAFPC3B) 7090-24% 33.20% 31.31% 1.89% 28.42% 1.57% 1.04% 1.5125-74% 38.99% 42.34% -3.35% 33.12% 2.37% 1.45% 1.63
75% or more 27.80% 26.35% 1.45% 23.21% 1.80% 1.04% 1.73
Percentage of employees that work part-ti me(X/YAPTPC3B)
815
None 12.98% 10.93% 2.05% 5.45% 1.96% 1.26% 1.551-24% 50.45% 49.72% 0.73% 39.69% 2.48% 1.60% 1.55
25% or more 36.57% 39.35% -2.78% 33.82% 1.54% 1.00% 1.53
35Even though we have presented survey estimates of percentages to 2 decimal places in order to aid understanding of thedesign effect calculations, we would not recommend that survey estimates should be presented to that accuracy.36 Unweighted sample size. Missing cases in either 1990 or 1998 panel are excluded37 Standard error under simple random sampling38 For YBSINGLE it represents part of larger organisation, or sole UK establishment of a foreign organ
SECTION EIGHT: OTHER ISSUESTABLE 8H: COMPLEX STANDARD ERRORS FOR THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN 1990 AND 1998 PANEL ESTIMA TES - CONTINUED
No WERS SRSN 1990 1998 Diff change S.E. S.E. DEFT
Percentage of employees that work part-ti me(X/YAPTPC3B)
815
None 12.98% 10.93% 2.05% 5.45% 1.96% 1.26% 1.551-24% 50.45% 49.72% 0.73% 39.69% 2.48% 1.60% 1.55
25% or more 36.57% 39.35% -2.78% 33.82% 1.54% 1.00% 1.53
Whether respondent is a personnel specialist(X/YCSPEC)
655 19.12% 19.31% -0.19% 12.53% 2.02% 1.43% 1.42
Yes 80.88% 80.69% 0.19% 74.10% 2.02% 1.43% 1.42No
Whether a member of an employers' association(X/YDEAMEM)
577
Yes, and association listed 10.59% 8.28% 2.31% 4.82% 1.91% 1.26% 1.51No 86.57% 86.11% 0.46% 81.02% 1.97% 1.36% 1.45
Yes, but association unli sted 2.84% 5.60% -2.76% 0.54% 1.76% 1.12% 1.56
Whether any personnel representation on the board ofdirectors or t op governing body of the organisation
(X/YDBOARD2)458
Yes 73.38% 73.41% -0.03% 57.54% 4.46% 2.63% 1.69No 26.62% 26.59% 0.03% 10.74% 4.46% 2.63% 1.69
Whether any union members at the establi shment(X/YEMEM)
846
Yes 66.51% 67.18% -0.67% 62.21% 1.76% 1.05% 1.68No 33.49% 32.82% 0.67% 28.52% 1.76% 1.05% 1.68
Percentage of employees that are union members(X/YEUDENS6)
726
None 36.66% 36.13% 0.53% 31.48% 1.93% 1.16% 1.651-24% 8.86% 10.39% -1.53% 3.54% 2.06% 1.29% 1.5925-49% 10.14% 12.60% -2.46% 3.43% 2.46% 1.48% 1.6750-74% 15.81% 17.66% -1.85% 9.10% 2.29% 1.45% 1.5875-89% 13.63% 10.84% 2.79% 3.89% 2.44% 1.51% 1.6190-99% 7.24% 7.18% 0.06% 2.33% 1.61% 1.16% 1.39100% 7.65% 5.20% 2.45% 2.34% 1.89% 1.06% 1.79
Whether any recognised unions at the establi shment(X/YFRECOG2)
846
Yes 56.25% 54.71% 1.54% 50.48% 1.81% 1.09% 1.67No 43.75% 45.29% -1.54% 39.52% 1.81% 1.09% 1.67
Total number of recognised unions (X/YFTOTRE4) 566One 29.53% 40.69% -11.16% 23.42% 3.78% 1.98% 1.91Two 44.38% 39.91% 4.47% 25.89% 4.58% 2.39% 1.92
Three 10.44% 9.59% 0.85% 1.43% 2.96% 1.74% 1.70Four or more 15.65% 9.82% 5.83% 7.69% 1.98% 1.31% 1.51
Percentage of employees covered by collective bargaining(X/YGCOVPC6)
521
100% 40.14% 45.69% -5.55% 22.34% 5.23% 2.80% 1.8780-99% 22.08% 14.99% 7.09% 4.97% 3.74% 2.26% 1.6550-79% 21.14% 12.60% 8.54% 6.26% 3.89% 1.99% 1.9620-49% 12.42% 3.91% 8.51% 0.80% 3.51% 1.64% 2.141-19% 3.40% 2.32% 1.08% 0.04% 2.12% 1.04% 2.04None 0.83% 20.49% -19.66% 0.00% 3.56% 1.83% 1.94
SECTION EIGHT: OTHER ISSUESTABLE 8H: COMPLEX STANDARD ERRORS FOR THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN 1990 AND 1998 PANEL E STIMATES – CONTINUED
No WERS SRSN 1990 1998 Diff change S.E. S.E. DEFT
Percentage of employees that work part-ti me(X/YAPTPC3B)
815
None 12.98% 10.93% 2.05% 5.45% 1.96% 1.26% 1.551-24% 50.45% 49.72% 0.73% 39.69% 2.48% 1.60% 1.55
25% or more 36.57% 39.35% -2.78% 33.82% 1.54% 1.00% 1.53
Number of bargaining groups (X/YGGROUP4) 566One 29.53% 40.69% -11.16% 23.42% 3.78% 1.98% 1.91Two 44.38% 39.91% 4.47% 25.89% 4.58% 2.39% 1.92
Three 10.44% 9.59% 0.85% 1.43% 2.96% 1.74% 1.70Four or more 15.65% 9.82% 5.83% 7.69% 1.98% 1.31% 1.51
Whether negotiates with unions over physical worki ngconditions (X/YJNPHY)
485
Yes 80.83% 79.18% 1.65% 65.54% 4.41% 2.44% 1.81No 19.17% 20.82% -1.65% 5.54% 4.41% 2.44% 1.81
Whether negotiates with unions over staffing levels(X/YJNSTF)
487
Yes 57.67% 50.57% 7.10% 33.41% 5.24% 2.90% 1.81No 42.33% 49.43% -7.10% 25.17% 5.24% 2.90% 1.81
Whether any Joint Consultati ve Committee (X/YPJCC) 844Yes 34.04% 38.78% -4.74% 22.00% 3.06% 1.84% 1.66No 65.96% 61.22% 4.74% 49.19% 3.06% 1.84% 1.66
Whether any profit-sharing scheme at the establishment(X/YNPROFIT)
592
Yes 40.59% 49.67% -9.08% 32.29% 3.22% 2.05% 1.57No 59.41% 50.33% 9.08% 42.02% 3.22% 2.05% 1.57
Whether any share-ownership scheme at theestablishment (X/YNSHARE)
592
Yes 28.50% 32.06% -3.56% 22.87% 2.21% 1.58% 1.40No 71.50% 67.94% 3.56% 62.31% 2.21% 1.58% 1.40
Respondent's rating of management/employee relations atthe establishment (X/YVIR)
842
1. Very good 30.37% 39.21% -8.84% 14.75% 3.68% 2.16% 1.702 21.57% 22.23% -0.66% 5.37% 3.23% 1.98% 1.63
3. Good 40.49% 32.00% 8.49% 16.45% 3.29% 2.15% 1.534 6.94% 4.03% 2.91% 0.36% 1.53% 1.10% 1.39
5. Poor 0.55% 2.07% -1.52% 0.00% 0.97% 0.56% 1.756 0.08% 0.19% -0.11% 0.00% 0.21% 0.18% 1.17
7. Very poor 0.00% 0.26% -0.26% 0.00% 0.20% 0.18% 1.15
SECTION EIGHT: OTHER ISSUES
TABLE 8I : APPROXIMATE STANDARD ERRORS FOR VARIOUS PERCENTAGES FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEENESTIMATES FROM THE 1990 PANEL OB SERVATION AND THE 1998 PANEL OB SERVATION
Survey % - % no change (rounded to the nearest multi ple of 5)% Survey 2
Survey 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 1000 0.00 1.12 1.55 1.84 2.06 2.23 2.36 2.46 2.53 2.57 2.58 2.57 2.53 2.46 2.36 2.23 2.06 1.84 1.55 1.12 0.005 1.63 1.98 2.25 2.46 2.63 2.77 2.87 2.95 3.01 3.04 3.05 3.04 3.01 2.95 2.87 2.77 2.63 2.46 2.25 1.9810 2.31 2.57 2.78 2.95 3.10 3.21 3.30 3.37 3.42 3.45 3.46 3.45 3.42 3.37 3.30 3.21 3.10 2.95 2.7815 2.83 3.04 3.22 3.37 3.50 3.60 3.69 3.75 3.79 3.82 3.83 3.82 3.79 3.75 3.69 3.60 3.50 3.3720 3.26 3.45 3.61 3.75 3.86 3.96 4.03 4.09 4.13 4.15 4.16 4.15 4.13 4.09 4.03 3.96 3.8625 3.65 3.82 3.96 4.09 4.19 4.28 4.35 4.40 4.44 4.46 4.47 4.46 4.44 4.40 4.35 4.2830 4.00 4.15 4.29 4.40 4.50 4.58 4.64 4.69 4.73 4.75 4.76 4.75 4.73 4.69 4.6435 4.32 4.46 4.59 4.69 4.79 4.86 4.92 4.97 5.00 5.02 5.03 5.02 5.00 4.9740 4.62 4.75 4.87 4.97 5.06 5.13 5.19 5.23 5.26 5.28 5.29 5.28 5.2645 4.90 5.02 5.13 5.23 5.31 5.38 5.44 5.48 5.51 5.53 5.53 5.5350 5.16 5.28 5.39 5.48 5.56 5.62 5.68 5.72 5.75 5.76 5.7755 5.41 5.53 5.63 5.72 5.79 5.86 5.91 5.95 5.97 5.9960 5.65 5.76 5.86 5.95 6.02 6.08 6.13 6.17 6.1965 5.88 5.99 6.08 6.17 6.24 6.29 6.34 6.3870 6.11 6.21 6.30 6.38 6.45 6.50 6.5575 6.32 6.42 6.51 6.58 6.65 6.7080 6.53 6.62 6.71 6.78 6.8585 6.73 6.82 6.90 6.9890 6.92 7.01 7.0995 7.11 7.20100 7.30
SECTION EIGHT: OTHER ISSUES
8.2 Archiving of Data and Confidentiality Restricti ons
8.2.1 Changes to dataset prior to depositing: general comments
The National Centre handed over to the funding organisations data files comprising fully editedand coded records of the final achieved samples in August 1998 (Cross-section: 2,193 cases)and October 1998 (Panel: 882 cases).
In the months prior to the hand over of data, members of the funding research team had workedclosely with the National Centre’s researchers, DP and computing staff in the structuralanalysis of ‘problem’ interviews. This led to the deletion of a number of cases, in whichinterviews had been carried out but were deemed to be unsound, and also to the application of anumber of overcodes (see Section Six: 6.7).
The process of detailed case-by-case analysis and examination was continued by the fundingresearch teams for some months after hand-over and prior to archiving. During this period theresearch teams formed the view that further deletions from the files should take place.Although, strictly, these post hand-over deletions are outside the scope of this report, the detailsare included in 8.2.2 and 8.2.3 below for the convenience of analysts.
8.2.2 Changes to cross-section files prior to archiving
Interviews had been undertaken at two establishments which had been legitimately sampled as‘Manufacture and sale of ready-mixed concrete/tarmac’ and ‘Wholesaler of fuels and otherrelated products’ . Data collected during the interviews indicated that at both of theestablishments quarrying formed a substantial part of the establishment’s activity. On thegrounds that Mining and Quarrying, as SIC categories, had been excluded from the survey,these two establishments were deleted from the files, reducing the achieved sample size to2,191. This changed reduces effective response from 80.4% to 80.3% (2,191/2,727 in scope).
The National Centre’s final output included 947 interviews with worker representatives. 29 ofthese were deleted by the DTI prior to archiving. The reasons for these deletions were:
• 2 cases where a committee representative was interviewed but should not have beenbecause there was no joint consultative committee at the workplace;
• 20 cases where a committee representative was interviewed but there was arecognised union at the workplace;
• 4 cases where the worker representative was an official of a trade union and not anemployee of the workplace;
• 3 cases where the respondent was otherwise judged to have been the incorrectrespondent.
In the archived data files, therefore, there are 918 workplaces which include an interview with aworker representative. The effective response for worker representatives thus falls to 79.8%(918/1151 in scope)
8.2.3 Changes to the panel fil es prior to archiving
Access both to the 1990 cross-section data and the 1997-8 panel data enabled the fundingresearch team to scrutinise the panel data files in considerable detail.
SECTION EIGHT: OTHER ISSUES
The outcome of the analysis was that , of the 882 ‘productive’ cases handed over by theNational Centre:
- 14 were classified as having been carried out at valid workplaces in 1997-8, but itseemed, retrospectively, that the 1990 interview had not been with a valid workplace;and,
- 22 were finally judged not to have been carried out at a valid workplace in 1997-8,although the 1990 interview was valid.
Consequently there are 846 productive cases in the deposited data file. The effectiveresponse for the survey, therefore, drops by over two percentage points to 82.5%(846/1,026 in scope).
8.2.4 Confidentiality of data and restrictions of access
The obligations to respondents of both the funding organisation and the National Centreare documented in the letters sent by the DTI to the selected workplaces prior to interviewand the Statement of Anonymity Procedures issued on behalf of all the organisationsinvolved. (Copies of these are included in Section Nine.)
The letters stated that the information given by respondents would remain confidential tothe project research team at the DTI and to the organisation nominated to carry out thesurvey.
The statement specified that, in order to preserve respondents’ anonymity, certaincategories of information would be held back when the survey data were released into thepublic domain. These categories were:
• regional/locational data• complete information on the type of activity undertaken at the establishment.
The statement also specified that the identity of co-operating establishments would neverbe revealed.
The guarantee to the employees sending in a completed questionnaire was that‘everything you say in the questionnaire will remain confidential. After the answers havebeen entered into a computer, the questionnaire will be destroyed.’
These obligations have to be meshed in with the principle, underlying the funding of theWIRS series, that the data have to be made available, as early as practicable, toacademics, researchers and other data users for the purposes of secondary analysis.
