The effect of social protection
reforms on the incidence and
extent of precarious employment
In Belgium, Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom
since 1990 up to recent years
Lijsje Goosen
10554742
lijsje@gmail.com
University of Amsterdam
Master’s thesis in Sociology:
Comparative Organisation and Labour Studies
15-‐08-‐2014
1
stSupervisor: Dr. J. J. De Deken
2
ndSupervisor: V. Di Stasio MSc
Summary
The thesis aims to discuss the effect of social protection arrangements on the extent and incidence of precarious employment. The concept precarious employment is discussed and defined, in particular in the ways it differs from the Standard Employment Relationship and how it relates to social protection. Indicators are ascribed to the various aspects of the multi-‐faceted concept of precarious employment and to social protection systems. Data on these indicators is presented over the timeframe of 1990 to 2012 for Belgium, Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Through scrutinising the meaning of the indicators and using the numbers in a descriptive manner the extent and incidence of precarious
employment, and its development over time, is discussed. The social protection systems and their reforms during the 1990s and 2000s are further described in a qualitative manner. In the conclusion two hypotheses are mostly confirmed; the social protection systems in Germany and the United Kingdom have contributed to the increase in incidence and extent of precarious employment, whereas the social protection system in Sweden has done so to a lower extent and in Belgium has hardly aggravated precarious employment. And secondly, precarious employment should not be seen as a dualisation phenomenon, as the social protection reforms increased precariousness for all.
Table of contents
Summary ... 2
List of Tables ... 5
List of Figures ... 6
1. Introduction ... 7
1.1 Outline ... 7
2. Theoretical framework ... 8
2.1 The Standard Employment Relationship ... 8
2.2 Global changes affecting the employment relationship ... 9
2.2.1 From Fordism to finance-‐led capitalism ... 9
2.2.2 Employment under finance-‐led capitalism ... 10
2.2.3 A new definition of employment standards ... 11
2.3 Precarious employment ... 12
2.3.1 Precarious employment in policy discussions ... 12
2.3.2 Precarious employment defined ... 15
2.4 Related academic debates on precarious employment ... 16
2.4.1 A wider perspective than merely precarious jobs ... 16
2.4.2 A new form of precariousness ... 17
2.4.3 Non-‐standard work and precariousness ... 17
2.4.4 The quality of jobs: flexicurity and Decent Work ... 18
2.4.5 Precarious employment and dualisation ... 19
2.5 Social protection: link to precariousness and reforms since the 1990s ... 20
2.5.1 Social protection and precarious employment ... 20
2.5.2 Reforms in social protection since the 1990s ... 22
2.5.3 The reforms and precarious employment ... 24
2.6 Vobruba’s squares of labour law and social protection ... 24
2.7 Hypotheses following the theoretical framework ... 26
3. Method and research design ... 26
3.1 Precarious employment ... 27
3.1.1 Unemployment and employment ... 28
3.1.2 Employment contract and security ... 31
3.1.3 In-‐work poverty ... 37
3.2 Social protection ... 39
3.2.1. Basic characteristics ... 40
3.2.2 Generosity; Replacement rates ... 41
3.2.3 Caseloads of working-‐age benefit schemes ... 44
4. The extent and incidence of precarious employment ... 46
4.1 Precarious employment in Belgium ... 46
4.2 Precarious employment in Germany ... 47
4.3 Precarious employment in Sweden ... 48
4.4 Precarious employment in the United Kingdom ... 49
5.1. Social protection in Belgium ... 51
5.1.1 Belgium’s enduring system of social protection ... 51
5.1.2 Marked changes to Belgium’s social protection ... 52
5.2 Social protection in Germany ... 52
5.2.1 The German situation in the 1990s ... 53
5.2.2 Germany’s reforms towards a structural divide ... 54
5.3 Social protection in Sweden ... 55
5.3.1 Conditions of Sweden’s unemployment protection system ... 56
5.3.2 Important effects of the reforms and increased activation in Sweden ... 57
5.4 Social protection in the United Kingdom ... 58
5.4.1 The United Kingdom’s Job Seeker’s Allowance ... 59
5.4.2 Activation, conditionality and risk-‐recategorisation in the UK ... 59
6. Discussion and conclusion ... 60
