Archive:Hours of work and absences from work - quarterly statistics
Data extracted in February 2022
Planned article update: April 2022
Highlights
This article is about the quarterly change in the hours actually worked by employed people in their main job in the first three quarters of 2021 in the European Union (EU) as a whole, for all EU Member States individually, as well as for three EFTA countries (Iceland, Norway and Switzerland) and one candidate country (Serbia).
Statistics on the volume of working hours provide an economic perspective to employment as it represents an estimate for the labour input to production. Reporting on quarterly data allows for a short-term assessment of shocks on the working life and economy.
Results presented in this article come from the EU Labour Force Survey (LFS). Since 2021, all countries participating in the survey have harmonised their questionnaire to collect the actual working hours (implementation of Regulation (EU) 2019/1700); this information is consequently collected in the same way in all countries, ensuring enhanced comparability and quality of the results.
This article is part of the online publication Labour market in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic - quarterly statistics.
Full article
Length of the actual working week
In the EU, during the third quarter of 2021, employed people aged 20-64 worked 37.0 hours on average per week. This number refers to the hours people have "actually" spent in work activities in the main job during the reference week (see methodological notes for the difference between the actual and usual working hours).
The EU average of the actual working hours per week hides many differences among countries (see Map 1) with the longest working weeks observed in Greece (41.6 hours), Poland (40.8 hours), Romania (40.2 hours) and Bulgaria (39.9 hours) and the shortest in the Netherlands (32.6 hours), Austria (34.7 hours), Germany (35.0 hours) and Belgium (35.1 hours). A clear geographical pattern in the length of the average working week can consequently be observed, as the Eastern and South-Eastern EU countries tend to have more actual hours of work per week than the Western and Northern EU countries. Note that the EFTA country Norway (34.9 hours) also stands out with a short working week.
The presented average is computed as the total number of actual hours of work divided by the number of employed people having actually worked. The denominator only considers people present at work (excluding people absent from work for holidays, sickness, temporary lay-off, etc.). If people absent from work are also taken into account, the denominator will be higher while the numerator will remain the same, leading to a considerably lower average when people absent from work are numerous. This is particularly true for Q2 2020, when the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the labour market was the most severe, as well as for the third quarter of other years, when most people took their summer holidays, as it is the case for Q3 2021 which is the focus of this article.
It is also worth noting that the average working hours presented here above includes both people working full- and part-time. The different shares of part-time workers across countries consequently influence the results, in addition to the different legal and usual length of working week. Countries with a high share of part-time workers are reporting shorter average working week for the total employed population. Indeed, the Netherlands, Austria, Germany and Belgium had the shortest average working week in the third quarter of 2021 while having the highest shares of part-time workers in the EU. More information on part-time workers can be found in the article on employment. Seasonal work can also affect the results, which is particularly true for the third quarter, corresponding to the summer period. Finally, the number of hours part-time workers actually work in each country (not necessarily half the time of a regular full-time) also plays a role. The next section tackles this point presenting the average number of working hours by country for the full- and part-timers separately.
Perspective on full and part-time workers
The length of the average working week of full-time workers in the EU ranged from 43.3 hours in Greece to 38.3 hours in Slovakia (see Figure 1 A.). The candidate country Serbia (44.8 hours) and the EFTA country Switzerland (43.4 hours), however, surpassed Greece with even longer working weeks for full-time workers. The longest working week for part-time workers was recorded in Romania, with 28.6 hours, while the shortest was recorded in Portugal, with 18.8 hours. Note that in the vast majority of countries, the length of the average working week of part-time workers was around half the length of the working week of full-time workers. The most obvious exception can be seen in Romania, where the average working week of part-timers was particularly long and then the average for full- and part-timers relatively close (40.6 hours compared with 28.6 hours).
Source: Eurostat (lfsq_ewhan2)
Looking at the gender differences (Figure 1 B.), in all countries, male full-time workers had longer working weeks than their female counterparts. The most significant difference among the EU Member States was recorded in Ireland, as the average working week for male full-timers in this country consisted of 41.5 hours, compared with 37.5 hours for women working full-time. The gender pattern is not the same regarding part-time workers: in some countries, women had longer working weeks, in other countries, it was the opposite. Denmark stood out with the largest difference in the length of the average working week between men and women working part-time - 19.1 versus 22.8 hours.
