Privatisation,EmploymentandEmployees.pptVIP

A brief overview of privatisation Labour market adjustment in 1990-2002 Labour issues in the privatisation process Main conclusions Privatisation evolved in three stages Total Results (1991-2002) Results by sector (1991-2002) Annual distribution of privatisation results (1991-2001) Total Employment in Six Largest Metropolitan Areas (Number of Workers) Unemployment and Productivity (Mnfg) in 1981-2002 Number of Employees and Salary Expenditures (1994) In 1994, employment in Federal SOEs represented less than 2% of the overall non-agricultural employment, Ratio of Salary to Investment Expenditures: 1980-94 (%) Investment by Federal-Owned SOEs: 1980-94 (% of GDP) Short-Term Impact of Privatisation on Employment Overall employment fell by a third, comparing the pre- and post-privatisation periods Three-fourths of this downsizing took place prior to sale, while preparing the companies for sale Downsizing was less pronounced for employees working in production lines Employment and salaries CSN: Employment and Productivity CSN: Revenues and Net Income Embraer: Productivity(US$ 1000/employee/year) CVRD: Employment and Productivity Railways: Employment Railways: Productivity The impact on overall employment varied from one sector to another In mature sectors (steel, petrochemicals, etc.), the rise in productivity tended to prevail. In infrastructure, privatisation led to a major increase in supply, often compensating for the rise in productivity. Moreover, in infrastructure privatisation allowed for regulatory reform that brought new players (and jobs) into the market. Taking all these effects together, privatisation has had a positive impact on employment Anecdotal evidence In the year following privatisation employment fell by 10 thousand jobs in the 40 companies considered in the survey (excluding the telecom companies) compared to the year of sale, and by 35 thousand jobs compared to employment in the year before, 145 thousand new jobs were created in the telecom