6.1 The situation in Germany and the UK versus Belgium and Sweden ... 61
6.1.1. The extent and incidence of precarious employment ... 61
6.1.2 The effect of social protection ... 62
6.2 Dualisation versus increased precariousness for all ... 64
Bibliography ... 65
List of Tables
Table 1 Definitions of precarious work ... 13
Table 2 Unemployment rates (%) ... 28
Table 3 Duration of unemployment (as % of total unemployment) ... 29
Table 4 Registered unemployed and job vacancies (x1.000) and unemployed-‐to-‐
vacancy ratio ... 30
Table 5 Employment-‐to-‐population, 15+ (%) ... 31
Table 6 Share of permanent and temporary employment (%) ... 32
Table 7 Employment Protection Legislation – Regular contracts ... 33
Table 8 Employment Protection Legislation – Temporary contracts ... 33
Table 9 Average EPL for total employment ... 33
Table 10 Main reason for temporary employment (% of total temporary
employment) ... 34
Table 11 In temporary employment because of inability to find permanent
employment (% of total employment) ... 34
Table 12 Temporary employees by duration of contract in months (Total x1.000 and
% of total) ... 35
Table 13 Share of involuntary part-‐time employment in total employment and as a
share of part-‐time employment (%) ... 36
Table 14 Employment by job tenure interval (% of total employment) ... 36
Table 15 Average job tenure, in years ... 37
Table 16 In-‐work at-‐risk-‐of-‐poverty rate, employed persons aged 16 and over, after
social transfers (%) ... 38
Table 17 In-‐work at-‐risk-‐of-‐poverty rate, employed persons aged 16-‐64, before social
transfers (%) ... 38
Table 18 In-‐work at-‐risk-‐of-‐poverty rate, age 18-‐24 (%) ... 39
Table 19 In-‐work at-‐risk-‐of-‐poverty rate, employees with a permanent job (%) ... 39
Table 20 In-‐work at-‐risk-‐of-‐poverty rate, employees with a temporary job (%) ... 39
Table 21 Unemployment insurance coverage rate as share of employed (%) ... 40
Table 22 Duration of unemployment insurance benefit and waiting days ... 40
Table 23 Net replacement rates in first month after unemployment for single 60%
Average Wage, no children – and with 2 children (%) ... 41
Table 24 Net replacement rates in first month after unemployment for single 100%
Average Wage, no children -‐ and with 2 children (%) ... 42
Table 25 Net replacement rates in first month after unemployment for single, 120%
Average Wage, no children – and with 2 children (%) ... 42
Table 26 Net replacement rates for the long-‐term unemployed, without and with
housing and social assistance benefits, for a single earning 67% of AW with no
children -‐ and with 2 children (%) ... 43
Table 27 Net replacement rates for the long-‐term unemployed, without and with
housing and social assistance benefits, for a single earning 100% of AW with no
children -‐ and with 2 children (%) ... 43
Table 28 Net replacement rates for the long-‐term unemployed, without and with
housing and social assistance benefits, for a single earning 150% of AW with no
children -‐ and with 2 children (%) ... 44
Table 29 Caseload unemployment benefits, includes participants in ALMPs except for
Sweden (as % of population 15-‐64) ... 45
Table 30 Caseload work incapacity benefits (as % of population 15-‐64) ... 45
Table 31 Caseload Early retirement benefits (as % of population 15-‐64) ... 45
Table 32 Caseload Social assistance benefits (as % of population 15-‐64) ... 45
Table 33 Beneficiary rates ... 59
List of Figures
Figure 1 The SER-‐situation according to Vobruba ... 24
Figure 2 Recent developments according to Vobruba ... 25
1. Introduction
There has been extensive research on the effect of the Europe-‐wide reforms of social protection systems since the 1990s, which in general included less generosity, more activation measures and stricter conditionalities, and has led to a decline in the level of unemployment. The research on the apparent success of these policies however hardly takes into consideration how they might have affected the nature and quality of employment. Long before these reforms, at least since the 1970s, the labour market structure and employment relationships underwent changes throughout industrialised, developed countries. Through processes of globalisation, financialisation and tertiarisation as well as policy choices promoting flexibilisation the so-‐called standard employment relationship deteriorated.