How does the average working week vary across economic activities and occupations?
After having looked at the average number of working hours by country for the full- and part-timers separately, the working hours are analysed by sector of economic activities and group of occupations at EU level for the full- and part-time workers together.
The length of the average working week measured in actual hours of work varies across different sectors of the economic activities (NACE Rev. 2), as revealed in Figure 2. In Q3 2021, people employed in the sector "agriculture, forestry and fishing" spent the largest number of hours at work - 43.6 hours on average per week. This sector was followed by the sectors mining and quarrying (40.3 hours), construction (40.0 hours) and transportation and storage (39.0 hours), where the average working week of employed people was also relatively long. In contrast, workers in administrative and support service activities (33.9 hours), education (32.5 hours) and activities of households as employers (26.8 hours) had the shortest average working weeks.
,_age_group_20-64,_Q3_2021.png)
Source: Eurostat (lfsq_ewhan2)
Looking at the different groups of occupations (ISCO-08), the skilled agricultural, forestry and fishery workers (44.7 hours) and the managers (42.4 hours) stood out with the longest average working weeks in the EU during Q3 2021 (see Figure 3). On the other end of the ranking, the clerical support workers (34.6 hours) and workers having elementary occupations (32.4 hours) had the shortest working weeks.
,_age_group_20-64,_Q3_2021.png)
Source: Eurostat (lfsq_ewhais)
Impact of COVID-19 pandemic and potential recovery
To enrich the previous section, which explored the number of hours each group of employed persons had spent in work on average per week, this section focuses on the development of the total number (volume) of actual working hours per week in the main job, i.e. the sum of hours each group of workers devoted per week to labour in their main job.
An index of the volume of the actual working hours has been created taking as reference (index=100) the average of the values for the four quarters of the pre-pandemic year 2019. In this way, the evolution of the volume from Q1 2019 to Q3 2021 can be assessed more easily and the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic better captured. Indeed, the volume of working hours follow a seasonal pattern and changes observed in 2020 and 2021 should be linked to changes observed in the pre-pandemic year 2019.
At EU level, the total number of actual working hours decreased by 5 index points (henceforth called only points) from Q4 2019 to Q1 2020 and reached 97 points (see Figure 4). The change from Q1 to Q2 2020 was much more drastic, amounting to an 11 points decrease (against a decrease of only 1 point between the corresponding quarters the year before, i.e. -1 point from Q1 to Q2 2019). As a result, the volume of actual working hours fall to 86 points in Q2 2020, the lowest value for the observed period (Q1 2019 - Q3 2021).
In the following quarters, the index of working hours started an upward trend, reaching 93 points in Q3 2020. The index consequently raised by 7 points from Q2 to Q3 2020 while it dropped by 6 points over the same period the year before (i.e. -6 points from Q2 to Q3 2019); it is worth noting that a decrease in the working hours between the second and third quarter is generally observed as the third quarter coincides with the summer period. Between Q3 2020 and Q4 2020, the index continued to grow (+3 points from Q3 to Q4 2020) to reach 96 points in Q4 2020. This growth was nevertheless milder than the one recorded in 2019 (+7 points from Q3 to Q4 2019). The index stabilised at 96 points in Q1 2021 (whereas it decreased by 5 points from Q4 2019 to Q1 2020). Between Q1 and Q2 2021 the index increased to 99 points (+3 points, against -11 points and -1 point in the same quarters of 2020 and 2019 respectively as mentioned here above). Finally, between Q2 and Q3 2021, the index dropped to 93 points, corresponding to a decrease of 6 points for the summer period of 2021 (same decrease observed in 2019 from Q2 to Q3, while it raised by 7 points from Q2 to Q3 2020).
