請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/88806完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 辛炳隆 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Ping-Lung Hsin | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 吳彥緯 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Yen-Wei Wu | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2023-08-15T17:51:50Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2023-11-09 | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2023-08-15 | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2023 | - |
| dc.date.submitted | 2023-08-08 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | 王雅雲（2011）。〈我國非典型就業概況〉，《臺灣勞工季刊》，27：100-111。
成之約（1998）。〈淺談「派遣勞動」及其對勞資關係的影響〉，《就業與訓練》，16 （6）：3-11。 成之約（2012）。〈台灣彈性安全政策與制度規劃之探討〉，《就業與勞動關係季刊》，2（3）：290-318。 江豐富（2011）。〈失業、非典型就業的人口組成與工資率分析〉，《臺灣經濟預測與政策》，42（1）：75-118。 行政院主計總處（2010）。〈中華民國標準職業分類（第6次修訂）〉。 行政院主計總處（2016）。〈標準行業分類（第10次修訂）〉。 行政院主計總處（2022）。〈人力資源調查統計年報〉。 行政院主計總處（2022）。〈人力運用調查報告〉。 行政院主計總處（2023）。〈薪資與生產力統計年報〉。 何思瑩、柯志哲（2021）。〈性別化的傷疤效果？檢視非典型工作經驗對於臺灣受雇者日後進入典型工作可能性的影響〉，《勞資關係論叢》，23（1）：1-33。 李易駿、古允文（2007）。〈機會開放或結構限制？台灣青年從學校到職場轉銜過程中的Yo-Yo 現象〉，《台灣社會研究季刊》，67：105-152。 李健鴻（2011）。〈後金融海嘯時期的非典型就業趨勢、風險與勞動保護〉，《就業安全》，9（1）：12-19。 辛炳隆（2011）。〈強化人力資本提升青年就業力〉，《就業安全》，10（1）：10-14。 辛炳隆、張秋蘭（2011）。《非典型就業之衡平機制－經濟面之研究》（報告系統編號RG10012-0699）。臺北：行政院經濟建設委員會。 辛炳隆、蔡金宏、王素彎、詹建隆、李姿瑤（2012）。《運用非典型勞工提升產業競爭力之研究》（中華研究計畫編號10112-3-1339D6）。臺北：行政院經濟部。 柯志哲、張珮青（2014）。〈區隔的勞動市場？：探討臺灣典型與非典型工作者的工作流動與薪資差異〉，《臺灣社會學刊》，55：127-177。 洪敬舒（2014）。〈失落的一代─當前青年世代的結構性就業困境〉，《社區發展季刊》，146：65-76。 洪瑞斌（2020）。〈零工經濟及非典型就業的趨勢對青年職涯發展之影響〉。https://www.italent.org.tw/ePaperD/36/ePaper20201100004。2022年9月6日檢索。 徐美（2004）。〈有偶婦女在台灣勞動市場轉型中參與行為的變動〉，「人口、家庭與國民健康政策回顧與展望」研討會論文。臺北：臺灣人口學會。4月23-24日。 張一穗、苗坤齡、葉芝菁、楊如（2010）。《薪資統計員工特性及差異之研究》（編號99 年02）。臺北：行政院主計處。 教育部（2016）。〈中華民國教育程度標準分類〉。 陳秋蓉、張振平、許繼峰、陳旺儀（2011）。《各國職業安全衛生政策研究─非典型僱用職業安全衛生問題與因應》（勞安所研究計畫IOSH99-H301）。新北：行政院勞工委員會勞工安全衛生研究所。 勞動部（2020）。〈108年15-29歲青年勞工就業狀況調查報告〉。 勞動部（2021）。〈109年部分工時勞工就業實況調查報告〉。 勞動部勞動力發展署（2023）。〈青年就業旗艦計畫〉。 黃月盈（2019）。〈非典型就業對國內薪資影響之研究〉，《經濟研究》，19：65-82。 新北市政府（2021）。〈非典型勞動青年轉正職輔導計畫〉。新北勞動雲，https://ilabor.ntpc.gov.tw/page/jog-hunting-for-atypical-youth。2023年5月20日檢索。 劉鶴群（2015）。〈社會排除、貧窮與就業：現象描述與政策意涵〉，《社會發展季刊》，105：163-184。 鄭津津（2011）。《非典型就業之衡平機制-法制面之研究》（經建會研究計畫（100）036.803）。臺北：行政院經濟建設委員會。 魯慧中、陳明賢（2018）。〈典型和非典型全日工作的工資差異─雙變數就業選擇之實證分析〉，《經濟論文》，46（2）：133-183。 謝文元、李易駿（2007）。〈缺乏保障的就業：青年非典型工作經驗之探討〉，《政大勞動學報》，21：1-53。 Atkinson, J. (1984). “Manpower strategies for flexible organizations.” Personnel Management, 16(8): 28-31. Belous, R. S. (1989). “How human resources systems adjust to the shift toward contingent workers.” Monthly Labor Review, 112(3): 7-12. Booth, A. L., Francesconi, M. and Frank, J. (2002). “Temporary jobs: Stepping stones or dead ends?” SSRN Electronic Journal, 673: 189-213. Buch, T. and Niebuhr, A. (2018). “Wage effects of labour market entry via temporary work agency employment: Evidence from German apprenticeship graduates.” International Journal of Manpower, 39(7): 937-953. Büchel, F. and Mertens, A. (2004). “Overeducation, undereducation, and the theory of career mobility.” Applied Economics, 36(8): 803-816. Buddelmeyer, H. and Wooden, M. (2011). “Transitions out of casual employment: The Australian experience.” Industrial Relations A Journal of Economy and Society, 50(1): 109-130. Corsini, L. and Guerrazzi, M. (2007). “The transition from temporary to permanent employment: evidence from Tuscany”. Labour, 21(2): 303-332. Doeringer, P. and Piore, M. (1970). Internal Labor Markets and Manpower Analysis. Lexington, Massachusetts: Heath. Fang, T. and MacPhail, F. (2008). “Transitions from temporary to permanent work in Canada: Who makes the transition and why?” Social Indicators Research, 88: 51- 74. Fauser, S. (2020). “Career trajectories and cumulative wages: The case of temporary employment”. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 69: 1-13. Filomena, M. and Picchio, M. (2022). “Are temporary jobs stepping stones or dead ends? A systematic review of the literature.” International Journal of Manpower, 43(9): 60-74. Frade, C., Darmon, I. and Laparra, M. (2004). Precarious Employment in Europe: A Comparative Study of Labour Market Related Risk in Flexible Economies. Brussels: European Commission. Fuller, S. (2011). “Up and on or down and out? Gender, immigration and the consequences of temporary employment in Canada.” Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 29: 155-180. Fuller, S. and Stecy-Hildebrandt, N. (2014). “Lasting disadvantage? Comparing career trajectories of matched temporary and permanent workers in Canada.” Canadian Review of Sociology, 51(4): 293-324. García-Pérez, J. I. and Muñoz-Bullón, F. (2011). “Transitions into permanent employment in Spain: An empirical analysis for young workers.” British Journal of Industrial Relations, 49(1): 103-143. Gash, V. (2008). “Bridge or trap to what extent do temporary workers make more transitions to unemployment than to the standard employment contract.” European Sociological Review, 24(5): 651-668. Giesecke, J. and Groß, M. (2004). “External labour market flexibility and social inequality.” European Societies, 6: 347-382. Göbel, C. and Verhofstadt, E. (2008). “The Role of Temporary Employment for The Integration of School-Leavers into Permanent Employment.” Paper presented at the XXII Annual Conference of the European Society for Population Economics, University College London, June 19-21. Graaf-Zijl, M. de, Van den Berg, G. J. and Heyma, A. (2011). “Stepping stones for the unemployed: The effect of temporary jobs on the duration until (regular) work.” Journal of Population Economics, 24(1): 107-139. Hagen, T. (2003). “Do Fixed-Term Contracts Increase The Long-Term Employment Opportunities Of The Unemployed (ZEW Discussion Papers, No. 03-49).” Retrieved from Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung (ZEW) website: https://www.zew.de/en/publications/do-fixed-term-contracts-increase-the-long-term-employment-opportunities-of-the-unemployed-1. Harrison, B. and Sum, A. (1979). “The theory of “dual” or segmented labor markets.” Journal of Economic Issues, 13(3): 687-706. Högberg, B., Strandh, M. and Baranowska-Rataj, A. (2019). “Transitions from temporary employment to permanent employment among young adults: The role of labour law and education systems.” Journal of Sociology, 55(4): 689-707. Houseman, S. N. (2001). “Why employers use flexible staffing arrangements: Evidence from an establishment survey.” ILR Review, 55(1): 149-170. Hudson, K. (2007). “The new labor market segmentation: Labor market dualism in the new economy.” Social Science Research, 36(1): 286-312. Imai, J. (2011). “Regular and non-regular employment as an additional duality in Japanese labor market: institutional perspectives on career mobility.” In Imai, J. and Sato, Y. (eds.), Japan’s New Inequality: Intersection of Employment Reforms and Welfare Arrangements, pp.1-31. Melbourne: Trans Pacific Press. International Labour Organization (2016). Non-standard Employment Around the World Understanding Challenges, Shaping Prospects. Geneva: International Labour Office. Kalleberg, A. L., Reskin, B. F. and Hudson, K. (2000). “Bad jobs in America: standard and