Besides global trends impacting on employment relations, national policies matter for the situation of employees. Flexibility might be necessary for economic growth; the uncertainty it brings severely affects people. Different nations have chosen different forms and extents of providing social protection for the increasing insecurity citizens are facing (Crouch, 2014). And arguably, this variation in provision has led to different outcomes with respect to precarious employment and its coverage and intensity for the population.
While there is an extensive body of literature on developments regarding the quality of jobs and the reform of social protection, there have hardly been any attempts at linking the reforms of social protection to the growth of precarious employment. With this thesis I hope to contribute to this gap in the literature by comparing the ways in which changes in the incidence and extent of precarious employment in Belgium, Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom are linked to reforms of social protection systems, over a period from the early 1990s up to recent years.
To illustrate; it can be expected that there is a kind of trade-‐off between on the one hand getting the unemployed out of benefit recipiency and into a market remunerated job, regardless of the quality of this employment, leading to a declining level of unemployment and on the other hand an increase of precarious employment and of ‘revolving door’ unemployment; that is of people going from one temporary job via unemployment assistance to another temporary or otherwise precarious job. The United Kingdom and Germany are expected to represent examples of this phenomenon; the UK with strong activation policies and in-‐work benefits and Germany with its promotion of mini-‐jobs. Another approach for a nation could be to strive for proper jobs for the unemployed, through providing them with useful (re-‐)training as well as time and an income to look for a suitable job. Perhaps this would lead to higher levels of unemployment, but also to less precarious employment. Belgium and Sweden have been chosen as possible examples of this scenario.
1.1 Outline
In order to discuss the incidence and extent of precarious employment and the effect of social protection systems on precarious employment in the four countries selected, the remainder of this thesis is structured as follows. Chapter 2 provides the theoretical framework, through first discussing the “standard employment relationship” as well as its decline and then defining precarious employment. The social protection systems relation to precarious employment is discussed and an insightful visualisation of the processes
described is provided after which the hypotheses are formed. The method and research design is outlined in chapter 3. The following chapter discusses the incidence and extent of precarious employment in the four countries over the period from 1990 to 2012. Chapter 5 deals with the social protection reforms and characteristics since the 1990s, also for each country. In the final chapter the two previous chapters are combined in order to discuss and
conclude on the effect of national social protection systems on the incidence and extent of precarious employment.
2. Theoretical framework
Over the last decades much attention has been paid to the changing organisation of work, including the rise of non-‐standard employment, increasing flexibility, vulnerable workers and the growth of precariousness (ex. Fritz and Koch, 2013, Barbier, 2010, Standing, 2011). The most often cited explanations for these changes in the de-‐industrialised parts of the world are this process of de-‐industrialisation, globalisation and intensified global competition, flexibilisation and finally corporate restructuring and financialisation (Clasen and Clegg, 2011, Crouch 2011, Cremers, 2010). Whereas in traditional, industrial economies there is (or better; was) a high need for stable employment relationships, in the service economies of recent decades flexible labour relations are deemed to be key in enhancing economic growth. Many policies have changed accordingly, in order to enforce flexible labour relations. These changes in the labour market affect people in such a way that a different mode of social protection is required. National governments need to adjust in order to provide such suitable social protection, including unemployment protection, to the changed risks accompanying current employment relationships (Clasen and Clegg, 2011, p.7). All these developments have impacted on employment quality; arguably leading to an increase in precariousness.
In this chapter the developments in the organisation of work and in social protection and their relation to the core concept of ‘precarious employment’ are discussed.
Furthermore, the first step in contributing to the gap in the existing literature is made; in discussing the relation between social protection and the extent of precariousness. The remainder of this chapter is structured as follows. Section 2.1 discusses the standard
employment relationship (SER) and the following section the global developments that have impacted on the employment relationship over the last decades, with a focus on those changes contributing to precarious employment. This is followed by section 2.3 in which the concept precarious employment and its characteristics are discussed extensively. Section 2.4 provides an overview of relevant academic discussions on precarious employment, including the relation to the non-‐standard contract, the concepts ‘decent work’ and flexicurity and dualisation. Section 2.5 outlines the connection between the two core concepts of this thesis; employment precariousness and social protection systems and discusses the broad changes in social protection since the 1990s in European countries in general. In the following section an insightful description and visualisation of the developments in labour law and social protection is provided. In the chapter’s final section the main hypothesis on the relation between social protection and precarious employment is formulated, as is an additional hypothesis regarding precariousness and the dualisation concept.