With respect to the year-on-year development, the volume of actual working hours in Q1 2021 was 1 point below its level in Q1 2020 and 6 points below the level recorded in Q1 2019. In Q2 2021, the volume was 13 points above Q2 2020, but still 2 points below Q2 2019. Finally, the volume of working hours in Q3 2021 was at the same level as in Q3 2020, but 2 points below Q3 2019.
.png)
The comparison between men and women in terms of the development of the total number of working hours does not show any substantial difference. However, it appears that in 2021 the index of working hours reached its base value of 100 (fixed separately for each of the two genders, using the average over the four quarters of 2019) only for women (in Q2 2021), following a couple of quarters with a slightly stronger increase for women than for men.
Employees less affected than self-employed
The breakdown by professional status holds significantly more differences between its categories. As shown in Figure 5, self-employed with employees (employers) and self-employed without employees (own-account workers) experienced a much stronger decrease in the total number of hours during 2020 and 2021 in comparison with employees. In Q2 2020, the quarter most severely affected by the pandemic, the index of working hours for employees dropped to 87 points, whereas it decreased to 80 points for own-account workers and to 79 points for employers (the index was fixed to 100 for each professional status, using the average over the four quarters of 2019). Moreover, after Q2 2020, the index of working hours for employees had a steady upward trend until Q2 2021 when it reached its base value of 100, while at the same time the development for the two groups of self-employed people was marked by a decrease in some of the quarters. From Q2 2021 to Q3 2021, corresponding to the start of the summer period, the index of working hours decreased to 94 points for employees and to 92 points for own-account workers, while it remained stable at 96 points for employers.
.png)
If we compare the most recent quarter shown in this article, i.e. Q3 2021, with the third quarter of 2020 and 2019, it appears that the volume of working hours for employees in Q3 2021 was around the same level as in Q3 2019 and Q3 2020 (no more than a 1 point difference of the index). The index of working hours for employers showed no change between Q3 2021 and Q3 2019; however, it was 6 points higher in Q3 2021 than Q3 2020. Finally, the index for own-account workers in Q3 2021 was 3 points below Q3 2020 and 6 points below Q3 2019.
People aged 55-64 less affected than younger age groups
When it comes to the quarterly development of the volume of working hours, it appears that age plays a significant role. Young people aged 15-24 experienced a sharper cut in the total number of working hours during 2020 and 2021 compared with people aged 25-54 and people in the senior age group 55-64 (see Figure 6). This difference is the most pronounced in Q2 2020, when the index of working hours for young people decreased to 78 points, while for people aged 25-54 it decreased to 86 points, and for people in the age category 55-64 to 90 points (similarly, the index was fixed to 100 for each age group, using the average over the four quarters of 2019). In Q1 2021, the index for people aged 15-24 only reached 88 points, whereas it amounted to 96 points for those aged 25-54 and 101 points for those aged 55-64. In addition, after Q2 2020 with the lowest volume of working hours recorded for the three age groups, the recovery was more stable for people aged 25-54 and 55-64 than for people aged 15-24, with an uninterrupted increase in the number of working hours until Q2 2021 for the former while at the same time the recovery for people aged 15-24 was marked by some fluctuations, namely a decrease in the number of working hours in Q4 2020 and Q1 2021. Only people aged 55-64 had an index equal to or above its base value (2019=100) in Q4 2020, Q1 and Q2 2021.
.png)
When comparing the three age groups, another particularity occurs: from the second to the third quarter of 2019 and 2021, young people had an increase in the volume of working hours, while the other age groups experienced a decrease. A possible explanation for this phenomenon might be the increase of seasonal work for young people during the summer months, which correspond to the third quarter of each year. At the same time, one might expect that people aged 25-64 usually take holidays during the summer, which might explain the reduction of hours for people aged 25-54 and 55-64 in the third quarter. A similar pattern can also be observed from Q2 to Q3 2020; however, between these particular quarters, all ages had an increase in the volume of working hours; nonetheless, people aged 15-24 had a stronger increase than those aged 25-54 and 55-64.