The strategy devised to balance these requirements was that the survey data would bedivided into two classes, designated as RESTRICTED and UNRESTRICTED.
Restricted data would comprise, as specified in the Statement of Anonymity Procedures.
• Industrial activi ty, coded to SIC 92 class level (cross-section) or SIC 80 (panel)• Workplace location, coded to Government Off ice Regions (cross-section) or Registrar
General’s Standard Regions (panel)
SECTION EIGHT: OTHER ISSUES
For the first time since the beginning of the WIRS series it was proposed to archive andmake available for secondary analysis, the answers to fully or partially open-endedquestions as full text verbatim answers as well as in numeric code format. Thisrequirement necessitated the National Centre’s DP staff editing every such answer andstripping out all references to a workplace, the organisation it belonged to, individualemployees at the workplace and also any other phrases that might identify the workplace.
Even so, all such verbatim answers both from interviews with managers and workerrepresentatives and from the responses of employees to the self-completion questionnaireswere classified as Restricted data.
To gain access to Restricted data, bona fide researchers are required, when making anapplication to the Archive, to:
give a considered account of why they need information contained in these files;
and,
provide details on the steps that will be followed to preserve the anonymity of thedata.
On the basis of the information provided, a committee chaired by the head of the WERSSteering Committee, and including an ESRC representative, representatives of otherfunding organisations and a representative of the National Centre wil l decide whetherthere are justifiable reasons for releasing these data. If the committee agrees to the releaseof restricted data, it will in form the Archive in writing. The Archive will not release thedata until it receives a written instruction.
All remaining data collected in the course of the survey will be made available on anUnrestricted basis39.
It should be noted that these Unrestricted files are not devoid of the type of data that hasbeen held back from general release. First, it is possible to disaggregate the data from thecross-section management interview (MQ98.SAV) and the panel survey (PQ_9098.POR)by industrial classification at the one digit SIC (Division) level40. This has been asufficient level of disaggregation for most previous work that has used WIRS data.Secondly, all verbatim responses to fully and partially open-ended questions have beenconverted into code frames, and the result of this work appear as numeric variables in therelevant files.
The data deposited at the Archive form three separate datasets: Unrestricted datafiles,Documentation and Restricted datafiles:
The documentation comprises a set of ten volumes (of which this report is Volume 2).Broadly speaking, they cover the background behind the development of the survey, thefieldwork, and the way the interviews were transferred into usable data sets.
39 ‘Unrestricted’ means that the data set carries all the usual requirements of researcher making an application to use datadeposited at the Archive.40 Given that it is possible to link the worker representative data and the employee questionnaire data to that of themanagement questionnaire, this implies that it is also possible to disggregate these data sets by industry.
SECTION EIGHT: OTHER ISSUES
The components of these datasets are set out below, with supporting detail:
UNRESTRICTED SPSS DATA FILES DEPOSITED AT T HEESRC DATA ARCHIVE
MQ98.SAV Contains data from interviews with management respondents in the cross-section part ofWERS 1997-8. In addition there are data that were collected from the Employee ProfileQuestionnaire (EPQ). Disaggregation by industrial classification possible at Divisional (1digit) level. Can be linked to other cross-section data sets by workplace identifier (SERNO).
WRQ98.SAV Contains data from interviews with worker representative respondents in the cross-sectionpart of WERS 98. Can be linked to other cross-section data sets by workplace identifier(SERNO).
SEQ98.SAV Contains data from self-completion employee questionnaires in the cross-section part ofWERS 98. SPSS data set. Can be linked to other cross-section data sets by workplaceidentifier (SERNO).
PQ_9098.POR Contains data from interviews with management respondents to the WERS 98 PanelSurvey. Also contains complete data from management interviews conducted at the sameestablishments in 1990 (as part of the 1990 Workplace Industrial Relations Survey, SN:2858). SPSS portable file; 846 cases.
PQ_98OUT.POR Contains data on the 1998 survival status of all 2,061 establishments interviewed as part ofthe 1990 Workplace Industrial Relations Survey (SN: 2858), together with complete datafrom the 1990 interviews with management respondents. SPSS portable file; 2,061 cases.
DOCUMENTATI ON AVAILA BLE AT T HE ESRC DATA ARCHIVEFOR WERS 1997-8
VOLUME 1 Survey in Transition: A guide to the design of WERS 98VOLUME 2 WERS 1997-8 Technical ReportVOLUME 3 WERS 98 Cross-section Questionnaire
Part A: Management Questionnaire & Employee Profile Questionnaire Part B: Worker Representative Questionnaire Part C: Survey of Employees Questionaire
VOLUME 4 WERS 98 Panel QuestionnaireVOLUME 5 WERS 98: Code book for cross-section data sets
Part A: Code book for cross-section survey Part B: Instructions for editing the cross-section survey
VOLUME 6 WERS 98 Code book for panel data sets Part A: Code book for panel survey Part B: Instructions for editing the panel survey
VOLUME 7 WERS 97 Interviewer HandbookVOLUME 8 WERS 98 Derived Variables from the cross-section data setsVOLUME 9 WERS 98 Derived Variables from the panel data setsVOLUME 10 A Guide to using the WERS 80-98 longitudinal data sets
SECTION EIGHT: OTHER ISSUES
RESTRICTED FILES DEPOSITED AT T HE ESRC DATA ARCHIVE
REGION98.SAV Standard Government Off ice Region. Can be linked to other cross-section data sets usingworkplace identifier (SERNO).
MQ98_SIC.SAV Standard Industrial Classification (1992), at Class level. This provides an additional levelof disaggregation over and above the Divisional level data already contained in themanagement data file MQ98.SAV. Can be linked to other cross-section data sets usingworkplace identifier (SERNO).
MQOPEN.XLS Contains verbatim textual responses to open-ended questions from interviews with themanagement respondent in the 1997-8 Workplace Employee Relations Survey. These weresubject to post-interview coding which appears in the management data set. Recommendedif detailed analyses of original verbatim responses is intended. Can be linked to other cross-section data sets using workplace identifier (SERNO).
WRQOPEN.XLS Contains verbatim textual responses to open-ended questions from interviews with theworker representatives in the 1997-8 Workplace Employee Relations Survey. These weresubject to post-interview coding which appears in the management data set. Recommendedif detailed analyses of original verbatim responses is intended. Can be linked to other cross-section data sets using workplace identifier (SERNO).
SEQOPEN.XLS Contains textual responses from self-completion Survey of Employees Questionnaire in the1997-8 Workplace Employee Relations Survey. These were not pre or post coded and donot appear in the SEQ data set.Can be linked to other cross-section data sets usingworkplace identifier (SERNO).
PQ_90REG.POR Standard Statistical Region at the time of the 1990 interview, for all cases contained inPQ_98OUT.POR or PQ_9098.POR. Neither of the files on unrestricted release contain aregional identifier. This file can be linked to PQ_98OUT.POR or PQ_9098.POR using theunique workplace identifier (SERNO2). SPSS portable file; 2,061 cases.
PQ_98REG.POR Standard Statistical Region at the time of the 1998 interview, for all cases contained inPQ_9098.POR. The file on unrestricted release does not contain a regional identifier. Thisfile can be linked to PQ_9098.POR using the unique workplace identifier (SERNO2).SPSS portable file; 846 cases.
PQ_90SIC.POR Standard Industrial Classification (1980 classification, Activity level) at the time of the1990 interview, for all cases contained in PQ_98OUT.POR or PQ_9098.POR. Both of thefiles on unrestricted release contain an industrial classification at Division (one digit) level.This file can be linked to PQ_98OUT.POR or PQ_9098.POR using the unique workplaceidentifier (SERNO2). SPSS portable file; 2,061 cases.
PQ_98SIC.POR Standard Industrial Classification (1980 classification, Activity level) at the time of the1998 interview, for all cases contained in PQ_9098.POR. The file on unrestricted releasecontains an industrial classification at Division (one digit) level. This fil e can be linked toPQ_9098.POR using the unique workplace identifier (SERNO2). SPSS portable file; 846cases.
PQOPEN.XLS Verbatim textual responses to each of the open-ended questions in the WERS 98 PanelSurvey interview. Enables detailed analysis of original verbatim responses. However,responses were numerically coded at the end of fieldwork (see Volume 6: Part A of the UserGuide) and the resulting numeric codes do appear in PQ_9098.POR. This file can be linkedto PQ_9098.POR using the unique workplace identifier (SERNO2). Excel version 5.0; 846cases.
SECTION NINE: PAPER DOCUMENTS - FIELDWORK AND OTHER
●
9
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
CROSS-SECTION SURVEY
Address Record Form
Employee Profile Questionnaire
Survey of Employees Questionnaire
DTI Letters to Respondents (Managers and Worker Representatives)
TUC Letter to Worker Representatives
SEQ Sampling Document
SEQ Reminder Letter
SEQ Telephone Progress Form
Specimen Fact Sheet
SCPR Letter to Respondents
Statement of Anonymity Procedures
. SEE INSIDE BACK COVER
● DTI Leaflets (Management and Employee)
P17001997/8
Hed Ofice 35 NOR THAMPTO.V SQLLIRELONDO,U ECI V 0.4X
Tel 017/ 1S0 1866 Fm 0171 2S0 1s24
*L k CO.W,QU~c\.
:,SCPR:
Fieki nndDP Ojjw )00 .KI,VG,$ROAD8RENTWOOD. ESSE.YC.if /4 4L.1’TeIO/277. ?O0600 Fm 0)2i;21J //7
‘f>~lyc
~+’~k.i SLOT NAME
RETURN NO.
OUTCOME CODE
WERS
u!1’m
MAIN SAMPLE ADDRESS RECORD FORM (MQ)
INTERVIEWER NO.INTERVIEWER NAME I
[Further address details][Establishment address] [ [Further address details]
Management Respondent
Name
Title: [Details of reporting unit only]
Tel. No,
Worker Representative For mtewiewer use: eg. 2nd manager’s name
Name:
Title
Tel, No.
VISIT NUMBER 01DATE:1) Day (Men = 1
Tues = 2 etc)
❑ fi ; ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ; ; ~
Ii) Date a !Il m m m m m m I-J-ja r ~Iii) Month m m m m m z m rn M m n M
EXACT TIME OF CALL
(24 hour clock)
MQ WRQ
START TIME OF INT ~~ .7 ‘~~ .~l DATE OF FIRST VISIT rr-m
FINISH TIME OF INT ~ ;~] ~ .~l DATE OF LAST VISIT mm
DURATION (MINUTES )~ ~ TOTAL VISITS TO ESTAB ~ ; !
Need a phone number? Call Freepages on 0800192192
2
PRE INTERVIEW OUTCOMES
A. OUT OF SCOPENVITHDRAWN PRIOR TO FiELDWORK Outlier
Duplicate
Insufficient address
1990 Non productive
Pilot survey
Excluded from design
Aggregate return: not resampled
Aggregate return: resampled
Multiple census Units
Unit not an establishment
Refusal (H. O.) to D.T. I
Refusal (Estab.) to D.T. I
Refusal (Other) to D.T. I
DTI Informed: Closed down
DTI Informed: less than 10 employees
B. CONTACT AT ADDRESS Address traceable and occupied
No trace of address
Premises vacanUderelict (no trace of establishment)
Premises known to have been demolished (no trace of establishment)
C. CONTACT AT ESTABLISHMENT
Establishment in business at listed address
Establishment known to have moved premises/some information on new address
Establishment known to have moved premises/no trace of new address
Establishment known to be no longer in existencefin business
Establishment not at listed address (no further information available)
Establishment now has fewer than 10 employees
Establishment amalgamated with other samtied establishment(ENTER SERIAL NUMBER AT FOOT OF PAGE)
Other reason for ineligibility (WRITE INI)
D. If establishment has moved and information is available about new address, record this
information on front page and follow up if within sample area. Otherwise return addressrecord form to office.
“SERIAL NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENT WITH WHICHESTABLISHMENT HAS AMALGAMATED (if known) [111111
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
23
24
25
26
27
YES +C
20
21
}
CHECKWITH
22 AREAMANAGER
YES+ RES-PONSE
SUMMARY
31
32 —
33
34
35
36”
37 —
SD
CLOSElNTER-VIEW
3
SUMMARY OF INTERVIEW RESPONSE
FINAL PRODUCTIVE OUTCOME
S WORK AT ESTABLISHMENT COMPLETE
tiQ productive; SEC?placement made;
MQ productwe; SEQ placement made,
vIQ productive; SEQ placement made:
IJQ productive; SEQ placement made;
tiQ productive; SEQ placement made;
vfQ productive; no SEQ placement;
vIQ productive; no SEQ placement;
vfQ productive; no SEQ placement;
1.4Qproductive; no SEQ placement,
vlQ productive; no SEQ placement;
‘INAL UNPRODUCTIVE OUTCOME (MQ)
WRQ productive (UNION)
WRQ productive (COMMITTEE)
WRQ not required
WRQ not productive (UNION)
WRQ not productwe (COMMllTEE)
WRQ productive (UNION)
WRQ productive (COMMITTEE)
WRQ not productive (UNION)
WRQ not productive (COMMITTEE)
WRQ not required
Management respondent never available/ no contact
Contact made/ management respondent refused
Refusal by Head Office/Area O~ce
Clalmed prior refusal to DTI
Broken appointment, no recontact
Ill/away for duration of survey
Other (SPECIFY)
INTERMEDIATE OUTCOMES - only use with permission from Area Manager or Office
F: work at establishment not yet completePartia/ly dor?e,frai?smjt to otfice for rea//oca[ion to another mferviewer
MQ complete; SEQ placement made; WRQ not done, still possible
MQ complete; SEQ not placed, still possible WRQ done
MQ complete: SEQ not placed, still posstble WRQ not done, still possible
MQ complete; SEQ not placed, stall possible WRQ not required
MQ @ complete; SEQ placement made; WRQ not done, still possible
MQ @ complete; SEQ placement made: WRQ done
MQ @ complete; SEQ placement made: WRQ not required
MQ @ complete; SEQ not placed, still possible WR not done, still possible
MQ ~ complete: SEQ not placed, still possible WRQ done
MQ ~ complete; SEQ not placed, still possible WRQ not required
Outcome AlsoCode complete
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
+G
+G
+’
+’
G++
G++
+
H
H
H
H
H
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
7-
+
+
+
+
Also
L
K
K+L
K
J+L
J
J
J+K+L
J+K
J+K
4
REASONS FOR NON-RESPONSE
G WORKER REP H SEQ
Never available/no contact 1 No computer files/lists available 1
Broken appointmentho contact 2 Files/hsts available but not for complete
Contact made/person refused 3establishment; full IISI not available 2
Refusal by management at estabhshment 4Files/ltst available but for larger unit thanestablishment; impossible to proceed 3
Refusal by Head OffIce/Area OffIce 5Refused sampling too much trouble 4
Refusal by own union (outs[de establishment) 6Refused: unwilling to ask employees 5
Ill/away for duration of survey 7Other (SPECIFY) 6
Other (SPECIFY) 8
J. REASONS WHY MQ NOT COMPLETEFURTHER SECTIONS TO BE COMPLETED AT SAME SITE 38
FURTHER SECTIONS TO BE COMPLETED AT DIFFERENT SITE 39
SPECIFY DETAILS
K. REASONS WHY SECJPLACEMENT CONSIDERED POSSIBLE BUT NOT YET DONE ISPECIFY DETAILS I
L. REASONS WHY WRQ INTERVIEW CONSIDERED POSSIBLE BUT NOT YET DONE
SPECIFY DETAILS
SEQ CONTACT PERSON - if different from MQ respondent.