2.1 The Standard Employment Relationship
The SER should be seen as an ideal type, though there have certainly been times when it was reality for a large share of (male) employees in Western Europe and the United States. Bosch has defined the SER as a “stable, socially protected, dependent, full-‐time job (…) the basic conditions of which (working time, pay, social transfers) are regulated to a minimum level by collective agreement or by labour and/or social security law” (Bosch, 2004, p.618-‐619). It is the exceptional combination of “fulltime and stable employment with attached collective bargaining procedures, social rights and protections” (Van Aerden et al, 2014, p.772) that is key in the SER. Another aspect of the SER is that work is “exercised during a lifelong career” (García and de Schampheleire, 2002, p.75). To summarise, the SER has several key aspects; it’s fulltime and stable and the social standards are linked to such permanent, fulltime work. These key aspects relate to the social function the SER fulfilled for employers and
employees as well as society as a whole. “The focus of the contract is not only on today but also on tomorrow, with many mutual obligations enshrined therein” (Bosch, 2004, p.619). Thus, employers provide for their employees not only for the hours worked, but also when they are not working or training, for example during sickness or vacation. Employers and employees share mutual obligations, such as to adhere to a minimum period of employment as well as to the rules for termination of the contract. The welfare state plays a role in decommodifying the employees, through providing social protection in the form of
employment protection as well as linking entitlements, such as unemployment and sickness benefits, to the SER. Another facet of the SER is the adherence to certain standards, with regards to working times, overtime premiums and holiday entitlements, among other things. Through these SER arrangements employees can count on either a permanent contract or an income provided by the welfare state in case of a transition period between jobs or in periods of illness or accidents. As employees stand stronger against corporate decision-‐ making, through mutual obligations and employment protection, their bargaining position is quite strong. The SER enables labour to plan for both the short and long term (p.620). The SER came into existence over the 1950s and 1960s, a period of economic growth and low unemployment rates. It intended to protect employees against economic and social risks, increase economic efficiency through stability and reduce inequality (p.632). When economic growth slowed down, the services industry became more important and unemployment grew these goals were no longer compatible. The regulation of the employment relationship became to be resisted by employers, and as they were in a stronger bargaining position deregulation followed.
2.2 Global changes affecting the employment relationship
It is commonly assumed that the protection of living standards and social status is anchored in western European societies, through culture, politics as well as institutions. Paid
employment forms the basis of this European model of society, including the welfare state arrangements. The model furthermore depends on the settlement of social and political conflicts between organised capital and labour. Welfare states can function as mechanisms for redistribution as well as providing a social structure and social mobility based on equality and justice. As such the state is expected to provide the conditions that enable a certain degree of social and employment security, in order for individuals to plan and carry out their lives.
Consequently, the regulation of good working conditions and the provision of decent social security benefits and services form the legitimate basis of a democratic welfare state, providing people with risk protection and positive social rights
(Bothfeld &Leschke, 2012, p.339).
However, the actual situation in Western Europe is markedly different in several regards, most importantly the deterioration of employment, both in quantitative and qualitative sense, and the related welfare benefits and services. There seems to be a trade-‐off between employers’ interest in profits and employees’ interest in employment security and decent wages, and under different pressures it has again tilted towards the employers’ side, facilitated to different extents by national governments.
2.2.1 From Fordism to finance-‐led capitalism
During the few decades of roughly the 1930s to 1970s there was an exceptional situation of not only economic growth, but also shared prosperity through the class compromise in which capital shared productivity increases with labour, and labour in return accepted the scientific forms of work organization (Baccaro, 2010, p.342). The regulated national banking systems and Bretton Woods institutions ensured stability both domestically and
internationally (Boyer, 2010, p.349). The demand for workers was high and opportunities for advancement were good for most workers. Trade unions experienced a good bargaining position, and the expansion and extension of labour laws ensured favourable conditions, regarding wage increases, limiting working hours, strengthening employment protection as well as improvements in old-‐age and unemployment insurance. As most basic material necessities were attained workers became concerned with more intrinsic aspects of employment; such as meaning, autonomy and challenge (Kalleberg, 2009, Vobruba, 1999). Vobruba has defined this situation as the ‘full employment society’, an era in which the labour market had fulltime, regular jobs available for all who needed it. And for those temporarily without a job, there were expanding social security services and benefits available, at least for those willing to work (1999, p.5).
