LABOUR COST SURVEY 2012 PORTUGAL Quality Report filecosts hourly labour costs 2012 pt 2,32 1,08 table 2 - coefficients of variation by nace rev. 2 section lcs - 2012 table c - coefficients

LABOUR COST SURVEY 2012

PORTUGAL

Quality Report

December 2014

LCS 2012 – Quality Report - Portugal 2

Index Page

1 Relevance 16

2 Accuracy 17

2.1 Sampling errors 18

2.2 Non-sampling errors 19

2.2.1 Coverage errors 20

2.2.2 Measurement and processing errors 21

2.2.3 Non-response errors

3 Punctuality and timeliness

4 Accessibility and clarity

4.1 Accessibility

4.2 Clarity

5. Comparability

5.1 Geographical comparability

5.2 Comparability overtime

6 Coherence

6.1 Coherence with LFS

6.2 Coherence with SBS

6.3 Coherence with LCI

6.4 Coherence with NA


1. Relevance

The main users of LCS results are, at national level:

The Ministry of Solidarity, Labour and Social Security, for the definition of policies on wages, employment,

social security and simultaneously, for policy evaluation;

The Office of National Statistics (INE), as one of the basis for the Labour Cost Index;

The Ministry of Economy, for the analysis of the levels of labour costs and its structure, according to

the industry and other characteristics of employers;

Other public administration bodies;

Employers, as a source of information for investment decision, and the definition of wages and

employment strategies;

Trade Unions, researchers, media, etc.

At international level, the main users are Eurostat and other European Union bodies, and also ILO.

Since the first implementation of the LCS in Portugal, referring to the year 1984, the national users have

enhanced the importance of the statistics resulting from the survey. However, no specific survey on the

satisfaction of the users was conducted. The main issues raised by the users, observed through the

contacts with the statistical office, are:

Not enough breakdown at industry level. However, a broader breakdown in the portuguese survey

would require a much larger sample and would raise a great number of confidential situations;

The timeliness of data availability.

2. Accuracy

2.1 Sampling errors – coefficients of variation

The coefficients of variation relating to the “total annual labour costs” and “hourly labour costs” for

the required breakdowns are presented bellow

Variance estimation was conducted using the software IBM SPSS Statistics, version 22.0 and the

Complex Samples add-on module.


Table 1 - Coefficients of variation for the total Population

LCS - 2012 TABLE A - COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION (%)

YEAR COUNTRY ANNUAL LABOUR

COSTS HOURLY LABOUR

COSTS

2012 PT 2,32 1,08

Table 2 - Coefficients of variation by NACE Rev. 2 Section

LCS - 2012 TABLE C - COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION (%)

YEAR COUNTRY NACE

SECTIONS ANNUAL LABOUR

COSTS

HOURLY LABOUR COSTS

2012 PT B 3,81 2,66

2012 PT C 2,24 1,19

2012 PT D 8,88 4,61

2012 PT E 4,26 1,96

2012 PT F 4,04 2,70

2012 PT G 4,63 3,05

2012 PT H 5,04 2,82

2012 PT I 5,24 2,27 2012 PT J 6,52 4,35

2012 PT K 13,08 5,15

2012 PT L 10,60 8,67

2012 PT M 5,30 3,85

2012 PT N 4,95 2,77

2012 PT O 16,15 2,62

2012 PT P 3,21 1,27

2012 PT Q 6,14 2,01

2012 PT R 9,37 7,33

2012 PT S 5,47 3,17

Table 3 - Coefficients of variation by NUTS level 1

LCS - 2012 TABLE B - COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION (%)

YEAR COUNTRY NUT I ANNUAL LABOUR COSTS

HOURLY LABOUR COSTS

2012 PT CONTINENTE 2,36 1,10

2012 PT AZORES

2012 PT MADEIRA 4,40 2,15


Table 4 - Coefficients of variation by size band

LCS - 2012 TABLE D - COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION (%)

YEAR COUNTRY SIZE BAND ANNUAL

LABOUR COSTS

HOURLY LABOUR COSTS

2012 PT 1-9 1,97 1,45

2012 PT 10-49 3,85 2,98

2012 PT 50-249 2,41 1,46

2012 PT 250-499 2,61 1,34

2012 PT 500-999 3,59 2,04

2012 PT 1000 + 7,64 2,45

2.2. Non-sampling errors 2.2.1. Coverage errors

The reference population is the study population.

The sampling frame for the LCS 2012 sample, in what regards the NACE Revision 2 Sections B to S and the

private units for Sections O, P, Q and R is the register of enterprises with 1 or more employees and

respective local units obtained through the administrative source Relatório Único – Quadro de Pessoal

(Unique Report - Personal Tables), updated comprehensibly each year with reference to the month of

October. This administrative source is mandatory, for reasons of inspection of the labour legislation, for

enterprises and other entities with employees covered by social security regimes other than the civil

servants and military regimes. The sample was designed and selected based on the register relating to

October 2012 and updated with information received from the enterprises by other surveys and information

transmitted by the enterprises.