Name:
Title:
Tel. No.
dt.z0
B+=mwmofT”&. dlnbm?
The 1997 Workplace Employee Relations Survey
Carried out for the
Department of Trade and Industry’
Employee profilequestionnaire
It would be of great help if this form could be completed before the
interviewer’s visit and available at the beginning of the interview.
Thank you for your help.
“In collaboration with the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service,the Economic and Social Research Councd and the POIICY Studies Institute
P1700HeadOffice 35 NorthamptonSauare,LondonECIV OPJ
Tel: 01712501866 Fax 01712501524
Serial No.
II
Please gwe best eshmates if you don’t have exact data.
Write NIL if you have no employees m a category.If you have queries, please refer to the notes and definitions on the back page.If you need to clar!fy any of the reformation you give, use the space on the bottom of the page opposite.
Total
1
2
3
4
Currently how many employees do you have on the payroll at this establishment? I I
(a) How many of these work full time (30 (b) How many work part time (fewer thanhours or more per week)? ‘lease show 30 hours per week)? Please show malesmales and females separately. and females separately.
Full time Part time
Male Female Male Female
Total
I 1
Total should be thesame as Ques;ton 1
For each of the above groups of employees, how many are in each of the followlng occuDatlonal Houos?Defmltlons of occupational groups are set out on the back page.
Fulltime Part time Total
~
Maie Female
Managers andsenior admmtstratlve
Pro{esslonal
Techntcal
Cler[ca andsecre!arlal
Crafi arid wiledsewes
Protecwe andDersonal sewces
Sales
Operawe andassembly
Routine unsdlec!
,
I
1
1
t
L I
I
~ere on the payrollHow many employees (full and pad i)me)
at this establishment ..
!2 months ago>
5 years ago? I
5 During the last twelve months how many permanentemployees (full and par? time) stopped working here,because they
,were maoeredundand
hao some otherreason leg reDrement)?
‘6
7
8
9
During the last twelve months how many permanentemployees [full and part time) started work at thisestablishment? Please include any who started andsubsequently left.
I
.
Of those currently employed here, how many...
are aged20 or unaer?
areaged 51 or over?
haveadisabdity?
arefroma non-whiteettmcgroup?
I
I !
How many employees at this establishment are membersof a trade union or independent staff association - whetherrecognised by management or not?
How many employees at the workplace are currently paid,..
Full time Part time
Maleandfemale Male and female
‘ess”a%:: ~ ~
S3.50to lessthanf4.00 perhour ~~
10 How many full time employees have annual earnings(including bonuses and overtime] in the SDeChiedbands?
11
Please slow men and women separately.
Fulltime Full time
Male Female
‘ess”an’’ooo ~ ~ ‘-
M“n,12.000 ~ ~S9000 to less
S12,000to less I ~than ~16,000 i ~
““ooo’o’e’s~ ~thanS22.000
f29,000 or more I I—’
Over the last 12 months what percentage of work dayswas lost through employee sickness or absence at thisestablishment? Please exclude authorised leave of absence,employees away on secondment or courses, or days lostthrough mdustrlal action.
~
Thank you for completing this form. Please keep it and hand it to the SCPRinterviewer
uqm.mn, of Trod. and I.d.,q
The 1997 Workplace Employee Relations Survey
~EmployeequestionnaireThis is a national survey of people at work. Weare interested in your views about your job andyour workplace,
‘Your name was selected randomly from a list ofpeople who work here. Some other people herehave also been picked at random. We’vechosen people in this way so that we cover thefull range of employees - from management tothe most junior. There is no special reason whyyou were picked to fill in the survey or whyothers you work with were not picked. However,now that your name has come up, we wouldlike you to fill in the Questionnaire. Please donot pass it to someone else,
Everything that you say in the questionnaire willremain confidential. The questionnaire has aserial number on it simply so that we know who
r
L
has replied and do not send out remindersunnecessarily. After the answers have beenentered into a computer, the questionnaire WIIIbe destroyed.
The questionnaire should take no more than 15mmutes to complete. It can be done either atwork or at home. It would be helpful if youcould return the completed questionnaire withinthe next two weeks.
If you need any help or want to know moreabout the survey, phone Andrew O’Reilly at theDTI on freephone 08000680707,
Please use a black pen to complete thequestionnaire and try to answer every question.
Many thanks for your help.
7
--l
.*V, .,; , +’
“,>.
P1700HeadOlfIce 35 Northampton Square,LondonECIV OAX
Tel.01712501866 Fax:01712501524
A About your job
Al
A2
A3
A4
A5
How many years m total have you been working at thisworkplace? By workplace we mean the site or locationat, or from, which you work,
Less than 1 year
1 to less than 2 years
2 to lessthan5 years
5 to lessthan10 years
10 vearsor more
Is your job permanent, or is It temporary or for afixed-term?
Permanent
Temporary :
Fixed-term
How many hours do you usually work each week,including any overtime or extra hours? .214
Hours per week
How manv overtime or extra hours do vou usually workeach week, whether paid or unpaid? -
If youdonotusuallyworkovertimeor extrahours,wrte O
Overhme/extrahoursper week
Are you normally paid or given time off later whenyou work overtime or extra hours?
Tick one box only
I never work overtime or extra hours I
I am normally paid 2
I normally take time off later ~
I am sometimes paid and ~
sometimes take time off later
None of these 5
!5.16
17
A6 If you do work overtime or extra hours, what would Yousay is the one main reason you do so? ~
lick one box only
I never work overtimeor extra hours
I enloy my work
I need the money
I don’t want to let down the
people I work wth
So that I can get all my work done
It’s requred as part of my 10b
Some other reason
A7 Thinking about the type of work you personally do, is (tdone at this workplace,.. ,,
17ck one box onfy
Only by men
Manly by men
Equally by men and women
Mahy by women L
Only by women
A8 Do you agree, or disagree, with the followlngstatements about your job? 20.2:
Tick one box in each row
Neitheragree
nor Strongly
Strongly dis- Dis- dis- Dors’t
agree Agree agree agree agree know
1 4 5 6My job requires
that I work
very hard
I never seem
to have enoughtvme to get my
job done
I feel my job IS
secure In this
workplace
I worrya lot
about my workouts[de
working hours
2
A9 In general, how much influence do you have aboutfollowlrtg?
Tick one box in each row
A Don’t
lot Some Iille None know
The range of
tasks you do
m your )ob
The pace at
which yOUwork
HOWyOUdo
your work
the
AlO Howsatlsfled areyouwlth the following aspects ofyour job?
Tick one boxin each row
Neither
satisfied Very
nor Dis- dis-
Very Satis- dis- satis- satis- Don’tsatisfied fied satisfied fied fied know
The amount of
influence you
have over
your job
Tne amount of
paj yourecewe
The sense of
achievementyw get from
your work
The respect
you get from
supervisors/hne managers
B
B1
B2
B3
About working here
During the last 12 months, have you discussed any ofthese wth your supervisorfline manager?
Tick all that apply
How you are getbng
on with your job
Your chances of promot!on
Your tralmng needs
Your pay
None of these
During the last 12 months, how much training have youhad, either paid for or organised by your employer?--,
Include only trammg away from your normal place of work, but It could
be on or off the Dremmes
Tick one box only
None
Less than 1 day
1 to less than 2 days
2 to less than 5 days
5 to less than 10 days
10 days or more
If you personally needed any of these arrangements,would they be available at this workplace?
Tick all that apply
Flexible working hours (flexl-time)
Job sharing (sharing a full-time jobwtth someone else)
Parental leave
Working at or from homem normal working hours
Workplace nursery or help ,
with the cost of chltd care
None of these 6
B4 If you needed to take a day off work at short notice, forexample to look after a sick family member, how wouldyou usually do it? ! 3
Tick one box only
Use paid leave ‘
Take time off and make (t up later
Go on leave wthout pay
Couldn’t take time off ,
Some other way I
Ooesn’t apply to me .
B5 Do you agree, or disagree, wth the following statementsabout working here? ,4 .::
Tick one box in each row
Neither
agree
nor Stronrzlv
Strongly dis- Dis-~i~: - - .
agree Agree agree agree agree
2 4I share manv of
the value; of
my orgarvsatlon
Managers hereare understanding
about employeeshaving to meet
family responsibihties
People workinghere are
encouraged to
develop thetr skills
I feel loyal .to
my orgamsation
I am proud to
tell peoplewho I work for
B6 How helpful do you find the following in keepingup-to-date about this workplace?
Tick one box in each row
Not Not Not
Very very at all used
helpful Helpful helpful helpful here
1 2
NotIce boards
E.mall
Workplace newsletteror magazme
Meetings of managersand employees
3 4 5
DOn’t
know
,>
49.52
B7 How often are Youand others working here asked bymanagers for your views on any of the following? 53.57
Tick one box in each row
Fre- Some- Hardlyquently Never times ever
1Future plans for ‘
the workplace
Staffing Issues,mcludmg redundancy
Changes to workpracttces
Pay Issues
Health and
safety at work
B8
B9
How good would you say managers here are at thefollowing? 58.62,
Tick one box in each row
Neither
good
Very nor Very Don’t
good Good poor Poor Poor know
.5
Keeping everyone
up to date aboutproposed changes
Provldmg everyonewith the chance
to comment onproposed changes
Responding to
suggestionsfrom employees
Oealrng with work
problems you or
others may have
Treating
employees fairly
In general, how would you describe relations betweenma-nagers and employees here? 63
Tick one box only
Very good t
Good 2
Neither good nor poor 3
Poor 4
Very poor 5
Don(t know 6
A
c Representation at work
cl
S2
C3
Are you a member of a trade union or staff association?
Tick one box only
Yes .
No, but have been In the past
No, have never been a member
Ideally, who do you think would best represent you indealing with managers here about the followingissues? :. .:,,
Tick one box in each row
Myself
GefbngIncreasesInmy pay
If I wantedto makea complalntabout
workinghere
If a managerwantedto dmphne me
Some-
Trade Another body
union employee else
How much contact do you have with trade union orother worker representatives about workplace matters?b~
Tick one box only
I am frequently m contact ~
wth worker representabves
I am occasionally m contact ,,
with worker representatwes
I am never m contact withJ
worker representatwes
I am a worker representative 4
I do not know any ~
worker reoresentattves
I
II
C4 How would you rate the attitude of managers heretowards trade uruons?
Tick one box only
Managers here...
...are m favour of trade urvons
...are neutral about trade umons
...are not m favour of trade umons
C5 Is there a trade union or staff association at thisworkplace? .,,.
Yes .
No f’ Please go to D1
C6 Do You agree, or disagree, with the following statementsabout unions or staff associations at this workplace?-
Tick one Lmx in each row
Neither
agreenor Strongly
Strongly dis- Dis- dis- Don’t
agree Agree agree agree agree know
,,
Unions/staff assoclahons here ...
,. take nohceof members’
problems and
complamts
,,.are taken
seriously bymanagement
...make a
difference to
what it IS hke
to work here
c
D Finally, about yourself
D1 Are you male or female?
Male
Female
D2 How old are you?
Less than 20 years
20-24
25-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60 or more
D3 Do you have any dependent children m the followingage groups?
Tick all that apply
Chddren aged O-4
Ch(ldren aged 5-11
Children aged 12-18
No dependent chddren
D4 Wh]ch of the following describes your current status?
Tick one box 00IY
Single
Widowed
Oworced/Separated
L!vmg w!th spouse or partner
D5
D6
D7
D8
What is the highest educational qualification you hold?, ‘
Tick one box only
C5Eor equwalent/GCSE(grades D-G}
O level or equvalent/
GCSE (grades A-C) -,
A level or equivalent
iDegree or equwalent
@,.‘!
Postgraduate degree
or equtwalent #
None of these I
Do you hold any recogmsed vocational quakficatlons.such as a trade apprentlceshlp, NVQS, or a City and ‘Guilds Cerhflcate? .:
Yes
No,.
Do you have any long-standing health problems or ‘disabditles which Imt what you can do at work, at home,or m your Ielsure time?
‘Yes
No
To which of these groups do you consider
Tick one box only
White
Black Caribbean
Black Afrcan
Black other
Ind[an
Paklstari
Bangladesh
Chinese
Another ethruc group ~
f{
I
;!
6
D9
,
D1O
Which of the followlng occupation groups bestdescribes your job at present?
Tick one box only
Managers & senior administratorseg general manager, marketing/
sales manager, director of nursing,works manager, bank manager
Professional
eg teacher, lecturer, lawyer, Ikbranan,
engineer, arch[tect, doctor,accountant, social worker
Associate professional & technicaleg techmcian, nurse, muslclan,
bwldmg Inspector, computer
programmer, insurance underwriter
Clerical & secretarial
eg typist, postal clerk, secretary,ctwl
serwce and local government clerlcal
officer, computer operator, bank clerk
Craft & skilled service
eg tool maker, electrman, fitter,motor mechanic, sewing machlmst,
pr(nter, carpenter, baker
Personal & protective serviceeg pokce officer, bar staff,
hairdresser, undertaker, fre fighter,child carer, wa!ter
Sales
eg till operator, sales assistant,sales representable, petrol
pump attendant
Operative and assembly
eg assembly hne worker,packer, truck driver,
taxi or bus drwer
Other occupations
eg cleaner, postal worker,
shelf filer, kltchenhand, porter,builders Iabourer
What are the main work tasks you do in your job? Pleasedescribe as fully as possible. 8/-89
D11 How much do you get paid for your job here, before taxand other deductions are taken out?