This situation is generally referred to as the Fordist-‐era, of full male employment, and lasted until it turned out that the domestic markets were saturated and could no longer provide the necessary growing demand, which meant a rapid decline of economic growth and profits. Also, Taylorists methods to increase productivity were exhausted (Koch, 2013, p.32). Firms, enabled by technological changes, started to look for cheap labour as well as markets abroad, and they became ever more inserted into the global market. Governments at their turn acted, to varying extents, by diminishing the restrictions on capital mobility, and the deregulation of banking and financial sectors, all in order to improve competitiveness and boost profitability, to sustain the necessary economic growth. Furthermore, also in response to employers’ pressures, governments restricted or removed regulatory barriers to the use of temporary and part-‐time hiring and eased regulations on working time patterns as well as employment protection legislation (Gray, 2004, p.3). By making labour cheaper it was believed employers would start hiring more labour and the levels of unemployment would come down. Tertiarisation, the shift from manufacturing to services, also affected the position of labour, mainly because of the fact that many jobs in services tend to be less skilled and as such lower paid. All in all, with the regime shift from Fordism to post-‐Fordism, or finance-‐led capitalism, soaring profits returned. However, the extreme mobility of capital has had a negative influence on workers through increased flexibility, wage moderation and a decline in trade unions bargaining position (Tridico, 2012).
2.2.2 Employment under finance-‐led capitalism
The deteriorated conditions for employment, low skilled labour in particular, are not contingent but in fact key in this finance-‐led stage of capitalism. Not because globalisation would inevitably have led to precarious employment, in fact policies were deliberately pursued in order to create an economic environment more conducive to capital and companies. Global open markets would in the end benefit everyone, because of efficient production and innovation through fierce competition, which required flexible labour. Despite failing to deliver these benefits, this is now the reality in which labour exists. Whereas employers used to share some of the responsibility and reduce individual risk by offering job security despite market volatility, the current situation is such that the individual employee bears most of the risk (ILO, 2012, p.40-‐44). Capital’s search for flexible labour is crucially linked to the choices made by governments that favour a deregulated monetary regime and foster wage competition (Barbier, 2013, p.17).
There are four main ways in which the finance-‐led capitalism stage is deteriorating employment. First of all, with globalisation the rationale for collectively keeping wages up in order to stimulate consumer demand is gone, as domestic spending power of wage-‐earners is less important than in the Fordism age. Profits can be made outside of the domestic market. Also, the decrease in real wages can be compensated by consumer loans, as such maintaining the spending power companies are interested in. “Financialisation, hence, is likely to be accompanied by a redistribution of primary income from the wage-‐earning to the capital-‐owning class” (Koch, 2013, p.34).
Secondly, under finance-‐led capitalism “Creating shareholder value became the mantra of modern corporations and shifted the management focus from ‘empire’ building and job creation to short-‐term economic indicators” (Dünhaupt, 2013, p.8). From the perspective of analysts and fund managers personnel is not a resource, but is perceived as an expense factor. And whereas labour costs can be quantified precisely, the amount of value created by labour becomes an indistinguishable part of the overall result. (Kädtler, 2011, p.183) This also relates to the increased outsourcing and transnationalisation of chains of production, as such moves are aimed at improving shareholder value at the expense of (former) employees. Under the heading of ‘remaining competitive’, the original employees might be forced to accept unfavourable conditions because of a threat in outsourcing, or in fact lose their jobs due to international low wage competition.
Furthermore, under Fordism conditions were in place through which low skilled workers could earn decent wages, through trade unions bargaining for decent wages, training and internal promotion opportunities and the strong welfare state, the finance-‐led stage of capitalism broke down these conditions because of globalisation and tertiarisation. Its dominant logic is to subject workers to market forces, through employment
externalization, a broad term that includes the breakdown of training and promotion ladders, the declining job security and the rise of nonstandard work. All this has a negative effect on conditions of employment including wages, training, job security as well as work intensification (Vidal, 2013, p.589-‐591).