The volume of working hours for young people in Q3 2021 was 5 points above the level a year before (Q3 2020) but 3 points below the level in Q3 2019. The volume of working hours for people aged 25-54 in Q3 2021 was around the same level as in Q3 2020 but 3 points below the level in Q3 2019. Finally, the seniors (aged 55-64) had a higher volume of working hours in Q3 2021 compared with Q3 2020 (+2 points) and Q3 2019 (+3 points).
Six EU countries had a larger volume of working hours in Q3 2021 than in Q3 2019
Shifting the focus on country-level data (Figure 7, population aged 20-64), 15 EU Member States registered an increase in the volume of working hours from Q3 2020 to Q3 2021. However, only six of them also registered an increase when comparing Q3 2021 with Q3 2019, namely Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Slovenia and Poland. No other EU country than the aforementioned six registered an increase from Q3 2019 to Q3 2021. Please note that as the single quarter Q3 2021 is compared with Q3 in 2019 and 2020, Figure 7 does not present an index but percentage change differences. Belgium stood out with the highest increases, amounting to +6 % between Q3 2019 and Q3 2021 and +7 % between Q3 2020 and Q3 2021.
In contrast, 11 EU countries had a decrease in the volume of working hours in Q3 2021 compared with Q3 2020. All of them also recorded a decrease when comparing Q3 2021 with Q3 2019. Among these countries, the largest cuts were found in Estonia (-8 % both between Q3 2019 and Q3 2021 and between Q3 2020 and Q3 2021) and Luxembourg (-7 % between Q3 2019 and Q3 2021 and -8 % between Q3 2020 and Q3 2021). Latvia and Romania also experienced relatively large decreases in the volume of working hours, namely -9 % when comparing Q3 2021 with Q3 2019 and -5 % when comparing Q3 2021 with Q3 2020 for both countries.
.png)
Impact of absences from work
One of the key determinants of the total volume of hours worked is the level of absences from work. As can be seen in Figure 8, the number of weekly absences in weeks 11 to 26 during 2020 (end of Q1 2020 and entire Q2 2020) was substantially higher than the average number of absences in the respective weeks over the period 2015-2019. During these weeks, the volume of working hours had its most significant decline (see above). Note that only the 39 first weeks of the year (corresponding to the first three quarters) are presented in Figure 8, as last data available concerns Q3 2021.
In addition to the level of absences from work, the level of employment also influences the volume of working hours. For the analysis of the quarterly evolution of the employment level since 2019 and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on employment, please refer to the articles employment, employment in details and employed people and job starters.
.png)
Source: Eurostat (lfsi_abs_w)
The number of weekly absences from work registered in 2021 follows a pattern which is closer to the one of the average computed over the years 2015-2019 than the one of the year 2020. While the lockdown and sanitary measures taken by EU Member States had a major impact on the number of absences from work in 2020, especially in Q2 2020, these had a substantially lower impact in 2021 (partly due to the teleworking arrangements).
Differences in the number of absences from work between 2021 and the average 2015-2019 were still due to restrictions measures linked to the COVID-19 pandemic, but also to school holidays (Easter celebrations not being in the same week each year) and the change in the LFS regulations between 2020 and 2021 having an impact on the measurement of absences (see methodological notes). The number of absences from week 2 to week 16 in 2021 exceeds the average over 2015-2019; this difference is expected to be mainly due to the COVID restrictions measures while the peak in weeks 13 and 14 also corresponded to the 2021 Easter holidays in most EU Member States.
The last figure of this article (Figure 9) shows a country overview of the absences from work on a quarterly basis for the three first quarters of 2021. To facilitate the comparison across countries, the number of people absent from work is expressed as a percentage of the employed population in each country.
.png)
Looking at the quarterly development by country of the share of employed people absent from work in 2021, it can be seen that in 7 EU Member States (the Netherlands, Estonia, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, Luxembourg and France) this share increased from Q1 to Q2 2021. However, the majority of EU Member States (the remaining 20 EU countries) experienced a decrease in the share of absences from work from Q1 to Q2 2021. Then, between Q2 to Q3 2021, the share of absences from work increased in all countries.