If your pay changes before tax from week to week because of over
time, or because you work drfferent hours each week, think aboutwhat you earn on average.
Less than f50 per week
Less than ~2,600 per year
f51 - f80 per week
$2,601-$4,160 per year
f81 - S140 per week
f4,161 -S7,280 per year
f141 -$180 per week
$7,281- S9,360 per year
E181 - S220 per week ,
Q361 fll,440 per year
f221 - f260 per week ,
fll,441 -113,520 per year
S261 - Q31O per week$13,521. f16,120 per year
f311 - f360 per week ,
f16,121 -f18,720 per year
S361 - S430 per week ,
f18,721 .$22,360 per year
S.431 - S540 per week
$22,361- f28,080 per year1
S541 - S680 per week ,f28,081 f35,360 per year ““
f681 or more per weekS35,361 or more per year
12
D12 Do you have any final comments you would like to makeabout your workplace, or about this questionnaire? I. s,
7
Thank you for your help
Please now seal the questionnaire m the freepostenvelope provided and,
either leave It at the workplace collection point,
or if you prefer, post it directly yourself.
It would be helpful if you could return thecompleted questionnaire within the nexttwo weeks,
t%=a
8
%
M
Employment RelationsDirectorateDepartment o(Trade and lndustr~Room 2.A..I I1 Victoria StreetLondon SWIH OET
Tel: Freephone 0800.0680707Fax: O171 2152641Email: [email protected]
Dear Sm,
Survey of Emulovee Relatlons Practices 1997
The Department of Trade and Industry has mwted Social and Commurnty Planmng Research (SCPR), anindependent research inst]tu~e, to carry out a survey of employee re[atlons pract~ces m all sectors ofmdustr-y, commerce and the public ser-wces, It is jointly funded by the Department. the Econom]c andSoc]al Research Council, the Pol]cy Studies Institute and the Advisory, Concllia[lon and Arbitration Serwce(ACAS].
The a]m of the survey IS to produce ]nformat]on of a factual nature about current employee relatlonspractices. We WI1luse the mformatlon to publlsh a report to ald publlc debate about employee relat]onspolicy and practice. The last survey of this nature was camied out m 1990 and the report. WorkplaceIndustrial Rela(ions in Transition, generated widespread interest and comment. T%IS new survey m theseries has been developed in consultation with a wide range of bodies. and has the support of theConfederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress and the Institute of Personnel andDevelopment,
An SCPR mterwewer WI]] shortly contact you to seek your cooperation in the current survey. I very muchhope that you will agree to be inter-wewed. The value of the survey depends very much on the cooperationof all those selected. All those participating WII1be prowded with a summary of the main survey findings.
The information you prov~de w~llbe used solely for research purposes and will be confidential to the projectresearchers within the Department and its selected survey organ~sation. Neither indiwduals nor theirworkplace will ever be ident]tied in the publlshed results.
With many thanks In anticipation of your help. If you would like any further mformat]on about the surveythen please call me free of charge on 08000680707.
Yours sincerely,
Mark CullyPnnc]pal Research Officer
dti.
Depmmtnt O( Trade and Industry
WR
. .@
.LipQ
:&
Employment Relations DirectorateDepartment of Trade and Indusrr!Room 2.,4.41I Victoria StreetLondon SWIH OET
TPI: Freephone 0800.0680707Fax: 0171215 ?641Email: .Mark.Cully@ IRDV.dti.go>. uk
Dear
Survev of Emplovee Relatlons Practices 1997
The Department of Trade and Industry has mwted Social and Community Planmng Research (SCPR), tocarry out a survey of employee relauons practices in all sectors of industry. commerce and the publicserwces. It is jointly funded by the Department. the Economic and Social Research Council, the PolicyStudies Inst]tute and the Adwsory, Concihatlon and Arb]tratlon Serwce (ACAS).
An interviewer from SCPR, an independent research institute, has recently inter-wewed one of themanagement here about the way employee relat]ons are dealt with at th]s establishment.
The alm of the survey is to produce reformation of a factual nature about current employee re[at[onspractices. We WIII use the mfonnatlon to pubhsh a report to a]d public debate about employee relatlonspolicy and practice. The last survey of th]s nature was carmed out m 1990 and the report, Workplacelndustria/ Relatiorrs in Transition, generated widespread interest and comment. TINS new survey m theseries has been developed m consultation with a wide range of bodies. and has the suppon of theConfederation of Brmsh Industry, the Trades Union Congress and the Institute of Personnel andDevelopment.
Naturally, it is important to collect information from employee representatives as well as management.Your name has been gwen to the SCPR interviewer as someone in a very good position to help us completeour mformatlon for the place where you work I hope very much that you wdl agree to be interwewed. Allthose part] clpatmg wdl be provided with a summary of the mam survey findings.
The information you prowde will be used solely for research purposes and WII1be confidential to the proJectresearchers w~thin the Department and its se]ected survey organisation. Neither mdiwduals nor theirworkplace will ever be Identified m the published results.
With many thanks m anticipation of your help. If you would l]ke any further information about the surveythen please call me free of charge on 08000680707.
Yours sincerely,
Mark Cully
Principal Research Officer
dtiDqmmnent of Trade and Ind.str:
Trades Union Congress
To All Trade Union Interviewees For TheFourth Workplace Employee Relations Survey
>
7’UC’. . . ,.[: ESAD/JM/DCdate 23 September 1997’
COnUCE David Coatsdircctlinc 0171-4671224
Dear Colleague,
Fourth Workplace Employee Relations Survey
I am writing to encourage you to participate in the Fourth Workplace Industrial
Relations Survey. As you have no doubt been told this is a joint project involving theDepartment of Trade and Industry, ACAS, the Economic and Social Research Council
and the Policy Studies Institute. The most recent survey was conducted in 1990 and
proved TO be a valuable source of information about trends in collective bargaining, the
changing role of trade unions and employer attitudes. I would expect the 1997 Survey
to be equally useful.
The survey has been designed following consultation with the TUC. Shop stewards
attending TLJC courses in two regions were also asked to comment on the questionnaire
to ensure that it is relevant to the experiences of working people. All responses are
entirely confidential and no information will be supplied to your employer.
The Government is planning major changes to employment law through the proposals
for trade union recognition and new rights at work for individuals. The results of the
Survey will be useful to the trade union movement in making the case for fairness at
work and will assist the Government in drafting legislation which addresses theproblems faced by working people.
I do hope that you will be able to spare the small amount of time necessary to take partin the Survey.
Yours sincerely,I ,:
J /,_/ ,/”/’_<T_/>-//” ‘---- ---7
John Monks,General Secretary.
Coo+wss Hou>e. Grca[ Ruswll 5{1.cc, London V’.’CIB 3LS
rclephone: 01~1 6;6 4030 tsx: 01-1 636 1)632 rele~: 26332S TLC G
SIX) SAM1’LING IIOCUMIZN”r; SPECIMEN SIIEEI’
P1700 1997WORKPLACEEMPLoYEERELATIONSSL)llVEySuflVEYOFEMPLoYEEs SUPPLEMENTARYSHEETFORLAflGEWORKPLACES
SAMPLESEI IZL.TIONSIIEE1 (LOMW1lbR PRINltO I 1ST)(1ORWOP.UP\A<;ESWlrli 13ETWEFN3!,,,,,ANL)l,,,,fi EMP, CIYEES,
SFl EC[l13NN11MLl[h
N(1Mi3Efl OF
EMPI OY6ES 1234567 891011121314 15161718192021 22232425
30o0 3099 1!5 235 355 475 595 715 835 955 1075 11!25 1315 1435 I 555 1675 I /95 1915 2U.15 2155 2275 2395 2515 2635 2755 2875 29!35
3100 3199 78 202 326 450 574 698 822 946 1070 1194 1318 1442 1566 160) !814 1938 2062 2186 2310 2434 2658 2602 2006 2930 3054
3200.329’3 82 210 338 466 594 722 850 978 1106 !234 136? 14!lcl (618 1746 1874 2,)!,2 2,30 2ZW 2386 2514
3300 3399 L19 *2, .35J
2642 2770 28s10 3026 3154
485 617 749 88( 1013 1145 1277 14119 8541 1673 !805 l~J) 2{XW 2201 2333 2465 2597 2/29 2861 2993 3!25 3257
3400 3499 116 252 388 524 66o 796 932 1068 !204 !341J 1476 lblz 1/40 1884 21720 2156 2292 2428 2564 2700 2S36 29/2 3108 3244 3380
_ .3500 J599 102 242 382 522 662 802 942 1002 \222 \362 1502 1642 1/62 t9?2 2062 2202 2342 2482 2622 2/62 2902 3042 3182 3322 3462
3600 %99 102 246 390 534 678 822 966 !110 1254 1390 1542 !606 !830 l~zlla 22G2 241n3 2551> 2694 2838 2982 3126 32m 3414 3558
.)/00 379U 7 155 3<13 451 5Qg /.!{ 895 11143 1191 1339 !48/ l.’J~ I ?8.1 19.41 2,,,9 Z227 ~,,~ 2~23 2671 28!9 2967 31!s 3263 34>1 3s59
3000 3899 64 ?!6 368 520 672 824 9/6 11211 1280 1432 1584 ! /3S ILILW 2(1411 21!M 2.144 249G Win 28,)0 2952 3104 3256 34118 3560 3712
39(30 3999 !51 307 463 619 //5 931 I(KL7 !243 1399 1555 1)1! ltlb7 2m23 21/0 .2J35 24!II 2647 280” 295!3 31!5 327 I 3427 3583 3739 3095
.limll 4119’J 106 266 426 586 746 !306 !066 fY26 1386 1546 ! 11,(3 IL!(,6 2026 2 luI> 234(, 25(16 2666 2826 2986 3146 3X16 3466 3626 3766 3946
4!W, 4(99 134 298 462 626 7W 954 ! I 18 (282 1446 !bl!l {//4 1938 11,)2 22b0 243,> 25!34 2{58 2922 3006 3250 3414 35/8 3/42 3906 4070
421X 42!W 76 ?44 4c2 5LW 748 9\15 )W4 1’252 1420 IWll !75(, 19?1 ,.(,LI? 2.?@I 24,!6 25!xJ 2 /(,4 2932 3I LW 3268 3436 3604 3772 3~4[) 41”8
43(,(> 4399 I 50 322 494 666 038 1010 1182 1*54 !Wti IGw ILllll 2<IC2 2214 2JLlb 2558 2130 29,12 3(174 3246 34!8 359U 3762 3934 4106 4278
.14un 4499 1?2 308 464 660 836 1012 1!08 1364 154CJ l/!g I Llw 2(108 2244 242,1 25W, 2//2 2U48 3!24 33W 3476 3652 3$28 4004 4! 00 4356
45[,0 45YY 143 >23 503 6V3 ~~~ ,043 ,223 ,403 1583 l/6J _ ILNJ 212J 23111 24s3 2(,(,, 2L14J J(IZJ .3203 3383 3563
‘llmn 469’3 66 250 434
3743 3LV3 4103 4283 4463
6!8 802 986 I !70 !354 !538 1 /22 !!JI16 2i1911 )2/4 2.15H ?b.!2 2(12,> 4,>1,) 3 ! !3.1 J3/8 3562 3/46 3W0 4114 4298 4482
4700.4799 22 2!0 390 586 774 962 1150 1338 1526 1714 1902 21190 22/8 2466 ,?654 2842 303!1 *2!6 34W5 3594 3782 3970 4158 4346 4534
4800 4899 90 290 482 674 866 1056 1250 1442 1634 !021: 2,1 ! 8 ‘2210 24112 ?5!M 2 /86 2!I!LI J ! I(I 3’,62 3554 3746 39*El .4! 3rJ 4322 4514 4706
4900 4~99 3 1w 395 5~\ 787 963 1179 >375 157) 1/67 I w“ 2159 2355 2551 2/4/ 2943 3139 3335 3531 3727 3923 4119 4315 4511 4707
5<1(1,15[199 86 28G .lnL1 601; 886 I (ml; I )Hfi ! 486 ! 6116 ! N91> 7081> ??HG 1,1,,(, /(){,,, /,,,,(’ ,, ,“,, ,?U[, ,,,8(, ,IJJ’ 3“86 q“gb——. — 4206 44W 4686 4BU6
51,1%1 51W 12.3 J27 531 735 939 1143 134/ 1551 1755 1~5<> 21.3 2j6/ 25/1 211’5 >*lti J!l+$ 338/ 35~\ 3 )95 3909— 4203 44(31 46, 1 4615 5(119
52(1,1 Qw 1/5 .3[13 591 !99 ICI(I7 1215 1423 11,31 Iuw ?114( j ,!)!, ,, ,(, , 2(. / I ,’,, /!1 ,1,,!/ ,,,45 !,,(IJ ,/1 I ~?!g_fl!2/ 4JJ5 4543 4/~t 4959 51b~
, ,1)11 5JW Iul w] bl15 LI17 ! 8129 1241_- ~45J IM,!, 111// ~ 2$,81 J,l > .,/.,5 ,,),; . J1 19 3%111 15) I .III15 .!19/ 42$)!3 4421 .I,,JI 4845 51,5 i 5269
54,!) 54X 113 3,!7 545 t61 977 I!Y3 14W 1625 1841 2! 15/ ?2/J ?Jdq 2 /,,5 .+! 4! ,7 J lr,~ J5fi9 .A 3..417 44J3 4649 *. 5081 5297
!,>, (,) >599 1?(1 +3<1 1>111 tldd 1115<1 12!18 1 1!1,’ !/1(1 193,, ‘1:>,1 2 $),> .’99,1 <,!!!, $,8>,8 1:!,,1 ~-. n,,), ) All,, .IIJL 4%() 457CI 4(WJ 5,,10 5“30 5450
5WU 569!2 n 232 456 6811 W)4 (128 I 352 1570 IIlllt, 2$!24 2248 2.! /2 21,9. 2:12!1 .>144 .33G13 J592 38! 6 41NI, 4264 4488 4712 4936 5160 5394
571,1( 51W 1114 332 561J ff18 !1,16 1244 1472 1Ic,la 192:! 21,1> 2 WI 2,,12 .Jtj,(, - _ .LKJ,, J5J.1 J/52 JWIJ 42(18 4436 461;4 413V2 5120 5346 5576
__wl $,1 5899 511 211” 514 /,uJ 978 t21cl (442 1S/4 19(K> Z!313 2.$/1, )MJJ & $ fl,l) .3,,! ),! ,J, 30 J/b? - .4!194.-. .—. —— — ~~~~ 4458 4690 4922 5154 5306 5616
– w )(J 5999 5(J 286 522 758 9s74 123,~ 1466 17(Y2 1938 2174 24,,, 21,46 ihn) .Iln J $54 .,590 JH2b 411w2 4298 4534 47711 5uL16 5242 5478
6(,(,1,61,~q ,58 3g8 G3B
5714
6/0 !I!8 1358 15!18 18.30 21118 2*I8 2558 2/98 ,6tJH d?). J>Ill .>/56 *9JM 1235 4478 4((8 4950 5198 5438 567n 5916
6!(10 619!I 182 426 670 Q1’1 1158 1402 11J41J 10W 2134 23/8 2622 2866 3IJ(J J J5.I ~_ 38+2 ‘Iull[> 4JJo 45/4 4818 5v62 5306 5550 5794 6038
@
.@?s‘L&,
Dear
A week or so ago you agreed
Employee Relations Directorate
Department of Trade and lndust~Room 2.A.411 Victoria StreetLondon SW{ H OET
Tel: Freephone 08000680707
Fax: 01712152641
Email: Mark. Cully@l RDV.dti.gov.uk
Survev of Emrdovee Relations Practices
to take part m this survey, which comprisesrepresentatives of management and employees andthe employees themselves,
collecting mformatlon fromYou were interviewed by an
interviewer from Social and Community Planning Research (SCPR), an Independent research mstltute thatISadmu-ustenng the survey for us. The Department is most grateful for your help in this respect.