Finally, globalisation has led to a highly competitive environment, in which
consumer demands are increasingly flexible and diversified. As such production and service provision is said to require more flexible employment, meaning employers strive towards more temporary, casual and part-‐time contracts, in order to circumvent costs associated with fulltime, permanent employees (Koch, 2013, p.38). As regular contracts tend to come with more job security, in general higher wages and more social protection.
2.2.3 A new definition of employment standards
A new definition of social standards, in this case relating to employment standards, has come about. As what is accepted as employment standards differs across space and time. Whereas the Fordist employment standard of the SER was fulltime, permanent, on-‐site, wage employment, as described in section 2.1 above, the employment standard in finance-‐ led capitalism is clearly different (Koch, 2013, p.30). According to Vobruba there is a twofold crisis in paid work; there are too few paid jobs in relation to the number of people who rely on paid work, and at the same time there are quality issues with a lot of jobs (1999, p.27). He considers a return to the full employment society under capitalism improbable, mainly because there is no such thing as a ‘clearing of the market’ or ‘economic equalisation’ through which a balance of jobseekers and vacancies will come around. The labour market has inherent peculiar features, including institutional and cultural aspects influencing the supply of labour, in particular certain groups such as women and migrants.
Furthermore, the feasibility of a return is diminished because of the deteriorated preconditions, as they existed under Fordism as described above. Despite all this, Vobruba highlights the fact that the welfare state arrangements and social inclusion remain based on full employment in many regards. And many policies are still aimed at a return to full employment, albeit with a different understanding of full employment, as it has come to also include non-‐standard employment (p.28-‐31). Thus, the current situation is one in which people depend on cash, however there are not enough jobs available. Plus, for the
unemployed and insecurely employed there is an additional problem:
The basic problem facing people who enter the labour market as an additional labour supply lies in the fact that they have to work first in order then to get an income (p.42)
Section 2.5 will elaborate on this additional problem.
For now, what remains to be said about global changes impacting on the employment relationship is the following:
“(…) the postfordist regime still systematically generates a job structure with a large percentage of low-‐autonomy jobs and increasingly produces a stratum of long-‐term working poor, whose wages are kept low by the existence of various strata of a reserve army of under-‐ and unemployed. (…) The wage form continues to present interdependent relations – the banker and his or her maid, software developers and their janitors, creatives and their cheap goods and services – as independent market transactions. Some things, indeed, do not change.” (Vidal, 2013, p.605-‐606)
Now, the concept of precarious employment, to which the global developments over the last decades that were just outlined have contributed in terms of expansion and
progression, is discussed.
2.3 Precarious employment
Precarious work is a concept that is used to describe an employment situation. Precarious literally means insecure or uncertain, but also perilous, critical and unstable. In sociology the concept ‘precariousness’ originated in France in the late 1970s, referring to general poverty and insecurity, and became further defined by the distinction between precariousness in general and employment precariousness (Barbier, 2004). Without denying the existence of precariousness unconnected to employment, throughout this thesis precariousness always refers to employment precariousness. The terms precarious employment, precarious work and precariousness will be used interchangeably.
Up to date it remains difficult to define the term exactly, however not so much because of a fundamental lack of clarity. It is mostly due to the fact that employment precariousness is multi-‐faceted and depends upon contexts. Precariousness could also be said to be relative, briefly put; in developing and transitional countries precarious work is often the norm and mostly relates to poverty wages and the informal economy. In the developed, prosperous world precarious work revolves around earnings inequality,
insecurity, vulnerability to dismissals and non-‐standard contracts (Kalleberg, 2009, p.14-‐15). Despite this relativity and context-‐dependence, precariousness is a concept that expresses an experience widely shared and recognised as a society-‐wide issue in contemporary societies.
Following Kalleberg, it is important to emphasise that what is discussed in this thesis is employment; work that produces earnings, or profit for the self-‐employed. This definition leaves out other forms of work that ‘merely’ produce value; such as household, community and care work (2009, p.2).
2.3.1 Precarious employment in policy discussions
In order to explain the concept table 1 below provides an overview of descriptions of precarious work by different organisations involved with (improving conditions of) labour, including trade union federations, non-‐governmental institutions and research institutes. This is not an exclusive list of organisations in the field of labour conditions, however the key players at the European level are included. The main words used to define precarious work are in bold, to enable easier comparison.
Table 1 Definitions of precarious work
Organisation and source of description
Definition or description ILO ACTRAV –
International Labour Organisation, Bureau for Worker’s Activities
http://www.ilo.org/actr av/what/events/WCMS_ 153972/lang-‐-‐
en/index.htm
The precariousness of work arrangements is heterogeneous and multifaceted depending on the country, region, and the economic and social structure of the political systems and labour markets. The scope and different forms are ever expanding, as unscrupulous employers are always trying to circumvent regulations or to find loopholes in regulations in order to increase the profitability of their business at the expense of their employees. Nonetheless, common characteristics of precariousness are the absence or the insufficient level of rights and protection at the workplace. While informal employment is obviously precarious, this is also increasingly true for many forms of formal employment including sub-‐contracting, temporary contracts, agency work, fake self employment and involuntary part-‐time.
ITUC – International Trade Union Confederation http://www.ituc-‐ csi.org/IMG/pdf/8GC_E_ 16_b_-‐ _FINAL_Resolution_on_ Precarious_and_Informa l_Work-‐2.pdf
Precarious, atypical and unprotected forms of employment deprive millions of workers of the coverage of labour legislation and social security and undermine the union capacity to organise and bargain collectively. Such workers are effectively denied these rights because of the inadequacy of law or its application, which often does not cover the full range of relationships under which work is performed.
ETUC -‐ European Trade Union Confederation
http://www.etuc.org/de cent-‐work
The ETUC has defined an end to precarious jobs as a principle for decent
work. Precarious jobs undermine working conditions and health and
safety, generate poverty wages and damage social cohesion. As such,
precarious work can be seen as a lack in decent work. Basic principles for decent work are; better work organisation (including work-‐life balance and lifelong learning for skill and qualification enhancement), strong
employment protection legislation (to foster investment in human capital
and innovation), social welfare system to provide security for those changing jobs and finally social dialogue and collective bargaining. The ETUC emphasis the importance of job security, training as well as health
and safety conditions including stress. ILRF -‐ International
Labour Rights Forum
http://www.laborrights. org/issues/precarious-‐ work
Companies worldwide are shirking their legal obligations to workers by replacing permanent jobs with contract and temporary work. Precarious workers are those who fill permanent job needs but are denied
permanent employee rights. Globally, these workers are subject to unstable employment, lower wages and more dangerous working conditions. They rarely receive social benefits and are often denied the right to join a union. Even when they have the right to unionize, workers are scared to organize if they know they are easily replaceable. Women, minorities and migrant workers are much more likely to fill these kinds of jobs. Permanent employment across a number of sectors has shifted to precarious jobs through outsourcing, use of employment agencies, and inappropriate classification of workers as “short-‐term” or “independent contractors.”
GURN – The Global Union Research Network
http://www.gurn.info/e n/topics/precarious-‐ work
Worldwide, billions of workers suffer from precarious working conditions. They work, but lack decent jobs, security, protection and rights.
The precariousness of work arrangements is heterogeneous and multifaceted depending on the country, region, and the economic and social structure of the political systems and labour markets.
Precariousness in the world of work mainly arises from contractual arrangements under which work is performed. This includes: stand-‐by, temporary, employment-‐agency, casual, part-‐time, seasonal contracts,
pseudo self-‐employment, no direct or an unclear employer/employee relationship, poor protection against dismissal, and lack of – or limited access of workers – to exercise their rights at work.
EFFAT -‐ European Federation of Food, Agriculture and Tourism Trade Unions
http://www.effat.org/en /precarious-‐work
Precarious workers are mostly deprived of common workers’ rights, such as continued wage payment in case of sickness or holidays, rights of employees to participate in company decision-‐making and collective pay agreements. As a result, the affected workers have major gaps in their social security protection.
Work can be described as precarious if the level of income, protection and social integration of workers sinks far below the level defined and recognised as standard in contemporary society. Work is also precarious if it is subjectively associated with a loss of meaning, a deficit of recognition or uncertainties regarding planning, and if social standards are
significantly changed to the disadvantage of the workers. Precarious work covers a broad and multifaceted spectrum. IndustriALL Global Union http://www.industriall-‐ union.org/issues/social-‐ justice-‐and-‐ globalization/stop-‐ precarious-‐work
Global capital is driving fundamental changes to the way that people are employed. Secure jobs are becoming more and more rare, while agency work, contract work and temporary work are taking over. For young people, there is practically no other option – the only jobs on offer are insecure.