The share of absences reached its highest value in Q3 2021 for most of the Member States (22 EU countries). This was not the case, however, in five EU countries - Bulgaria, Latvia, Ireland, Slovakia and Greece - where people absent from work represented a higher percentage of employment in Q1 2021 than in the following two quarters of 2021.
Despite the variations in their share of absences from work in the first three quarters of 2021, Bulgaria and Romania always recorded the lowest shares in the EU (never exceeding 4 %).
There was also certain stability over the three quarters of 2021 for the countries with the highest rates of absences from work. These were in Q1 2021 Ireland (20.0 %), Greece (18.1 %) and Slovakia (15.7 %), in Q2 2021 Finland (13.5 %), Ireland (13.4 %) and France (12.0 %), and in Q3 2021 Sweden (27.8 %), France (23.6 %) and Finland (22.7 %). Sweden is also worth mentioning for the sharpest quarter-on-quarter increase of the share of absences, amounting to a +17.2 percentage point jump between Q2 and Q3 2021.
Source data for tables and graphs
Figures Hours of work and absences from work - update February 2022
Data sources
All figures in this article are based on quarterly results from the European Union Labour Force Survey (EU-LFS).
Source: The European Union Labour Force Survey (EU-LFS) is the largest European household sample survey providing mostly quarterly and annual results on labour participation of people aged 15 and over as well as on persons outside the labour force. It covers residents in private households. Conscripts in military or community service are not included in the results. The EU-LFS is based on the same target populations and uses the same definitions in all countries, which means that the results are comparable between countries.
European aggregates: EU refers to the sum of the EU-27 Member States. If data is unavailable for a country, the calculation of the corresponding aggregates is computed with estimates. Such cases are indicated.
Country notes: (1) Spain and France have assessed the attachment to the job and included in employment those who have an unknown duration of absence but expect to return to the same job once the COVID-19 measures in place are lifted. (2) In the Netherlands, the 2021 quarterly LFS data remains collected using a rolling reference week instead of a fixed reference week, i.e. interviewed persons are asked about the situation of the week before the interview rather than a pre-selected week.
Definitions: The concepts and definitions used in the EU-LFS follow the guidelines of the International Labour Organisation.
Employment covers persons living in private households, who during the reference week performed work, even for just one hour, for pay, profit or family gain, or were not at work but had a job or business from which they were temporarily absent, for example because of illness, holidays, industrial dispute or education and training. The EU-LFS employment concept differs from national accounts domestic employment, as the latter sets no limit on age or type of household, and also includes the non-resident population contributing to GDP and conscripts in military or community service.
The employees are defined as those who work for a public or private employer and who receive compensation in the form of wages, salaries, payment by results, or payment in kind; non-conscript members of the armed forces are also included.
The self-employed persons work in their own business, farm or professional practice. A self-employed person is considered to be working during the reference week if she/he meets one of the following criteria: works for the purpose of earning profit; spends time on the operation of a business; or is currently establishing a business.
The "actual working hours" are the hours people have actually spent in work activities during the reference week.
The "usual working hours" are the modal value of the actual hours worked per week over a long reference period (one to three months), excluding weeks when an absence from work occurs (e.g. holidays, leaves, strikes, etc.).
For more information on the background definitions on hours of work and reasons for hours actually worked during the reference week being different from the person’s usual hours, please consult pages 59-63 and 67-68 from EU Labour Force Survey Explanatory Notes
Main methodological changes introduced in 2021 by Regulation (EU) 2019/1700
- persons on parental leave, and who are either receiving job-related income or benefits, or whose parental leave is expected to last 3 months or less, are counted as employed;
- persons raising agricultural products for own-consumption are excluded from employment;
- seasonal workers outside the season are classified as employed if they still regularly perform tasks and duties for the job or business during the off-season;
- people with a job or business who were temporarily not at work during the reference week but with strong attachment to their job are still considered as employed. In the particular context of the COVID-19 crisis and the measures applied to combat it, national specificities exist in the assessment of the job attachment;
- not employed people are considered searching for a job only if they use an active search method;
- further harmonisation in the implementation of questions and modernisation of the survey at national level.