The sampling frame for NACE Rev. 2 Section O and the “public” units of Sections B to S was the register

made available by the Directorate General for Administration and Public Employment (DGAEP).

The estimated under coverage rate was 2.6% (new units).

The estimated over coverage rate was 4.0 % (cancelled units).


2.2.2. Measurement and processing errors

The national questionnaire used for LC surveys for enterprises with 10 or more employees has been kept

quite unchanged since 1992, except in what regards the Eurostat requirements. The questionnaire for

enterprises with 1 to 9 employees is also in place since 2004.

It was used a web survey to collect the qualitative data. The validations were embedded in the electronic

questionnaire and were executed before transmitting the questionnaire. The checks performed by the

software were according to plausibility and variable coherence. Warnings and fatal errors are created when

data is outside the predefined standards. Fatal errors prevent data sending. It cannot be overruled, except

by the statistical staff with a specific password.

Upon arrival to the statistical office, warning checks were again performed and corrected, if it was the case.

2.2.3. Non-response errors

Unit response rates by NACE 2 digit level are presented in the tables below. For the whole population, the

unit response rate was 72.3 % .

Unit non-response is treated by re-weighting on the basis of the register updated to 2012. The set of

responding units within each stratum is considered as the sample. For strata with only non-responses, no

imputation was done.

Item imputation rate – Item non-response was not allowed.

The variable which has presented more difficulties to the enterprises, was “payments for days not

worked”. Non-responses to this variable were also not allowed, so the enterprises had to impute the

figures, sometimes with the assistance of the statistical office. The recommended procedure to impute this

variable was to consider the payments for paid holidays and public holidays and also paid sick leaves or

other paid absences, when recorded (the recorded absences were also asked for in the questionnaire). This

methodology can produce an under statement in the figures for this variable, which can be considered as

negligible, since the large majority of sick leave absences are not paid.



3. Punctuality and timeliness

The LCS 2012 survey was an web survey. However, enterprises with a large number of surveyed local units

can submit XML files, created by their own softwares, using the Launcher application.

LCS 2012 effective calendar

1. Launching of the survey

21 January 2014

2. Deadline for respondents

20 February 2014

22 March 2014 (after the second recall)

3. Recalls

First follow up – 14 February 2014; second follow up – 13 March 2014

4. Data validation and correction – April 2014 to July 2014

5. Preparation of data transmission to Eurostat – 16 Agost to 10 September 2017 6. First data transmission – 11 September 2014 7. Publication of first results – September 2014 The procedures of the award of the service contracts for the IT application were very slow and created a

remarkable delay in all this process. It might be swifter in the future.

4. Accessibility and clarity

4.1. Accessibility

A Synthethic Report of the results are disseminated on the web site of the Office for Strategy and Studies:

http://www.gee.min-economia.pt/

More detailed information will be disclosed at the end of December 2014.

The users of statistical data that are registered as “clients” will receive an email indicating the new available

data.

4.2. Clarity

The Publication contains information on the methodology of the survey. A methodological document

elaborated prior to the launching of the survey, to register the survey as an official statistic with the NSI is

available for users, also on the web site of the NSI.

http://www.gee.min-economia.pt/


5. Comparability

5.1. Geographical comparability

The Portuguese LCS 2012 follows the recommendations of Eurostat and presents no deviations from the

definitions of the variables.

As the region of Azores decided to not participate in the survey we lost comparability with the previous

vintages of LCS, at a regional level.

5.2. Comparability overtime

No overtime changes were introduced in the survey, except the ones required by Eurostat.

6. Coherence

6.1. Coherence with the Labour Force Survey

The comparison with the LFS 2012 data included here relate to the variable “number of hours actually

worked per employee”, considering the main job, when dealing with the LFS.

The table and graph below illustrate the data.

Table 6 - Annual Hours actually worked per employee – 2012

LCS LFS

Total 1625 1828 203 12,5

B 1746 1885 139 8,0

C 1728 1887 159 9,2

D 1738 1872 135 7,7

E 1699 1794 95 5,6

F 1690 1853 162 9,6

G 1651 1880 229 13,9

H 1740 1987 246 14,2

I 1698 1996 298 17,5

J 1711 1933 222 13,0

K 1546 1940 395 25,5

L 1712 1655 -57 -3,3

M 1678 1866 187 11,2

N 1467 1738 271 18,4

O 1516 1780 263 17,4

P 1443 1566 123 8,6

Q 1621 1759 138 8,5

R 1619 1663 44 2,7

S 1646 1858 212 12,9

NACE

Revision 2

Section

Annual hours per

employeeTotal diff Diff in %


As shown in the above table, the number of hours actually worked is lower in LCS. The fact that the

sampling unit and the reporting unit are different in both surveys has an impact on the difference of the

figures.

Also the data collection processes are different. The LCS asks the enterprises for the contractual hours, the

overtime hours and all the hours of absence, hours not worked according to the reasons (the calculations

of the actual hours worked during the year are carried out by the statistical office). Overtime hours which

have not been paid are normally not reported by the enterprises. However the individuals know when they

work beyond the statutory working hours. As LFS is a household survey, the individuals tend to report the

unpaid overtime and this can represent a substantial number, particularly in certain activities, like the

services.