I am wntmg to you now about the survey among employees. The Interviewer left with you a number ofpacks contammg questionnaires to be handed out to specified employees. The employees were either topost the quest] onnames directly to SCPR, or leave them at a central workplace point, to be collected or sentoff at a later date.
SCPR reforms me that, so far, we have not recewed replies from of these employees. (They know thissimply from the serial numbers of the quest] onnames received.)
I am therefore enclosing with this letter a fresh questionnaire pack for those employees from whom SCPRhas not yet received replies, m case the originals have been misla]d. The names are as copied down by theinterwewer onto the orig]nal questionnaire packs. I would be most grateful If you could arrange for these tobe handed out to the employees selected, so that they might complete and return them as soon as ispracticable,
It is of course poss~ble that some rcplles have crossed w~th this letter m the post. If so, please accept myapolog]es and, m any event, my thanks m antic] pat]on of your help. If you would like any furtherinformation about the survey, please call me on the above number. Altematlvely you m]ght wish to contact
Ms Pauhne Burge at SCPR (Tel: 01277 200600) - who IS responsible for the administration of th]s survey.
Yours faithfully
/V’z.
7
Mark CullyPr]nc]pal Research Officer
dtiDtpartnimt or Trade and Industry
DepmnxnrofTiadeandIndumy
du●
THE 1997 WORKPLACE EJMPLOYEE RELATIONS SURVEY
SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES
● It is important that we receive back as many completed questionnaires as possible sothat the results of the survey will be fully representative of all employees in GreatBritain. We are therefore contacting you again to ask for your cooperation.
● To date we have not received your questionnaire and are therefore enclosing asecond copy - in case the first has been mislaid or is not to hand. We would be most
grateful if you would complete this and return it in the envelope provided,
● Please accept our apologies if this second copy reaches you after you have returnedthe first (because it has crossed in the post).
. If this is so and you have already sent in the first copy, please could you return the
second copy, unmarked, in the envelope provided.
● Thank you for your help and cooperation.
C,AL k CO M.VU4J,>
Heml Office 35 ,VORTHAMPTON SQUARE -o F,eld ond DP O,fj?ce /00 KINGS ROAD
LONDONECIVOAV .,SCPR’ ‘RENT)vOODEssEyc&J)JMTt.i. 017/ 250 /866 Far 0/;/ !50 /524 Tel, 0/?77 200600 Fmr 0/?772)4 //7
4V‘+
~1, c ~$,$~+
P1700
SEQ: CASE SPECIFIC REJMINDER PROCEDURES m
[ONE OF THESE SHEETS TO BE COMPLETED FOR EACH ESTABLISHMENT FAILING TO REACH 40%REIZRN BY REMINDER DATE]
SERIAL NO. I~
BRIEF ADDRESS
Management Respondent
SEQ Respondent
Interviewer No ~1
interviewer Name
Interviewer Tel. No.
‘EQ‘LACEMEST‘ATE ~TEL NO, OF ESTAB.
Q’NAIRES PLACED
Q’NAIRES RECEIVED TO DATE
REMINDER DATE REACHED: (/)
1> 1997 —
lx 1998 r‘-F-
WEDNESDAY. I
A CONTACT WITH INTERVIEWER:(/)
INTERVIEWER Yes r
ACTIONNo
c
B CONTACT WITH D.T. I.(/)
DTI Yes r
ACTIONIJ
No ——
C CONTACT WITH RESEARCHER(/)
RESEARCHER YesACTIOY L
No ilD CONTACT WITH ESTAB,/H.0.
PROPOSED ACTION
(/)
RIMINDERS TO BE SENT ~ (See Instruction)
NO FURTHER ACTIO?J -u
RITURNED TO D P. ON COMPLETED BY
i:lWIRS\MAIN\DOCS’SEO Rem
I SIDE TWO 1
SEQ: CASE SPECIFIC REMINDER PROCEDURES
[ONE OF THESE SHEETS TO BE COMPLETED FOR EACH ESTABLISHMENT FAILING TO REACH
40% RETURN BY REMINDER DATE]
RECORD OF CALLS
CALL CALL DATE OF TIME OF PERSONNO. TYPE CALL
COMMENTSCALL SPOKEN TO:
(A-D}
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
J
,
FACT SflEET: P170LJ IJERS - IIAIN SURVEY
Serial No.Int. IJ().Batch No. 2wave No. 1Outcome 23
/
ZALLEMPS ;;:: if tlng,sZMALfWLL ProfsZFLTIFULL G1,13 TechZMALPRT “ CletZFEMPRT ::3 Cra Ct.
PersSalesOpe r-RIIULOUT
CIIECK 1 SUPKESSEL3 NoCI{ECK 2 SUPRESSED Yes
A SCORE = LJ,LB SCORE = 3
Size Cl]eck PassUnion ‘Rep Cl]eck PassCOnUIIRel) Check N/AOther Out.co(ne Check N/A
REFER T(.7 RESEARCH: Yes
EPQ. EPQhlAIN. ZEMPIAGOlast data was for march 96
EPQ. EPQMAIN.ZEMP5AG0march 93
EPQ. EPQMAIN.ZUNIMJWguese no way LIE knowi[]g
SECTIONB. BALJTHOR1not all
SECTIONB .BA{JTliOR3some do some dent
SECTIONB.BAPPL1EDpart of university
SECTIOND.DBRIEFN
has
MFTo
769]<,(J
710
8300
860
FFTo
21/,21
2700
2700
1091
PIP’J’o
4143000081
FPTo
II 610
1/,?o600
335L
“I’(JT’A[ ,(1
10701/”)/,?1
L1116
0
Look at l;lv~: Y(, s/H<)
OUT0()
,,,,., 01238 If3BR STr, First-degree level higher ~[~ucation
m 00591f.lm 00081 ASICDESC: te~(hing and research[,p’r 00633T(J’TAL 02543 SIC code:
“c C“e(”k’ @fai’
FUN 1ON(JIIEToTRECLg. Ire(( lg.KS TENAR[)1:53 Iwix’rEOTIIRII’5Es 1 ‘TL)N2ARIPTYPC
I
1AI IREPcIIKAllRKf’Cl[K.JAGEN(; YYN 99Q9KACTIV [ IMQI.OC}IQI, EN :001llOWlfANY 1
(’It[)SS-SI!CT[ON SURVEY FACT SIIEE’I
(Wc)I<l<ING I>OCUMEN’I’)
veries amonst groups
SECTIONi7. ERftCOG[ 1]not pay only con(iltiotls
SECTIONE.ERECOG[ 3]
M
!’fdd (turf [V ()//; (,.
100”KI \ (,,sK),’11)
81{E.I m ()()0 L$’.SE,Y( ,11/44[..Y
‘rt.[.zfwoYF:()1277.2110()(MI
FLY.O/277.2 /fl/7
F.,,,<z,l,,</,, h! >,/J,.,tc(,k
/,({/,,’/,,:,:,. ,,/), ,,,, ,,k
Dear
SURVEY OF E.MPLOYEE RELATIONS PRACTICES 1997
Following our recent dlscuss[on I am wntlng to conth-n the date and time of our appointment and toprowde my name and means ofcorrtact with me,
Date of appointment Time of day
Name of interviewer:
Contact:
It WIII significantly reduce the length of the Interview if some basic information about the size andstructure of the workforce at your establishment is available at the beglrrnlng of the interview. I amtherefore wntmg to you with the enclosed Employee Profile Questionnaire and very much hope that itcan be completed prior to my visit.
In order to gain a complete picture of the workplace, the DTI would also Ilke us to dlstnbute a shortquestlonname to a small number of your employees. To faclhtate the selectlon, It would be helpful If alist of employees were to be available at the time of my ws]t.
With thanks In ant]cipatlon of your co-operat]on.
Yours sincerely,
du●
Depatmentoflade antiIndruq
THE 1997 WORKPLACE EMPLOYEE RELATIONS SURVEY
STATEMENT OF ANONYMITY PROCEDURES
Throughout the survey and reporting process measures will be taken to protect the
anonymity of respondents. No individual establishments or respondents w]II beidentified or identifiable in the published reports. The data will be used to generateaggregate tables and complex statistical analyses for published reports.
For administrative purposes it is necessary that each questionnaire and questionnaire
record has a unique identification number. The key to this sequence of numbers will, atall times, be kept separate from the data. It will remain confidential to the projectresearchers within the Department of Trade and Industry and Social and Community
Planning Research.
Most of the survey data will be made available in an anonymous form to academic andother researchers via the Data Archive at the University of Essex in late 1998, Thedataset will not include the region in which each establishment is located nor complete
data on the type of activity undertaken. No lists of cooperating establishments will beavailable.
The full dataset (but, again, without lists of cooperating establishments) will beavailable from the Department of Trade and Industry, subject to the signing of a
Memorandum undertaking to use the data for bonajide research purposes only and tocontinue to preserve the anonymity of the data.
issued on behaifof the four sponsoring bodres - the Department of Trade and lndusyp [he Economic and
Social Research Councd, the Policy Studtes lnstltute and the AdvIsoty, Concdiation and Arbwatzon
Service - and Social and Communiy Planning Research.
w~tatisWERS 97?
WERS 97 is a national survey of people at
work. It follows in the acclaimed footsteps of
earlier surveys conducted in 1980, 1984 &
1990.
The survey is jointly sponsored by ACAS, the
Department of Trade and Industry, the
Economic and Social I?esearch Council, and the
Policy Studies Institute.
Its only purpose is to provide an account, for all
to use, of management - employee relations.
For this reason, the survey is supported and
endorsed by leading organisations like the
Confederation of British Industry, the Trades
Union Congress, and the Institute of Personnel
and Development. It has no hidden agenda.
final tlrol{ghts
The reason for the study is to produce information that
truly reflects the way employees do their work. It has
been designed in a spirit of openness, a spirit we hope
will be reflected in your willingness to take part.
If you haveanyqueries,pleasecontactAndrewO’Reilly
a memberof the researchteamat the:
Employment Relations Directorate,
Department of Trade& Industry,
Room 2,B.41
I Victoria Street,
LondonSWIH OET
Telephone:0800-0680707
( free phone)
The 1997
Workplace
Employee
Relations
Survey
r
FURTHER
INFORMATION
freephone
0800.0680707
Employees in all types of workplaces including schools,
shops, offices and factories in Britain will take pert,
h is important that, if chosen, you take parl because:
■ it IS a rare and exciting opportunity to contribute to
the biggest survey of its kind in Britain.
■ your experience IS vdal and without that special
knowledge, we would not have a true picture of
how work is organised.
ll~llo t}lillks WERS 97 isa good idea?
The Confederation of British Industry (CBI), the Trades
Union Congress (TUC) and the Institute of Personnel
and Development all enthusiastically support the
survey.
total cot2fidentiality Gfinof2ynlity
Corrfldentiality and anonymity is totally guaranteed No
person will be identified from the findings. We gave
and kept the same promise in the three earlier surveys,
■ a great deal of time, effort and public money would
have otherwise been wasted.
Social and Community Planning Research (SCPR) have
been hired to distribute the questionnaires betwetm
October 1997 and March 1998, A summary report of
the findings will be provided to all participating
workplaces in autumn 1998.
_aA%@
Printed m the UKon recycled paper with a mmmum HMSOscore of 25.
September 1991. Department of Tradeand Industry‘c, Crow” Copyrighthnp.//www dtl gov u!V
OT1/Pub2940/65V9/97/NR
SECTION NINE: PAPER DOCUMENTS - FIELDWORK AND OTHER
PANEL SURVEY AND TRAWL OF EXCLUDED ESTABLISHMENTS
●
9
9
●
●
●
●
●
Address Record Form
Telephone Questionnaire (TQ)
Basic Workforce Data Sheet
DTI Letter to Managers
Specimen Fact Sheet
Statement of Anonymity Procedures
Trawl Sheet
Trawl Document
‘,. . & =OMM~&,,Heed ofj,~ 3s NORTHA,wP TON SQUARE +0 Field md DP Ofjicc 100 KINGS R0,4D
LoN.o.~c~oAx Sc PR: BR~~T~OOD.ESSE.YCfi(/#LKTel 017/ 1501866 Fox 017/ -?S015?4 -, Tel. 0/277 >00600 Fax 01277214 ))7
RETURN NO. ,,,
WERS OUTCOME CODE mADDRESS RECORD FORM (PQ)
INTERVIEWER NO,
INTERVIEWER NAME~
ESTABLISHMENT ADDRESS SPACE TO WRITE IN CORRECTIONS FOR ADDRESS
~
1987/1 992/1 997
ADDRESS LABEL
IIL_____J i1997 RESPONDENT 1997 TELEPHONE NO.