nonstandard employment relations and job quality in the United States.” American Sociological Review, 65(2): 256-278. Latner, J. P. and Saks, N. (2022). “The wage and career consequences of temporary employment in Europe: Analyzing the theories and synthesizing the evidence.” Journal of European Social Policy, 32(5): 514-530. Mattijssen, L. and Pavlopoulos, D. (2019). “A multichannel typology of temporary employment careers in the Netherlands: Identifying traps and stepping stones in terms of employment and income security.” Social Science Research, 77: 101-114. OECD (2015). In It Together: Why Less Inequality Benefits All. Paris: OECD. Passaretta, G. and Wolbers, M. H. J. (2019). “Temporary employment at labour market entry in Europe: Labour market dualism, transitions to secure employment and upward mobility.” Economic and Industrial Democracy, 40(2): 382-408. Pedulla, D. S. (2016). “Penalized or protected? Gender and the consequences of nonstandard and mismatched employment histories.” Am Sociol Rev. 81(2): 262-289. Polivka, A. E. and Nardone, T. (1989). “On the definition of “contingent work””. Monthly Labor Review, 109(12): 9-16. Reich, M., Gordon, D. and Edwards, R. (1973). “Dual labor markets: A theory of labor market segmentation.” American Economic Review, 63(2): 359-365. Rosen, S. (1986). Handbook of Labor Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago. Scherer, S. (2004). “Stepping-Stones or traps?: The consequences of labour market entry positions on future careers in West Germany, Great Britain and Italy.” Work, Employment and Society, 18(2): 369-394. Vosko, L. F. (1998). “Regulating precariousness? The temporary employment relationship under the NAFTA and the EC Treaty.” Industrial Relations, 53(1): 123- 153. Vries, M. R. de and Wolbers, M. H. J. (2005). “Non-standard employment relations and wages among school leavers in the Netherlands.” Work, Employment and Society, 19(3): 503-525. Wang, R. and Weiss, A. (1998). “Probation, layoff and wage tenure profiles a sorting explanation.” Labour Economics, 5(3): 359-383. Westhoff, L. (2022). “Wage differences between atypical and standard workers in European countries: Moving beyond average effects.” European Sociological Review, 38: 770-784. Yu, Wei-Hsia (2012). “Better off jobless? Scarring effects of contingent employment in Japan.” Social Forces, 90(3): 735-768. | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/88806 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 鑒於勞動彈性化日益普遍，近來非典型就業已成為青年初入職場的選擇管道之一，然而由於過去文獻多指出，非典型就業在工作穩定度、教育訓練機會、專業職能累積、薪資福利待遇等方面均不如典型就業，故職涯初期的非典型就業經驗是扮演有助青年勞工未來過渡進入典型職務的墊腳石，抑或是阻礙就業身分流動的陷阱，相當值得關注。
本研究以勞動部108年「15-29歲青年勞工就業狀況調查」為研究資料，主要探討青年勞工初入職場非典型就業身分，對後續就業身分轉換與薪資成長之影響。透過階層邏輯斯與線性廻歸分析，本研究結果呼應勞動市場區隔理論、陷阱說與烙印效果的觀點，相對以典型就業進入職場者，初入職場非典型青年勞工後續轉入典型就業的機會較低，不過隨工作年資拉長，轉入典型就業的可能性也將提高。此外，初入職場非典型青年勞工目前平均月薪顯著落後於以典型就業進入職場者，是故職涯初期的非典型就業經驗將對後續職涯發展帶來長期負面影響。 因此本研究認為，政策上應加強產學鏈結以降低勞資雙方資訊落差，並鼓勵企業典型雇用，避免青年非必要之非典型就業可能；此外亦應改善非典型就業教育訓練不足、專業技能累積不易的困境，擴大協助非典型青年勞工轉入典型正職之力道，防止青年長期面臨非典型就業薪資懲罰與社會排除的風險。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Because of universality of labor market flexibility, atypical jobs have become one of the choices of employment type when youth enter labor market nowadays. However, literature review indicates atypical employment is inferior to typical employment in the aspects of stability, education training, accumulation of professional technique and payment. Therefore, it is noteworthy that initial experience of atypical employment plays a role of stepping-stone to typical jobs whether trap deterring from transition for young workers.