6.2. Coherence with the Structural Business Statistics

The comparison is made considering the variable “Wages and salaries”, from both sources.

Table 7 - Annual wages and salaries per employee - 2012

LCS SBS

Total 16231 14134 -2097 -12,9

B 16989 15874 -1115 -6,6

C 14321 12975 -1345 -9,4

D 34973 34348 -625 -1,8

E 14496 13948 -548 -3,8

F 13612 12332 -1280 -9,4

G 14340 12609 -1731 -12,1

H 18729 18328 -400 -2,1

I 9811 8422 -1390 -14,2

J 28007 24696 -3311 -11,8

K 40892 34767 -6124 -15,0

L 18746 12621 -6126 -32,7

M 21106 17714 -3392 -16,1

N 9888 9859 -29 -0,3

O 17479 - - -

P 20480 14584 -5896 -28,8

Q 16083 18023 1940 12,1

R 17625 20834 3209 18,2

S 13641 9215 -4426 -32,4

Total diff Diff in %

Wages and salaries per

employeeNACE

Revision 2

Section

SBS covers Sections B to N and Division S95 of NACE Rev.2.

NACE Rev.2 Section K is only covered partially by the data on insurance services, credit institutions and

pension funds


Also SBS does not cover Section O and, for Sections P and Q only private entities are covered, as well as

other public entities even if they are coded in other NACE Sections.

The causes for the differences can be found in the difference in the sampling unit, differences in the

definitions and the difference in the type of persons in the enterprises that are covered. The LCS averages

are usually higher reflecting situations in SBS were units with no employees can be covered, and are

especially noted in activities like Construction or Commerce, where there is only the owner. This could also

explain the differences in section L where the sales commissions have a great weight in the labour costs of

the employees. This is obviously not the case in small enterprises when the owner is taking into account or

when the owners are the only workers.

6.3. Coherence with the LCI The annual growth rates of labour costs obtained through LCS and LCI are presented in Table 8 below.

Table 8 – Annual average growth rate of total labour costs – LCS, LCI – 2004/2008

(1) Average annual growth calculated as: [(Value at 2012) / (Value at 2008)](1/4) x100 -100

LCI does not include vocational training costs or other expenditure such as recruitment costs, spending on working clothes, etc

NACE

Revision 2

Section

annual

average

growth rate

(2008-2012) -

(1) LCS

annual

average

growth rate

(2008-2012) -

LCI (1)

Total 8,5 -1,7

B 13,2 0,4

C 11,3 0,1

D 1,8 3,0

E -7,8 0,0

F 16,7 1,1

G 11,9 0,1

H -3,7 -0,8

I 0,8 0,2

J -1,1 -0,5

K 14,7 -1,2

L 12,1 -1,4

M 5,9 -1,0

N 15,4 2,2

O -7,5 -3,7

P -4,7 -5,5

Q 7,3 -2,6

R 2,9 3,3

S 8,9 0,0


As the LCI is a Laspeyres index, based on a survey with a fixed sample and the LCS 2008 and 2012 both

reflect the universe and consequently the sampling frames for both years, incorporating structural changes,

the comparison of these data from the two sources also does not permit valid conclusions.

6.4. Coherence with National Accounts

Table 9 – Annual average growth rate of total labour costs (D1), per employee: LCS2012 – NA2011

NACE

Revision 2

Section

annual

average

(2012) -

LCS

annual

average

(2011) - NA

Total diff Diff in %

Total 19979,2 20722,4 743,2 3,7

B 21108,6 18869,8 -2238,8 -10,6

C 17855,5 16947,5 -908,0 -5,1

D 44677,0 55240,2 10563,2 23,6

E 17909,1 19159,2 1250,1 7,0

F 17012,1 15859,3 -1152,8 -6,8

G 17861,0 16950,2 -910,8 -5,1

H 23804,3 24604,9 800,6 3,4

I 12101,9 16235,9 4134,0 34,2

J 34974,7 37799,9 2825,3 8,1

K 53502,9 44741,3 -8761,6 -16,4

L 23124,0 25999,4 2875,4 12,4

M 25865,9 25986,4 120,6 0,5

N 12212,1 13441,4 1229,3 10,1

O 20662,4 32142,9 11480,6 55,6

P 24367,1 28568,0 4201,0 17,2

Q 19229,9 22145,7 2915,8 15,2

R 21586,2 25389,1 3802,9 17,6

S 16676,1 15391,0 -1285,1 -7,7

National Accounts concerning the year of 2012 are not available crossed by NACE. For this reason we

can only establish a rough comparison between the two sources because the reference period is

different.

Documents

LABOUR COST SURVEY 2012 PORTUGAL Quality Report filecosts hourly labour costs 2012 pt 2,32 1,08 table 2 - coefficients of variation by nace rev. 2 section lcs - 2012 table c - coefficients