[ I ,
Name I IJob title
~
SPACE FOR CONTACT DETAILS (e.g. Name of respondent’s secretary, how to find the address) ~
07
U
-
III
III
08 09 10 11 12
u--uLLIU3DCmIImmmmcEHlml!Il
EXACT TIME OF CALL
(24 hour clock)
STARTTME ml . ~ FINISH TIME ‘~ . ~] DURATION (MINUTES) ~
1\WIRS\PANEL\DOCS\Pmrf
2
SUMMARY OF INTERVIEW RESPONSE
NOT TRACED*
Not traced - telephone/address information insufficient”
Premises vacant/derelicUdemolished (unable to trace establishment to new address)
CONTACT AT ESTABLISHMENT
Premises have different occupant, unable to trace 1990 establishment
1990 establishment closed down
1990 establishment now has fewer than 25 employees
Other ineligible (SPECIFY BELOW)
PRODUCTIVE
Interview at selected establishment
interview at Head Office
Interview at other Iocatlon(s) (SPECIFY)
UNPRODUCTIVE
Management respondent never available/no contact
Contact made/management respondent refused
Refused by Head Office/Area OffIce
Claimed prior refusal to DT1/SCPR
Broken appointment, no recontact
Ill/away for duration of survey
Other unproductive (SPECIFY BELOW)REASON FOR UNPRODUCTIVE 0UTCOME71-77
“ HELP WITH TRACING ESTABLISHMENTS“POSTCODE CHECWINFORMATION 0N0345111222COMPANY DATABASE AT SCPR ON 01277200600 [ASK FOR PAULINE BURGE’S DP TEAM)
l:\WIRSWANEL\DGCSW.@
I
I
20
21
32
33
35
37
50
51
52
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
PI 699
‘oNDoNEc]vOAx ‘SCPR:
Head Oflce: 35 NORTHAMPTON SQUARE
Tel. 0171250 /866 fox 0171 2S0 /524 ‘<,
‘+*INC .E.E~*
Field and DP .flce: 100 KINGS ROADBRENTWOOD, ESSEX CM14 42.XTel: 01277200600 Fax; 01277214117
1997 WORKPLACE EMPLOYEE RELATIONS SURVEY
PANEL SURVEY: ESTABLISHMENT INFORMATION
SERIAL NO.
A. 1990 WORKPLACE EMPLOYEE RELATIONS SURVEY
ADDRESS OF ESTABLISHMENTNB: DO NOT AMEND THESE DETAILS WORKFORCE IN 1990 1990 RESPONDENT (Write in)
lTotal lName I
LManual
Non-manual Tel. No.
Status1 1 I I I
B. INFORMATION TO IDENTIFY ESTABLISHMENTIWORKFORCE - BASED ON 1997 IDBR
ACTIVlll’ AT ESTABLISHMENT INDUSTRY IWORKFORCE AT ESTABLISHMENT
FULL-TIME PART-TIME TOTAL
MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE
I‘ULTIMATE CONTROLLING COMPANY IN 1990
2 NOTES TO EXPLAIN/CLARIFY DEFINITION OF ESTABLISHMENTIWORKFORCE IMPORTANTALWAYS EXPLAIN how establishment was defined in 1997 and about changes since 1990 which may affect thedefinition.
(continue overleaf if necessary)
h\VflRS\PANEL\DCCS\Estm fo
86
16—.
-
IS“o0109z
W’DMsvL
I
Iqc”onsvz
S4DO1O91
M3HWllN3NOHd3131aNV3(1031SOdllrl~31ON
0140lNOWNONIEUINMLssadppeluaJm3moAsl]eqMipg~
mou~l,uoa
6~MV3AANV41‘S3AOLNN3H1O40SIIVL3GNI311NM
(Z~-~O)HINOINLsas!waJdwa~JnsJnoAOJaAOculuawqs!lqelsaJno~PIPUaI.IjVI:OC”C
066\awwspwueua~]nqsas!uaJdawesON
saA
LSaSIUIaJdyJaJa$yp0]paAouIlU~WqS!lqe]saJnO~seH~qC.~
ON
saA
2ssaJppeslql]eIl!is]uawqs!lqeJsaJnOAsl(SSg~Qavlln~)seM
s
v
Wonswc
z
1
:001091
8
‘2
z
1
(N131R!M)
sJaMsuela~o
(lnoAnqluaua6euew6a)uoqes!ue6JowoqMOl!lds
U0peSlUe6J0Ja~OueqyMpa6JawuoiJeslue6J0
~smlo>le]!dsoHSHNIAql!lnpasqewd”6’s‘SWISUIa6ueq0
:lN31NHSl19VlS3I
:iElAOldbV3
(N1311NM)Pasuewsevaweu‘oN
aueusues‘sa,i,
~:uawp!lqelsaawJOaweuaqIigss!qls!“LN3WIHSIWIV1S3403WVNqpmpauJaxto5SEMMaymlu!aq‘1366LUI(e~~
snolAaodl3003~MoUSlJ,liOa
UOqeS!Ue6J01046U~JOMK16UOIOU‘ON
MoUluapuodsajs!uosjadJaWO]nq‘saA
MOU~u9puodSeJpUe‘SaA1
~uoges!ue6JomoAJo!61JPPOMIIYS
lN3tlNOdS3HsIOZILWNs!?paqoIue~
“0661U!PaPalloSelepaww’Asuosuedwoaaxewoialq!esodaqPlncmt!JaV+aWaaso]Juatuqs!lqelsaJuamwa~JnoqesuotyanbJaqumueyseOJS!~oeluogflle~SIqIJOuqeaql.~gaNOdS3~
1NZUWV3VNVL%!303WVNWss3tiaav]eluawqs!lqe]sauemoqeMa!Nalu!uepa:anpuooaMuaqm‘kamtssno!haJdeu!pedqoo>uo~es!ue6~oJnoA‘c166IaWISSUO!e/JJaaAo@wa
u!sa6ueqoJeXOOIOJh@npUlpueape~lJO~uawuedaaa~Jo~Ap~SL121eaSaJe6u.WnPuo~aJeaPA
[MdXaNV3T3SWIOA3W100UNl]
LnoUVZM.....-.3sn1~-(u~)EIWVNNOLLSWl~EINOI-IdTEU
l’tJ
TELEPHONE QUESTIONNAIRE (TQ) -2 USEONI V.
IF MOVER AT Q.3a
Q.4a Why did you move to these premises?
CODE ALL THAT APPLY
Needed more space/business expanded
Needed less space/business contracted
End of lease
Change of ownership
Other answers
1
2
3
4
5
Can’t say
Q.4bl At the time of the move, how much of the workforce
was transferred to the new ste . ..READ OUT...
..,75% or more.
50% but less than 75%.
25%, but less than 50%
less than 25%
or none?
(Can’t say)
8
1
2
3
4
5
8
Q.4c Does your orgamsatlon still employ anyone at
the Iocatlon covered by the 1990 mterwewTYes 1 ASK Q.4cf
No -GO TO Q.7
Can’t say 8
Q 4d Which establishment now contarrs the largest part of the
actwltles of the establishment covered by the 1990 mterwew?
.. —.. .—
This establishment (Address as at Q.3d) 1
The 1990 estabhshment 2 GO TO Q.7
Somewhere else 3——. ——-c
ASK ALL NOT MOVED SINCE 1990
Q.5 Has the estabhshment covered by the 1990 rrterwew
merged with another branch or department of
your orgamsation since 1990? Yes 1
No 2
Can’t say 8
Q.6a Has the establishment covered in the prewous survey changed
as a result of a branch or department moving out since 1990?..— — .———-—
Yes 1 ASK Q.6b
No 2GO TO Q.7
Can’t say 8. .—. .———
Q.6b Which Iocatlon now represents the largest parl of the
actwlties of the establishment covered by the 1990 intem’iew?
This establishment (Address as at Q,3d) 1
The 1990 estabhshment 2
Somewhere else 3
TELEPHONE QUESTIONNAIRE (TQ) -3 USE
CODE IF OBVIOUS, OTHERWISE ASWQ.7” Can I check, has the establishment covered in the previous survey
had any changes of ownership since 1990?
Yes 1
No 2
Can’t say 8
Q.8a Is this establishment one of a number of establishments m the UK
belonging to the same orgarvsatlon, the sole UK establishment
for a foreign orgamsation or a single independent establishment?
One of a number (n the UK
Sole UK establishment of a foreign organisation
A single independent establishment
Q.9a)l What ISthe mam actwity of the establishment at present?WRITE IN
1
2
3
Q.9b) Can I just check, has the main activity of this establishment
changed since 1990?
Yes 1 ASK Q.9c
Q 9c) How did this change m actwity come about?
Q 10 How many people are currently employed at this establishment?
Please _ people who work elsewhere If they are part of the
workforce reporting to thts establishment.
——- .. .——.
WRITE IN EXACT NUMBER IF GIVEN ——. ..—
NOTE: Number of people, not
the full-time equivalent number
Exclude agency temps, freelance, etc
Q.11 We shall write with detads of the new study. which
wIII take place this Autumn. Can I check. who IS the
Sentor Manager responsible for Personnel
or Employee Relatlons at your establishment?
WRITE IN NAME
And what is your/his/her job title?
WRITE IN JOB TITLE
No 2 GO TO Q.1O
1-4 1
5-9 2
10-24 3
25-49 4
50-99 5
100-499 6
500 or more 7
ONLY
Q. 12 What is your fax number at thts establishment?
CODE ( ) NUMBER ( ) +1
No fax number 9
THANK RESPONDENT AND CLOSE
I TELEPHONE QUESTIONNAIRE (TQ) -4
A./ FINAL OUTCOME OF TELEPHONE CONTACT
j NoT TRACED
I Not traced - telephone/address Information insufficient
Premises vacant/derelict/demolished, (unable to trace establishment)
~CONTACT AT ESTABLISHMENTIt Premises have different occupant, unable to trace 1990 establishment
1990 estabiishmen~k+ed down!I
1990 establishment now has fewer than 4.0-employeesI
Other ineligible (specify below)
PRODUCTIVE
Productive - establishment contacted
j UNPRODUCTIVE
Broke appointmentI Refusal by Head Of’KcelArea Of5ce
Refusai at establishment
Other outcome (specify below)
WRITE IN DETAILS
Name and job fitfe of person contacted
Reason for unproductive outcome
OFFICE USE ONLY:
B. PROCEED TO MAIN SURVEY?CONFIRMEO CONTINUES
CONFIRMED CLOSED OOWN
OTHER OUTCOMES (SPECIFY)
C, AT MAIN SURVEY?CONTACT DIRECT AT ESTABLISHMENT
WAVE 2 CONTACT, REFER TO HEAD OFFICE
WAVE ; ,5 NOTIFY HEAD OFFICE
OTHER OUTCOMES (SPECIFY)
—
20
21
32
33
35
37
40
43
45
46
41
1,
1
1!
i:1’‘!
2 1 I
3
1
2
3
3
LENGTH OF INTERVIEW ~ MINUTES. —
DATE OF INTERVIEW (ddmm) I- .—
USEONLY
INTERVIEWER INTERVIEWER NUMBER ~ II
The 1997 Workplace Employee Relations Survey
Carried out for the
Department of Trade and Industry’
Basic workforcedata sheet
It would be of great help if this sheet could be completed before theinterviewer’s visit and available at the beginning of the interview,
Thank you for your help,
“In collaboration wkh the Advisory Conciatlon and Arbitration Service,the Economic and Social Research Council and the Policy Studies Insihjte.
P1 699HeadOffice 35 NorthamptonSquare,‘LondonECIV ON
Tel:01712501866 Fax:01712501524
Ser[alNo.
II
Notes
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
‘Establishment’ refers to the premises indicated by theaddress on the covering letter It does not include any otherpremises that may belong to your organisation or toestablishments dtferent and separate from yours.
Workforce data refer to the employees of a single employerat that establishment only. They should relate to the time atwhich you complete the data sheet, There are no questionson seasonal variations
‘Employees” should be understood m Its strict sense:people with a contract of employment. The term excludesany free-lance workers, home or out workers, and casualworkers who do not have a contract of employment.Representatwes, salesmen and simdar employees should beincluded f this IS the establishment to which they prmc]pallyreport.
‘Part time’ employees are those who work fewer than 30hours per week,
‘Non-manual’ occupations are those of a managerial.professional or clerlcal nature.
Occupations involvec in selling lo~her thanroundsmen andgarage forecourt attendants) are included as non.manual.
Security service occupations (including pohce, fire serwceofficers, traffic wardens, but not including security guardsand patrolmen) are to be counted as non-manual.
Salesmen, laboratory a$slstants should be Included as tumortechnical employees, unless they have supervisoryresponslbllties.
Nurses without superwsory responslbllltles and traineemedical staff should be included as )umortechnical/professional: superwsmg nurses and qualifiedmedical professional staff as senior. Teachers andacademic staff at universt!es should be included astechnical/professional staff, being categorised as junior orsenior according to the level of their responsibility.
Admimstrative staff should only be Included withclerical/secretarial staff when they have no supervisory ormanagerial responsibility.
All superwsors of manual workers [including foremen) and ofclerical/secretarial staff are to be classified as non-manual.
All occupations not included m non-manual, are to becounted as manual.
A “skilled worket IS one who has recewed formal tralnmgthrough an apprenticeship or its equwalent,
Working charge-hands are to be counted as skilledemployees.
In Question 5 please check the figure entered against thisyear’s total (Question 1) to make sure it is on the samebasis.
Please gwe best estimates if you don’t have exact data.Write NIL If you have no employees in a category,If you have queries, please refer to the notes opposite.If you fleed to clar[fy any of the information you give, use the back of this sheet.
Total
1 Currently how many employees do you have on the payroll at th[s establishment?
2 (a) How many of these ‘workfull t]me (30 (b] How manywork part time (fewerthanhours or more per week)? Please show 30 hours per week)? Please show malesmales and females separately. and females separately,
Full time Pan time
Male Female Male Female
~r---~i
Total
i
Totzl jnould be mesame m Question i
3 Ofthe manual employees m this establishment how manyare,..Full time TotalPan time
Male r$~~e.—
Male Fems[e
unskdlec? Il_._---
sklilea?I
I
4 Of the non-manual employeesin this establishmenthow many are,.,
Full time Part time Total
Male Female
I
Male Female
cler!calJaam[nlszaOve/secretarial?
superv60rs/foremen?
pnior techmcaljprofessional?
semor techn!cal/professional?
mdole/seniormanagers?
