Table 2. The frequency distribution (%) of developed workplace practices by background variables. Developed supervision Broadly fair treatment at Extensive development practices work possibilities TOTAL 28 % (n= 635) 27 % (n= 585) 21 % (n= 464) Gender Male 28 28 20 Female 29 27 21 p-value ns ns ns Age <29 33 33 26 30-39 30 25 24 40-49 27 26 22 50- 26 28 16 p-value ns ns ns Socio-economic status Blue collar 24 26 13 Lower White 26 28 18 Upper White 34 27 31 p-value <0.001 ns <0.001 Education Primary 28 33 9 Secondary 27 28 18 Tertiary 30 25 26 p-value ns 0.044 <0.001 Developed workplace practices and job insecurities turned out to have strong mutual relationships with each other. Employees working under high job insecurity less frequently report high development possibilities, good supervision practices or fair treatment (See figure 1). Tables 3 and 4 display the connections between stress, two dimensional job insecurity and workplace practices (supervision practices, opportunities for personal development and fair treatment at work). Basically, the results follow our expectations: even after adjustment, the connection between high job insecurity (both A-JI and C-JI) and high stress is indisputable; employees reporting high job insecurity also give accounts of high stress more often. In addition, non-optimal scores for supervision practices and fair treatment at work are connected with high stress. However, the corresponding link was not found in evaluations considering development possibilities. Table 3. Logistic regression modeling of belonging to the high stress group in relation to cognitive job insecurity and workplace practices (3A supervision, 3B fair treatment, 3C development possibilities). Odds ratios (OR) and 95 per cent confidence intervals (95% CI), and the significances of the interactions in C-JI*developed workplace practices. Models adjusted for age, gender, industry, socio-economic status and education. Number of individuals Odds ratios and 95% confidence interval 3A Cognitive job insecurity
Table 2. The frequency distribution (%) of developed workplace practices by background variables. Developed supervision practices Broadly fair treatment at work Extensive development possibilities TOTAL 28 % (n= 635) 27 % (n= 585) 21 % (n= 464) Gender Male 28 28 20 Female 29 27 21 p-value ns ns ns Age <29 33 33 26 30-39 30 25 24 40-49 27 26 22 50- 26 28 16 p-value ns ns ns Socio-economic status Blue collar 24 26 13 Lower White 26 28 18 Upper White 34 27 31 p-value <0.001 ns <0.001 Education Primary 28 33 9 Secondary 27 28 18 Tertiary 30 25 26 p-value ns 0.044 <0.001 Developed workplace practices and job insecurities turned out to have strong mutual relationships with each other. Employees working under high job insecurity less frequently report high development possibilities, good supervision practices or fair treatment (See figure 1). Tables 3 and 4 display the connections between stress, two dimensional job insecurity and workplace practices (supervision practices, opportunities for personal development and fair treatment at work). Basically, the results follow our expectations: even after adjustment, the connection between high job insecurity (both A-JI and C-JI) and high stress is indisputable; employees reporting high job insecurity also give accounts of high stress more often. In addition, non-optimal scores for supervision practices and fair treatment at work are connected with high stress. However, the corresponding link was not found in evaluations considering development possibilities. Table 3. Logistic regression modeling of belonging to the high stress group in relation to cognitive job insecurity and workplace practices (3A supervision, 3B fair treatment, 3C development possibilities). Odds ratios (OR) and 95 per cent confidence intervals (95% CI), and the significances of the interactions in C-JI*developed workplace practices. Models adjusted for age, gender, industry, socio-economic status and education. Number of individuals Odds ratios and 95% confidence interval 3A Cognitive job insecurity