Workers in precarious jobs have little chance to join a union or to bargain collectively. Pay and conditions are being driven ever lower by
companies that rely on precarious work to reduce their labour costs and pass all the risks of employment onto workers.
In order to combat precarious work IndustriALL Global Union demands: Legislation that protects workers and their rights from being undermined, collective agreements that ban the use of precarious work or put defined limits on it and respect for and enforcement of labour rights – for all workers.
SOLIDAR – European network of NGOs working to advance social justice in Europe and worldwide
http://www.solidar.org/ IMG/pdf/23_solidar_no nstandard_empl_relatio ns.pdf
The result [of increases in ‘working poor’ and ‘a-‐typical employment contracts] is precarious employment that encompasses forms of work involving job insecurity, low income, limited (or no) social benefits or statutory entitlements and low societal participation.
BARSORI / AIAS -‐ “Bargaining for Social Rights” financed by the European Commission carried out by
Amsterdams Instituut voor ArbeidsStudies http://www.uva-‐ aias.net/uploaded_files/ regular/BARSORIOvervie wReport-‐1.pdf
Precarious employment refers to employment that combines some of the following characteristics: low levels of income and income security, low job and employment security, bad working conditions, limited access to training, limited social security rights and/or limited voice. Precarious employment affects the working situation of the person in such
employment but also his or her private life and the household he or she is part of through, for example, low income, problems in accessing loans or high levels of insecurity.
Several conclusions come forward out of this table of definitions. First of all, precarious work is not easy to delineate. Secondly, the concept is multi-‐faceted; not one organisation defines it through a single aspect of employment or work. However, the following aspects are part of practically all descriptions:
• The instability or insecurity of jobs • Low wages
• Limited social security rights
Other, less often returning, aspects of precarious work are:
• Bad working conditions, including a lack of health and safety • Loss of meaning of work
• Denial or discouragement to join a trade union and participate in collective bargaining and other forms of democratic workplace representation • Lack of participation in company decision making
• Limited access to training
• Intrusion into private and family life (through disabling planning, causing insecurity, low income and difficulties in accessing loans)
Some organisations also emphasise the importance of context; of economic as well as social structure. Furthermore, several also hint towards the expanding trend in precariousness, notably the International Labour Organisation, as employers are actively looking for ways to push precarious work as a means of increasing their profits.
The definitions and shared characteristics provided by these organisations overlap with, and at the same time are often derived from, the definitions of precarious
employment used in academic debates.
2.3.2 Precarious employment defined
Common characteristics ascribed to employment precariousness clearly come forward throughout academic literature; they revolve around objective (legal) and subjective (perceived) uncertainty and insecurity, or a state of threatening risk.
The uncertainty or insecurity relates most importantly to the ability to secure a sufficient income and the status of employment and related chances of dismissal (Olsthoorn, 2013). These two elements return in an often cited early definition: precarious employment occurs when employment fails to provide employees with a minimum standard of living (Rodgers and Rodgers, 1989), because both income and continuation of employment matter in the ability to ensure a minimum standard of living. However, the context in which the
employment relation takes place also matters. This mainly refers to the rights employees derive from their employment relation (Olsthoorn, 2013). Other aspects, such as working conditions, power and voice, task autonomy, career and salary growth opportunities and employment tenure are also returning aspects related to precariousness.
The concept of precarious work goes beyond the form of employment to look at the range of factors that contribute to whether a particular form of employment
exposes the worker to employment instability, a lack of legal and union protection, and social and economic vulnerability (Rodgers and Rodgers, 1989, p.1).
This also relates to rights against arbitrary discretionary power of employers, either through labour law, trade unions and collective bargaining or the right of appeal at court. This range of factors exists in different dimensions. Thus while threatening insecurity due to
employment relation characteristics is key, the concept precariousness is multidimensional, it:
(…) not only results from a limited contract duration (the temporal dimension), but also from insufficient pay and salary progression (the economic dimension), lack of, or reduced, access to legal and social protection (the social dimension), or the