I
I
)
I
II
rI
Tatat employees12 months ago5 This t}me last year, how many employees did you have on the payroll at this establishment
(full and part time)?
Thank you for completing this form. Please keep it and hand it to the SCPRinterviewer
@
&&‘@i
Dear
In I 990 a representative of
Employment Relations DirectorateDepartment of Trade and IndustryRoom 2.A.411 Victoria StreetLondon SWIH OET
Tel: Frecphone 0800.0680707FaY.:01712152641Emaik Mark.Cully@lRDV. dti.gov.uk
Survev of Emulovee Relations Practices 1997
management in your organisation kindly gave an interview about yourestablishment as part of the third Sumey of Employee Relations. The surveys in this series have beenconducted by Soc]al and Commumty Planning Research (SCPR), an independent research institute onbehalf of the former Department of Employment, the Economic and Social Research Council, the PolicyStudies Institute and the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS).
We have now decided to do a further survey in the series and, once again, have mvited SCPR to undertake itfor us. The surveys are designed to chart change and stabiIity in employee relations practices. For thatreason we are returning to establishments surveyed in 1990 to identify how much change has occurred. Aswith the earner surveys, we will publish a report on the main findings. The report arising from the 1990survey, Workpiace Industrial Relafions in Transition, generated widespread interest and comment. We verymuch hope that you will be able to participate again in this important project, which has the support of the
Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress and the Institute of Personnel andDevelopment.
An SCPR interviewer will shortly contact you to seek your cooperation in the current survey. I very muchhope that you will agree to be interviewed. The value of the survey depends very much on the cooperationof all those selected. All those participating will be prov]ded w]th a summary of the main survey findings.
The information you provide will be used solely for research purposes and wdl be confidential to the projectresearchers within the Department and its selected survey organisation. Neither individuals nor theirworkplace will ever be Identified in the published results.
With many thanks in antic~patlon of your help. If you would like any further information about the surveythen please call me free of charge on 08000680707.
Yours sincerely,
Mark CullyPrincipal Research Officer
du.
Dqm’tmentof Trade and Ind.$tq
FACT SHEET: P1699 WI
Serial No.Int. no.Batch No. 14Wave No. 1Outcome 50
A:Routine 1 BNAMCHG7 1ZALLEM!?S 61 B:Semi-skllZmcm-1 39
0 BCHGOWN7C:Skilled 4 BMRGAML7 1
zFrFroT7 18 D:Clerical 10 BRECIND7 2ZPTMTOT7 o E:SuDervrs. 23 BHOWCHA7zPTFlwr7 4 F:Jn~ Profl 5 BOWNCHA7 1
G:Snr Profl 14 BslYiTus7 2H:Snr Mgrs 4 BMULT1S7 1
BADDCNG7 1 FUNICHA7F’HOWCHA7
FNUMCHA7BSINGC07BNAMEC07BCHANGEO ~hange in labour from direct to sub contractVIRISYR7 Introduction of appraisalsVIRIS907 salery review
CHECK 1 SUPRESSED No
EUNIEMP7EUNIMS?47FUNINUM7NUN190 oRECUN197 oF4 5GBEGJNT7HNUMREP7FRECCHA7GHOWCHA7
CHECK 2 SUPRESSED No
g’h+ck25: Est. moved eince 1990 and emps since changed by >20%B16A . Yes and BADDCHG7 . Move
REFSR TO RBSEARCH: Yes
SECTIONM.MDISNUM7est
S i zebnd 2 1990 SIC (to SIC ‘SO)Workforce 1990 (construction)- Total 00109 BACTV17 (below)- Manual 00004 house building- Non-manual 00105
0
Enter SIC code:
HOWMANY 1PQLSN 45
PANEL SURVEY FACT SHEEr
(WORKINCDOCUMENT)
P
IhprtmentofTtadeandIniiutq
THE 1997 WORKPLACE EMPLOYEE RELATIONS SURVEY
STATEMENT OF ANONYMITY PROCEDURES
Throughout the survey and reporting process measures will be taken to protect theanonymity of respondents. No individual establishments or respondents will be
identified or identifiable in the published reports. The data will be used to generateaggregate tables and complex statistical analyses for published reports,
For administrative purposes it is necessary that each questionnaire and questionnairerecord has a unique identification number. The key to this sequence of numbers will, at
all times, be kept separate from the data. It will remain confidential to the projectresearchers within the Department of Trade and Industry, the Pohcy Studies Institute
and Social and Community Planning Research.
Most of the survey data will be made available in an anonymous form to academic andother researchers via the Data Archive at the University of Essex in late 1998. Thedataset will not include the region in which each establishment is located nor complete
data on the type of activity undertaken. No lists of cooperating establishments will beavailable.
The full dataset (but, again, without lists of cooperating establishments) will beavailable from the Department of Trade and Industry, subject to the signing of aMemorandum undertaking to use the data for bona-fide research purposes only and tocontinue to preserve the anonymity of the data.
Issued on beha/fof thefour sponsoring bodies - the Department of Trade and lndushy, ihe Economm and
Social Research Councd, [he Policy Stud[es insntute and the A dwsory, Concilia~ion and A rb{tranon
Serwce - and Social and Commun!y Planning Research,
1:\WlRSVWA1NUX3CS\TSbeet
Head Ofice: 35NORTHAMPTON SQUARE Field and DP O#ice: /00 KINGS ROAD
‘ONDONEc’vOAx ;SCCP2 ‘RENmOOD”Ess’’cM’4’u
Tel: 0!712S0 1866 Fax 0171 2S0 1524 Tel: 01277200600 FIX: 01277214117
~+4
%,NG ~Est~*
P1699 May-July 1998
WERS: 1990 PRODUCTIVES NOT INCLUDED IN 1997/8 PANEL SAMPLE
TELEPHONE TRAWL SHEET
1990SERJALNO. BRIEF ADDRESS 1990 (OR 1998 IF DIFFERENT):
[11111
1998 TEL NO. 1995 RESPONDENT JOB TITLE OF 1998 RESPONDENT
THIS ESTABLISHMENT . . . Yes No 1
. . . wholly remains at 1990 addressI !
. . in same ownership as in 1990 I I I. has 25+ employees
If all answers ‘Yes’ confirm full name, postal address and telephone number and code document.
If ANY answers ‘No’ note details below, use trawl document for guidance and then code document.
TELEPHONE CALL RECORD
Date Time Notes
A.
B.
c.
HeIwI OJce: 3S NORTHAMPTON SQUARELONDON EC! V OAX
Tel: O1712501866 F17x01711501524 :SCCPRFie[dand DP@lce: IOOKINGSROADBRENTWOOD. ESSEX CM144LXTel: O1277200600 Fu:O12?7214117
4*&/NG +’+
~E\f.~
May-July 1998
WERS: 1990 PRODUCTIVES NOT INCLUDED IN 1997/8 PANEL SAMPLE
TELEPHONE TRAWL DOCUMENT
1990 SERIAL NO.
1998TEL NO.
BRIEF ADDRESS 1990 (OR 1998 IF DIFFERENT):
1998 RESPONDENT JOBTITLEOF 1998 RESPONDENT
ATTACHED ARE 3 SHEETS OF CONTACT INFORMATION ABOUT THE 1990 INTERVIEW. THE AIM OFTHIS TIL4WL 1S TO ESTABLISH WHETHER THE ESTABLISHMENT ABOUT WHICH WE INTERVIEWED IN1990 CONTINUES IN EXISTENCE AND STILL HAS 25 OR MORE EMPLOYEES. WE ENVISAGE THAT THISWILL BE SO IN THE MAJORITY OF CASES. WE ARE NOT THEREFORE ISSUING A VERBATIMQUESTIONNAIRE, BUT ASKING YOU TO CODE ONE OF THE OUTCOMES (A-J) BELOW ON THE BASIS OFINFORMAL QUESTIONING, GUIDED BY THE INFORMATION SHEET ON WHAT CONSTITUTES ACONTINUING ESTABLISHMENT.
ESTABLISHMENT CONTINUES IN EXISTENCE WITH● SAMEADDRESS● SAMEOWNERSHIP With 25+ employees 53
With 24 employees or fewer 35
Other (SPECIFY)
ESTABLISHMENT CONTINUES IN EXISTENCE WITH. SAME ADDRESS● DIFFERENT OWNERSHIP With 25+ employees 54
With 24 employees or fewer 36
Other (SPECIFY)
ESTABLISHMENT CONTINUES IN EXISTENCE, BUT. MOVED TO DIFFERENT ADDRESS● SAME OWNERSHIP With 25+ employees 55
With 24 employees or fewer 38
Other (SPECIFY)
D. ESTABLISHMENT CONTINUES IN EXISTENCE,BUT. MOVED TO DIFFERENT ADDRESS● DIFFERENT OWNERSHIP With 25+ employees 56
With 24 employees or fewer 39
Other (SPECIFY)
E.
F.
H.
1.
J.
ESTABLISHMENT CONTINUES IN EXISTENCE WITH. SAME OWNERSHIP. SOME OF 1990ESTABLISHMENT MOVED TO NEW ADDRESS
Part remaining at the 1990 address has 25+ employees 57
If part remaining at the 1990 address has 24 employees or fewer:
At least one part whichhasmoved has 25+ employees 58Allpartswhich have moved have 24 employees or fewer 40
Other (SPECIFY)
ESTABLISHMENT CONTINUES IN EXISTENCE BUT. DIFFERENT OWNERSHIP● SOME OF 1990ESTABLISHMENTMOVED TO NEW ADDRESS
Part remaining at the 1990 address has 25+ employees 59
If part remaining at the 1990 address has 24 employees or fewer:
At least one part which has moved has 25+ employees 60All park which have moved have 24 employees or fewer 41
Other (SPECIFY)
NONE OF ABOVE APPLY: ESTABLISHMENT HAS CLOSED DOWN 33
CONTACT MADE WITH ESTABLISHMENT, BUT ALL iNFORMATION REFUSED 29
ESTABLISHMENT CANNOT BE TRACEDPremises have other occupant: no other information 17
Premises vacarrdderelict)demolished: no other information 18
Telephone/address information insut%cient 19
PLEASE RECORD A??Y FURTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION BELOW:
interviewcarriedoutby Date
SECTION NINE: PAPER DOCUMENTS - FIELDWORK AND OTHER
GENER4L
●
●
●
●
●
Briefing Agenda
Wave 2 Letters (DTI and SCPR)
Fieldwork Progress Reports
Quality Control Letter and Form
Response to Query Forms (DTI and SCPR)
WERS ’97 BRIEFING AGENDA
DAY 1. (Revised after Briefing 1)
fime of Nojay
1000
10:30
10:35
10.50
11:10
11:35
12:10
12:50
13:00
13:30
15.00
15.10
15:40
16:00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
9A
Topic
Coffee & load computers
Introduction, outline of briefing,
Nature & purpose of WERS 97
introduction of who’s who.
■“ background to series■ publications & results from earlier surveys
Structure of WERS 97■ Main survey - sample selection & overviewm Panel survey - ditto■ Employee Survey - ditio
Main sample9 identifying, defining, difficulties■ sample waves
Before you visit - contact procedure■ whom to interview+ appointment making■ sending letter& materialss ideas to get co-operation
Survey conceptsm overview of topics■
■
EPQ■
m
LUNCH
key concepts in employee relationsunions & staff assohations, recognition & negotiation(point out overlap with panel)
look at it, & talk about pilot experienceSOC Groups
I
MQ: on Laptopw look at EPQ grid + go through dummy questionnaire■ point out key checks■ change largest SOC group and see effects■ enter details for EPQ Dummy 2
.$
TEA
Worker Rep:■ identify respondent■ overview of topics & features
Worker rep on Laptops (Section A)
Any Questions
Presented b~
3CPR
‘unders
3CPR
3CPR
3CPR
Funders
SCPR
SCPR
Funders
SCPR
SCPR/Funders
hW1RS\GENERALlD0CSU3RlEFAG
Employment RelationsOiitoramDepartment ofTradeandIndustqRoom 2A.411Victoria streetLondon SWIH OET
TeI:Freephone 0S00.0680707Fax: 01712152641thnaik [email protected]
Dear
Survey of Employee Relations Practices 1997
The Department of Trade md Indusrq is about to camy out the 1997 Workplace Employee Rela[ions Survey. Oneparr of the sample has been selected to be represen tacive of current employment throughout Brm.in. The other is Jfollow-up of establishments x which interviews were conducted for the 1990 WERS. w chart change and sabiiityin empioyee reiations practices. The enc!osed !eafie[ provides .m outline of [he survey’s design ond alms,
I am writing now to let you know [hat 11 esmblishmerm in your organisation have been sclec:ed m part of the
sample for the 1997 WERS. and we idemified on the atmched sheet(s J. I om sure thw YOUwill oppre:ixe that :iwvalue of the reseuch depends on the co-opemnon o i al~ [hose selected.
The survey covers J range of topics to do wi[h the practice of employee relations. This means tha[ the \ntervie\v ISbest conducted with a m-anzger at each selected establishment. probably a personnel or employee relationsspecialist or a local manager, The int?rview would take place ot a time convenient [or (he respondent ma myqreement you give to [hese esrablishmenrs being ~pproached is, of course. subject to [he willingness [o be
interviewed of the individual concerned. In addition. we ask managers to distribute ~ shorr self-comple:lonquestionnaire to 25 randomly-selected employees.
The DTI ha commissioned Social mrd Community Planning Research (SCPR), an independent research ins[itute.to conduct r-he interviewing, I would be very g~teful if you could ~dwse SCPR who it is mos~ appropriate for [heir
10CQ1interviewer to approach about each establishment. by writing the name and telephone number nex~ to theaddress on the sheet enclosed. Please return it [O SCPR in the envelope provided. or by ktx (O171 ?50 1524). Ifthaf presents any difficulty p[eme would you contact me m the above address within [he next week or so
(Freephone 0800068 0707).
