Working Life Barometer in the Baltic Countries 2002 (pdf) - mol.fi
Working Life Barometer in the Baltic Countries 2002 (pdf) - mol.fi
Working Life Barometer in the Baltic Countries 2002 (pdf) - mol.fi
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
222<br />
WORKING LIFE TRENDS IN ESTONIA, LATVIA, LITHUANIA,<br />
ST. PETERSBURG (1996) AND FINLAND<br />
Balances*<br />
Mean<strong>in</strong>gfulness<br />
of work<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Self-development<br />
Management method<br />
Environmental issues<br />
Empowerment<br />
<strong>in</strong> own job<br />
Information<br />
on work aims<br />
Gender equality<br />
-30%<br />
*<br />
St. Petersburg 1996<br />
-20%<br />
-10%<br />
Lithuania <strong>2002</strong><br />
Estonia <strong>2002</strong><br />
Latvia <strong>2002</strong><br />
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%<br />
Balance = better direction (%-units) m<strong>in</strong>us worse direction (%-units)<br />
F<strong>in</strong>land <strong>2002</strong><br />
For comparison, this graph <strong>in</strong>cludes data for St. Petersburg from 1996 and for<br />
F<strong>in</strong>land from autumn <strong>2002</strong>. These show that <strong>the</strong> differences between countries<br />
can be really large. All <strong>the</strong> trend assessments for <strong>the</strong> <strong>Baltic</strong> nations clearly<br />
come closer to those for F<strong>in</strong>land than to those for St. Petersburg, which differ<br />
very greatly from <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r countries under comparison. Only where mean<strong>in</strong>gfulness<br />
of work<strong>in</strong>g was concerned were <strong>the</strong> views of <strong>the</strong> F<strong>in</strong>nish wage earners<br />
close to <strong>the</strong> views of those from St. Petersburg. In this aspect, <strong>the</strong>re is a big<br />
gap between <strong>the</strong>m and all three <strong>Baltic</strong> countries.<br />
The greatest difference between F<strong>in</strong>land and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Baltic</strong> countries concerns <strong>the</strong><br />
evaluation of changes <strong>in</strong> environmental issues and, on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
mean<strong>in</strong>gfulness of work<strong>in</strong>g. Views on <strong>the</strong> way environmental questions are<br />
handled at <strong>the</strong> workplace are considerably more positive <strong>in</strong> F<strong>in</strong>land than <strong>in</strong><br />
Lithuania, Latvia or also Estonia. A third difference that emerges between<br />
F<strong>in</strong>land and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Baltic</strong> countries is that more wage earners <strong>in</strong> F<strong>in</strong>land regard<br />
<strong>the</strong> change <strong>in</strong> gender equality as positive.<br />
When <strong>the</strong> <strong>Baltic</strong> countries are compared with each o<strong>the</strong>r, it is seen that <strong>the</strong><br />
Lithuanian wage earners take a somewhat more negative view of current<br />
changes <strong>in</strong> work<strong>in</strong>g life than do <strong>the</strong> Estonians and Latvians. The differences<br />
are large <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> case of self-development, management methods, environ-