Insofar most of these changes are related to the classification as employed or not of people who are absent from work who as such are not producing any hours of work anyway, the impact of the methodological changes on the volume of working hours is assumed as milder.
Eight different articles on detailed technical and methodological information are available from the overview page of the online publication EU Labour Force Survey. Detailed information on coding lists, explanatory notes and classifications used over time can be found under documentation.
Context
The COVID-19 pandemic hit Europe in January and February 2020, with the first cases confirmed in Spain, France and Italy. COVID-19 infections have been diagnosed since then in all European Union (EU) Member States. To fight the pandemic, EU Member States have taken a wide variety of measures. From the second week of March 2020, most countries closed retail shops, with the exception of supermarkets, pharmacies and banks. Bars, restaurants and hotels were also closed. In Italy and Spain, non-essential production was stopped and several countries imposed regional or even national lock-down measures which further stifled economic activities in many areas. In addition, schools were closed, public events were cancelled and private gatherings (with numbers of persons varying from 2 to over 50) banned in most EU Member States.
The majority of the preventive measures were initially introduced during mid-March 2020. Consequently, the first quarter of 2020 was the first quarter in which the labour market across the EU was affected by COVID-19 measures taken by the Member States.
In the following quarters of 2020 and 2021, the preventive measures against the pandemic were continuously lightened and re-enforced in accordance with the number of new cases of the disease. New waves of the pandemic began to appear regularly (e.g. peaks in October-November 2020 and March-April 2021). Furthermore, new strains of the virus with increased transmissibility emerged in late 2020, which additionally alarmed the health authorities. Nonetheless, as massive vaccination campaigns started all around the world in 2021, people began to anticipate improvement of the situation regarding the COVID-19 pandemic.
Statistics on the hours of work add a new dimension to employment. The “average number of actual weekly hours of work in the main job” is an indicator aiming to give a perspective to the social conditions of labour, while the volume of hours worked adds an economic perspective, insofar as it serves as a proxy for the labour input to production. The quarterly data on hours of work allows to regularly report on the impact of the crisis due to the COVID-19 pandemic on the working life and economy.
Please note that in this exceptional context of the COVID-19 pandemic, employment and unemployment as defined by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) might not be sufficient to describe the developments taking place in the labour market. In the first phase of the crisis, active measures to contain employment losses led to absences from work rather than dismissals, and individuals could not look for work or were not available due to the containment measures, thus not counting as unemployed. Only referring to unemployment might consequently underestimate the entire unmet demand for employment, also called the labour market slack, which is further analysed, with namely the evolution of the employment and the recent job starters, in the publication Labour market in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Direct access to
See also
- Hours of work - annual statistics
- All articles on the labour market
- Labour market in the light of the COVID 19 pandemic - quarterly statistics
- Employment - annual statistics
- Employment - quarterly statistics
- Employment in detail - quarterly statistics
- Employed people and job starters by economic activity and occupation
Main tables
Database
Dedicated section
Publications
- Labour force survey in the EU, EFTA and candidate countries — Main characteristics of national surveys, 2020, 2022 edition
- Quality report of the European Union Labour Force Survey 2019, 2021 edition
- Labour market in the light of the COVID 19 pandemic — online publication
- EU labour force survey — online publication
- European Union Labour force survey - selection of articles (Statistics Explained)
Methodology
Publications
- EU labour force survey — online publication
- Labour force survey in the EU, EFTA and candidate countries — Main characteristics of national surveys, 2020, 2022 edition
- Quality report of the European Union Labour Force Survey 2019, 2021 edition
ESMS metadata files and EU-LFS methodology
- Employment and unemployment (Labour Force Survey) (ESMS metadata file — employ_esms)
- LFS series - detailed quarterly survey results (from 1998 onwards) (ESMS metadata file — lfsq_esms)
- LFS series - detailed annual survey results (ESMS metadata file — lfsa_esms)
- LFS ad-hoc modules (ESMS metadata file — lfso_esms)
- LFS main indicators (ESMS metadata file — lfsi_esms)
- LFS regional series (ESMS metadata file — reg_lmk)