If you have any queries Iboctt how (he surtey will be conducted. please contact the WERS resexch [e~m x SCPR.
on 0171 2501866,
Wi[h many thank in anticipation of your help,
Yours sincerely
/v’/z 7Mark cu~ly
Principal Research Officer
Empioymerr[ Relations DirectorateDepartment of Trade and IndustryRoom 2.A.391 Victoria streetLondon SWIH OET
Tel: 01712155999Fax: 01712152641Emaii: Zmira. Honrstcin@ttU)V. dti.gov. uk
2 December 1997
Survey Of Employee Relations Practices 1997
The Department of Trade and Industry is about to carry out the 1997 Workplace Employee Relations
Survey, the fourth in the series which commenced in 1980, This is a very sigrificmt underding for theDepartrnen~ and provides the basis for most of what is known about devclopmems in employeerelations at the workplace.
one part of the sample has been sclcc~ed to be representative of current employnen[ throughout Briu.in.The other is a partial follow-up of establishments at which interviews were conducted for the 1990
WERS, to chart change and stab iliry in employee relations practices. The enclosed leaflet provides an
outline of the survey’s design and aims.
1 am writing to let you know that 14 Emp[oyrrrent Service establishments have been selected as pan of
the sample for the WERS 97, and are identified on the attached sheets -6 of those were surveyed in1990. and the remainder are parr of rhe fteshly-chosen sample. I am sure you will appreciam rhar d-Ievalue of the research depends on the co-operation of all those setqcted.
The sume~ covers a range of topics to do with the practice of employee relations. This mems that theinterview IS best conducted with a manager at etch selected establishrnen~ probably a personnel or
employee relations specialist or local manager.
I would be ve~ gratefid if you could advise one of my officials. Stephen Woodland. who it is most
appropriate to contact at each esub Iishinen~ by writing the name and telephone number next to theaddress on the sheet enclosed. He carI be contacted on O171-215 3919 or alternatively. the information
can be faxed (O171-215 2641), If that presents any difficulty, or if you have any queries abou~ the
sumey, please wou[d you contact Stephen on the above number.
With many thanks in anticipation of your he!p
L]Zmim4+%&K’Directo~ Employment Market .%-dysis and Research Branch
/’
dti
.
/’
cRoss-sEcTIoN SURVEY FIELDWORK IJROGm5S mzrotcr - SVECIM13N .sImm (15 January 1998)
Total
<--- cover --> .- .Unproduct ive- >
No Rf!f OLlleL’Cent usal unprod
<Out stand inq>Last
.V”. ”...-”pe>
Total Tosample
Prod -
uct ive
66785%
5581%
8883*
10384*
11.388%
3179*
4494%
9880%
62elt
.13961
29
73%
on I,1
Desk
To InInt Moved scopeissued .eek
90
5
10
9
1s
3
4
6
12
3
23
Field
1517
162
211
150
237
87
75
202
96
83
214
tact
Field Area
Total 3192
299
405
378
401
109
171
453
261
109434*
9732*
14235*
16143%
16133*
6132*
5633*
16136%
11444%
6233t
79
21*
251
29
31
31
23
17
0
41
26
14
31
37 782
1*
1 630%
1 106O*
5 123
1%
6 130
1%
5 393k
1 47
It
6 1121%
7 77
3*
1 45
1%
4 40It
24
4
4
2
2
0
0
2
4
2
4
10%
102
13t
58>
40
52
67
83
41
40
90
51
41
“16
1 00%
813t
2
3
4
5
1615+
o0%
1815*
0O*
1512t
0Ot
821*
6 0Ot
o0%
7 o0%
a 0
O*1418*
9 186
369
0
O*
0 0
019
7.3t
-A . . . .—
e .- --- .= —._
SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES: FIELDWORK PROGRESS REPORT - SPECIMEN SHEET
ESTABLISHMENTS
Total
lseued to 3192interviewers
Placement verified 1592by Interviewer 50%
1+ returns received 1616
51*
Placement verifiedbut nil returns
received
833*
o
369
132
36+
14238%
72?
1
299
16056*
16957*
(J3*
2
405
202
50\
200
49%
13
3*
Field Area
3
378
214
571
20454 t
133%
4
481
234
49*
243
Slt
102*
5
189
8344%
8947*
42*
6
171
9354%
9153*
53*
7
453
236
52%
24354*
123*
8
261
117
45%
12448%
21%
(23 April 1998)
9
186
113
61*
11160*
95%
Reminder cent 1118 81 118 130 159 167 59 68 168 95 73
35% 22% 39* 32t 42* 35* 31% 4O* 37% 36* 39*
Placement date 40+ 1286 97 135 168 171 197
days ago
64 72 196 100 8640} 26% 45% 41* 45t 41% 34* 42% 43% 38* 46%
Placement date SO+ 1147 80 120 1s1 159 184 54 62 167 96
days ago
74
36* 22% 40% 37* 42% 3.9* 29% 36% 37% 37* 40%
(15 January 1998)CROSS-SECTION SURVEY FIELDWORK PROGRINS REPORT - SPECIMEN SHEET
mm of Scope. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fewer OtherClosed than 10 Dead-
Total Down Etnp.9 wood
Non productive
NOI,Total R? fusal bnkocl. (3Lher
... . .
Prrxlw-tive
with witl,
with Union Connnitee HRo IIOLAl 1
Outcomes Tot al SEQ Re@ Rep recpnJ red
Size Band
Total 1054
194
220
206
170
154
6.9
23
11
267
25%
118 72
Ilt 7%
63 932% 5%
15 177* 7t
13 13
6? 6*
11 136t IJt
10 96* 6t
4 56t 7*
2 29* 9*
040% 36%
12316t
2018%
3419*
2717t
1612*
1915*
6
12*
16t
o
Ot
11014*
1917*
29
16%
22
14*
1612t
1714t
612*
168
00%
9It
11%
21%
42%
0ot
22%
oOt
0
01
!7
0}
6648.3%
60391t
163 24
4\
221
6
4+
‘33t
4
3%
33*
511*
0
Ot
0
O*
45358%
a2
92*
125
84 t
10679%
76
64%
4644%
1328*
318*
2
33*
o
1
8544*
137%
8697%
56%
46
20t1’3801%
13893t
128t
2 4.3
Zlt
189t
11s93*
12’i
92}
3 3621*
127*
1108.9%
104
138t3328%
3019?
117?
4 10585*
8884*
’4145*
5
6
7
1624:
7
10*
41
09t
2657t
5
22%
14\
17
94 t
1694%
1376t
545%
1
9*6
100%
6loot
,., -.
SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES: FIELDWORK PROGRESS REPORT - SPECIMEN SHEET (23 April 1998)
W33fSTIONNAIRES
wave
Tot-a1 Wave I J9ave 2 Wave 3 wave 5
Outcomes
6821 3289 76’!9Known to be placed 37822 20033(interviewerinformation)
Received but no 1249 381placement info from
interviewer
530 186 152
Total known to be 39071 20414placed or received
7351
4659
3475 7831
2005 5158Total SEQB Received 24962 13140
Product ive
Total 24210
22155
12651
11414
4581
432’7
1953
1836
5025
457001 Received 1st
mailing
02 Received 2nd
mailing
205S 1237 254 117 447
Unpxoduct iveTotal 7S1
394
227
4B9
268
144
77
34
24
52
32
6
133
60
53
31 Refusal
32 Respondent left
establishment
33 Not availableduring survey period
60 29 15 4 12
39 Other Reason 58 39 3 9 7
-. ---- —.—
Field Area
Total
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
PANEL SURVEY: FIELDWORK PROGRESS REI’OR’1 - SI’ECIMEN SIIIXT
---- Cover --> <--Unproductive- -><Outofmcope> cO,dstanding>
Total Lamt Total To To In NO 13ef okhex- PIOd - On 1#,i~su.sd week sample I,,t scope Conk usa 1 uuprod uctive Desk Field
tact
1300
135
163
190
178
63
69
170
115
68
149
84
3
9
14
14
4
2
15
5
11
7
43934%
4332*
5735t
8645t
6038k
2235*
1420%
5532%
4136*
3146*
221st
177
16
24
36
27
9
5
15
23
9
13
4
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
258
27
33
50
41
13
8
40
17
20
9
0
O*
o
Ot
00%
00+
0Ot
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
–—~- .“-3%_—..
7
3%
14t
39*
2.3t
0
0%
00%
0O*
13*
oOt
o
(3*
0
O*
234
91t
24
89%
28asi
4488*
3680%
13100%
8loot
3793*
15
88*
20loot
9
loot
237
22
31
25
14
12
13
31
24
11
54
624
70
75
79
96
29
42
84
50
26
?3
—. .
(29 January 1998)
18 December, 1997
35 NORTFL.LMFTON SQUARE,
LONDONECIV OAX
W 0171-2501866
FAX 0171-2501524
E-maiL scfm0 scpr.ac.uh
WILw.5*. at. &
Dear
Workplace Employee Relations Survey 1997
We understand tiom our interviewer in your area that, during the last few months, youhave been kind enough to give up your time and take part in this study. I would like totake this opportunity to thank you for your help.
The aim of the survey is to produce factual information about current employeerelations practices, and the results will contribute to public debate about employeerelations policy. Of particular interest this year will be the results from thequestionnaires which are left with up to 25 employees at each workplace. This is thefirst time that such a large employee survey has taken place and will complement theanswers given by management and employee representative respondents such asyourself.
The 1997 survey is part of a series that has taken place at intervals during the last twentyyears. It covers all types of workplace and is jointly funded by the Department of Tradeand Industry, the Economic and Social Research Council, the Policy Studies Instituteand the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service.
We would like to offer all those who gave up their time to complete tie survey theopportunity to make comments on the survey and on the way in which the interview wasarranged and carried out. If you wish to make some comments, I would be grateful ifyou could use the attached form and reply in the pre-paid envelope provided.
Thank you again for your help.
Yours faithfully
Janet PottingerDirector of Fieldwork
Director RogerJowell. DepartmentHeads Me-id Barclay(finance & Adminisuarion), Stephen Eldc, (Computing), Jane Lc% (QuaIbive Research),Peter Lynn (Methods), Janet Pottinger (Operations). Research Group Heads Paddy Costigan, Bob Ercns, Steven Finch, Jon Hales,DirectLIs of Development Colk A@. ~arch Directors Caroline Bi-yscI., Cmham Farrant. Helen Finch, CarIi Lessof, Ah.mn Park, GiUian Prmr,
JWI.N~hie, ~drew Shaw.DawnSnap., Roger Tbom=, t(ararim Thomson,
Head @cc: 3S NORZ%LUPTCW SQUARELONDONECI VOAX
Tel: 0171 2S0 1866 Fax 0171 2501S24
~gc’p$:Field and DP Q&c.z 100 KLVGS ROADBREN3WOOD, ESSEX CM1442XTel:01277200600Fax: 01277214117
’44‘ING ~%~REs~
WERS 97
THEFOURTH WORKPLACE EMPLOYEE RELATIONS SURVEY
Q1 Were you personally intemiewed on this survey?(/)
Yes ❑ + Q2
No ❑Q2 Have you any comments to make on this surveyor
the questionnaire?
Q2a
Q3
Q3a
What are these comments?
Have you any comment to make on the way in whichthe interview was arranged and carried out?
(v’)
Yes ❑ + Q3a
No ❑What are these comments?
T= You FOR Yowt HEu. PLEASE mm THIS SHEET IN THE ENVELOPEPROVIDED.
SERIAL NO. ~1 RESP. CODE ❑ INT. NO. [~1
l:\WIRSMMMMCSWmpsheet
Head @ice: 35 NOR2?L4UPlt3N SQUARELONDON EC1 V OAX
Tel: 01712501866 Fax 0171 2S0 1524
#cpR:Field and DP Q17ce: 100 KINGS ROADBRENIWOOD, ESSEX CW144.LYTel: 01277200600 F(ZX 0127? 214 117
P.1700 WORKPLACE EMPLOYEE RELATIONS SURVEY 1997
RESPONSE, OF SCPR RESEARCH TEAM TO INTERVIEWER INQUIRIES
SERIAL NO.
BRIEF ADDR&SS OF SAD ESTAB,NO. D2simADDRESWTEL. NO.:
ACTION I j
OK TO
n
SECTIONPROCEED 3
I I I I
1. ADDRXSS WITHDR4W NO FURTHER ACTION (DFjT AILS BELOW
Estab. Closed down 1
(Main) Estab. Less than 10 employees 2
(Panel) Estab. Less than 25 employees 3
1
Absolute refusal: born Head Office on behalf of Estab. 4 PLEASEAbsolute refusal: ikom Area OffIce on behalf of Estab. 5 G~
Absolute refbsal: from Estab. itselfDETAILS
6-
other 7 REASONS+
2. DEFERRED FOR FURTHER ACTION (eg Referral to Head/Area Office) (DETAILS BELOW)
3. OK TO PROCEED (FURTHE R iNFORMATION BELOW)
4. OTHER RELEVANT’ INFORMATION
PHONE
H
(/)
DATE: LETTER (/) Completed by:
~,ht SI COMMU
Head @ice: 3S NOR27-L4MPTON SQUARE +0,o~.o.,clvofi *,SCPR:
Tet:0171 2S0 1866 Fax01712S01S24
Field and DP Q@ce: 100 KINGS ROADBREATWOOD, ESSEX CM144LYTeI: 01277200600 Fax: 01277214!17
P.1700 WORKPLACE EMPLOYEE RELATIONS SURVEY 1997
RESPONSE, AT D.T.I., TO INITIAL MAILING
SERIAL NO.
1111111RREY ADDRESSOFsAMPL.ED= TAB.
INTERVIEWER
ADDRESWEL. NO.:
1. ADDRESS WITHD IU%WN: NO FURTHE R ACTTON (DETAIL S BELOW)
Estab. Closed down 1
(Main) Estab. Less than 10 employees 2
(Panel) Estab. Less than 25 employees 3
1AbsoIute refhsal: horn Head Office on behalf of Estab. 4 PLEASEAbsolute refhsak from Area Office on behalf of Estab. 5 G~
Absolute refisal: horn Estab. itselfDETAILS
6m
Other 7 REASONS+
ADDRESS
m
SECTIONWITHDRAWN 1NO FURTHER
ACTiON
n
DEFERW~ SE~ON
FURTHER2
ACTION
OK TO SECTIONPROCEED 3
2. DEFERRED FOR FUR THER ACTION (eg Referral to Head/Area OffIce) (DETAILS BELO~
}. OK TO PROCEED (FURTHER lNF ORMATION BELOW)
OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION
PHONE ❑(/)
ATE LETTER (v’) Completed by: