Skip to main content

Table 1 Logit estimation of CTV incidence

From: Does CVT of firms in Germany suffer from poaching?

Dependent variable: CVT incidence (0/1)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Turnover 1 (TO1)

0.978***

0.983***

0.986**

0.981***

1.000

0.977***

(In %)

(0.005)

(0.006)

(0.006)

(0.006)

(0.012)

(0.008)

Turnover 2

1.000

0.997

0.985

1.066

1.062

1.065

(In %)

(0.019)

(0.026)

(0.026)

(0.062)

(0.061)

(0.061)

CVT to reduce turnover

     

1.661

(see Table notes)

     

(0.622)

TO1 X CVT to reduce turnover

     

1.034

(Interaction term)

     

(0.0251)

Collective labor agreement

  

0.754

0.642

0.674

0.688

(0 = no, 1 = yes)

  

(0.187)

(0.217)

(0.225)

(0.237)

Worker representation

  

1.916*

1.529

1.476

1.426

(0 = no, 1 = yes)

  

(0.690)

(0.814)

(0.785)

(0.733)

Innovativeness

  

0,888

0.770

0.773

0.724

(0 = low, 1 = high)

  

(0.214)

(0.237)

(0.239)

(0.220)

R + D activities

  

0.615

0.907

0.854

0.896

(0 = no, 1 = yes)

  

(0.194)

(0.397)

(0.379)

(0.405)

Demands on workers

  

0.489***

0.462**

0.449**

0.451**

(−1 = increasing, 0 = stable, 1 = decreasing)

  

(0.125)

(0.146)

(0.143)

(0.141)

Qualification structure

  

0.591**

0.406***

0.574

0.418**

(1 = employment of workers w/o degree, 0)

  

(0.151)

(0.136)

(0.224)

(0.142)

TO1 X qualification structure

    

0.966**

 

(Interaction term)

    

(0.0157)

 

Wages

   

1.007

1.058

0.998

(logged)

   

(0.322)

(0.340)

(0.317)

CVT professionalism

   

2.230**

2.262**

2.004**

(0 = low, 1 = high)

   

(0.710)

(0.725)

(0.641)

Training funds receipts

   

43.43***

50.13***

40.90***

(0 = no, 1 = yes)

   

(58.26)

(68.11)

(56.33)

Payback clauses

   

1.626

1.678*

1.548

(0 = no, 1 = yes)

   

(0.503)

(0.520)

(0.482)

CVT agreements

   

1.179

1.180

1.272

(0 = no, 1 = yes)

   

(1.065)

(1.062)

(1.166)

Recognition of externalities

   

0.478**

0.466**

0.465**

(Self-reported; 0 = no, 1 = yes)

   

(0.172)

(0.169)

(0.172)

Sensitivity to risk of turnover

   

1.120

1.119

1.095

(Self-reported; 0 = no, 1 = yes)

   

(0.340)

(0.339)

(0.332)

Industrial agglomeration

 

0.974

1.155

1.664

1.643

1.712

(0 = no, 1 = yes)

 

(0.243)

(0.304)

(0.588)

(0.579)

(0.615)

Metropolitan distance

 

0.600**

0.572**

0.590

0.566*

0.561*

(0 = up to 50 km, 1 = more than 50 km)

 

(0.152)

(0.150)

(0.194)

(0.188)

(0.185)

Firm size (ref. 5–9 Besch.)

      

10-49 employees

 

1.069

1.116

0.690

0.686

0.690

  

(0.235)

(0.253)

(0.205)

(0.205)

(0.204)

50-249 employees

 

3.533***

3.375***

2.653**

2.610*

2.613*

  

(1.078)

(1.183)

(1.306)

(1.320)

(1.291)

250 or more employees

 

7.910***

8.081***

3.824**

3.921**

4.007**

  

(2.779)

(3.708)

(2.401)

(2.514)

(2.549)

Industry controls

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

Region controls

NO

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

Constant

3.434***

1.103

3.686

29.49

18.89

43.41

 

(0.407)

(0.949)

(3.767)

(104.8)

(67.31)

(154.8)

N

1,206

1,199

1,190

1,047

1047

1041

Pseudo-R2

0.024

0.135

0.161

0.228

0.235

0.243

  1. Notes: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1 .Multiply imputed data. Logit coefficients have been transformed to odds ratios. Reported R2 relates to the respective estimates based on a single imputation approach. Column 5 considers an interaction term between turnover rate 1 and qualification structure. Column 6 considers an interaction term between turnover rate 1 and a moderator variable, indicating whether the interviewed firm representatives regard CVT as a “very important” means of reducing turnover.