This study use “Employment Survey of 15-29 Years-old Workers” conducted by Ministry of Labor in 2019 to examine the influence of initial employment status on future employment status and wage growth among young workers in Taiwan via regression analysis. The results found that to those entering labor market as atypical worker, the possibility of getting typical job in the future is relatively lower despite the transition rate will rise when job tenure getting longer. Besides, their average wage in the future is worse comparatively as well. In summary, there is a negative impact and consequence to the career of young worker whose initial employment status is atypical. Finally, this study concludes that in order to refrain unnecessary atypical job experience and possible risk of long-term wage penalty and social exclusion, government should not only enhance the cooperation between industry and academic to reduce the information gap between demand and supply of labor market, but also encourage employer to recruit youth by typical jobs. Additionally, it is critical to strengthen the policy concerning employment status mobility by improving the disadvantage of education training and professional technique accumulation of atypical work. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2023-08-15T17:51:50Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2023-08-15T17:51:50Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 謝辭 i
中文摘要 ii Abstract iii 第一章 緒 論 1 第一節 研究背景與動機 1 一、臺灣青年非典型就業狀況 2 二、典型與非典型勞動市場區隔化 4 第二節 研究目的 5 第三節 研究流程 6 第四節 研究限制 7 第二章 文獻探討 9 第一節 非典型就業之內涵 9 一、非典型就業的濫觴 9 二、非典型就業的定義及型態 10 第二節 典型與非典型就業身分之區隔與差異 12 一、勞動市場區隔化 13 二、典型與非典型就業身分勞動市場結果之差異 14 第三節 典型與非典型就業身分流動與對薪資成長之影響 20 一、墊腳石說 20 二、陷阱說 23 三、烙印效果 27 第三章 研究設計 31 第一節 研究假設與研究架構 31 第二節 研究對象與研究變項之操作型定義 32 一、研究對象及資料來源 32 二、研究變項之操作性定義 33 第三節 資料分析方法與工具 40 一、樣本敘述性統計分析 40 二、廻歸分析 40 第四章 研究結果與分析 42 第一節 敘述性統計分析 42 一、樣本特性 42 二、主要研究變項 45 第二節 初入職場就業身分對目前就業身分之影響 47 第三節 初入職場就業身分對目前平均月薪之影響 50 第五章 研究結論、政策意涵與建議 53 第一節 研究結論 53 一、初入職場就業身分將對後續就業身分產生影響 53 二、初入職場非典型就業身分將對後續薪資帶來負面影響 54 第二節 政策意涵與後續研究建議 55 一、政策意涵 55 二、後續研究建議 57 參考文獻 59 一、中文 59 二、英文 61 附錄、108年15-29歲青年勞工就業狀況調查問卷 67 | - |
| dc.language.iso | zh_TW | - |
| dc.subject | 青年就業 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 陷阱說 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 非典型就業 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 墊腳石說 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 烙印效果 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | Atypical Employment | en |
| dc.subject | Trap Hypothesis | en |
| dc.subject | Stepping-stone Hypothesis | en |
| dc.subject | Youth Employment | en |
| dc.subject | Stigma Effect | en |
| dc.title | 臺灣青年初入職場非典型就業對後續就業身分與薪資成長之影響 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | The Impacts on Future Employment Status and Wage Growth of Initial Atypical Employment Among Young Workers in Taiwan | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | - |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 111-2 | - |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 許聖章;賴偉文 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Sheng-Jang Sheu;Wei-Wen Lai | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | 青年就業,非典型就業,陷阱說,墊腳石說,烙印效果, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Youth Employment,Atypical Employment,Trap Hypothesis,Stepping-stone Hypothesis,Stigma Effect, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 74 | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202301470 | - |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | - |
| dc.date.accepted | 2023-08-09 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 國家發展研究所 | - |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 國家發展研究所 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-111-2.pdf | 1.64 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件，除了特別指名其著作權條款之外，均受到著作權保護，並且保留所有的權利。