CONSEQUENCES OF FLEXIBILITY: The effects of precarious employment on subjective well-being as mediated by work-life balance in the United Kingdom

(1)

CONSEQUENCES OF FLEXIBILITY:

The effects of precarious employment on subjective

well-being as mediated by work-life balance in the

United Kingdom

Master thesis

MSc Human Resource Management

2015/2016

Szerdahelyi Laszlo

Student number: S2849739

E-mail: laszlosz731@gmail.com

(2)

1

Abstract

This paper explores the influence of precarious employment on subjective well-being and the degree to which work-life balance mediates relationship for individuals in employment in the United Kingdom.

Building on this relationship and on previous research in this field relating to subjective well-being and work-life balance and applying them to individuals employed in precarious working conditions this paper seeks to point out the relationships that arise and the consequences of these newly emerging work relations on the individual. Results reveal a more complex

relationship that defies the initial hypothesis of the negative implications of precarious work and of the role of work-life balance as a mediator.

This paper makes use of the European Social Survey, specifically round 5 from 2010 and round 2 from 2004 combined into one dataset.

Keywords: atypical work, flexible work, temporary work, subjective well-being, work-life

(3)

2

3.2.1. The dependent variable – Subjective well-being ________________________________________ 25 3.2.2. The independent variable – precarious employment _____________________________________ 25 3.2.3. Mediator: Work-life balance ________________________________________________________ 27 3.2.4. Control variables _________________________________________________________________ 28

4. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND RESULTS _______________________________________ 30

4.1. Profile of respondent ________________________________________________________ 30 4.2. Descriptive results and Correlations ____________________________________________ 31 4.3. Regression analysis __________________________________________________________ 32 4.4. Testing hypotheses __________________________________________________________ 36

5. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS _______________________________________________ 37

(4)

3

1. INTRODUCTION

With the advent of globalization and the reshaping of world markets and economies along with the entry to the information age, governments have taken more and more measures to increase flexibility on their markets to be able to compete globally. This has led to policies of deregulation in the economic scenery and has had a major effect on the labour market and more importantly in this case, on labour relations and forms of employment.

The changes that have occurred over the past decades have not only changed the nature of employment relations but also affected the way people attempt to balance out their personal lives in the context of an ever more flexible labour market (Frone, Russell & Barnes, 1996). The concept of “job for life” has changed into an economic environment of instability and job uncertainty (Kotowska et.al, 2010). In the face of these changes both men and women have experienced increased demands to adapt to the new working environments and familial organizational structures (Allen et.al, 2000).

Working time patterns have evolved in the past 20 years as a result of a combined influence of technological changes, globalization, restructuring of work organization, changes in attitudes to careers, increased diversity in the workforce and an increased focus on the service sector. (Goudswaard et.al, 2012). Flexibility affects a large spectrum of labour related issues ranging from working time, working structure, employment conditions, wage determination and labour adjustability (Monastiriotis, 2005).

(5)

4

business flow and “employee-friendly” flexibility that provides workers with the freedom to adapt their working hours to meet their personal needs (Goudswaard et.al, 2012). This paper will focus on the “employer-friendly” flexibility and its effects on the increasingly imbalanced employee-employer relationship and the consequences of this relationship on the employees. It will largely look at temporal forms of flexibility in working arrangements, relating to variations in the number and consistency of hours worked.

The pursuit of flexibility from an employer’s perspective has led to the appearance of increasingly unstable forms of employment, commonly known as precarious forms of

employment, where employees have limited job security and work irregular hours. One example is the temp-work undertaken by agency employed workers who fall within this category. The rise of precarious working conditions has been deemed by the ILO (International Labour

Organization) researchers as one of the most challenging and threatening features of the new global economy and one that has only been exacerbated even more by the 2007-2008 financial crisis (Evans & Gibb, 2009).

(6)

5

between flexible working arrangements and work-life balance and called for a more in-depth look at the relationship of non-standard work and work-life balance.

The decision for choosing the United Kingdom as the focal point of this research was made based on the need to look at a country that has extensively liberalized their labour markets while being deemed one of the most flexible in Europe and where temporary agency work is a

significant feature of the labour market (Arrowsmith, 2006).

Consequently, the main research questions of this paper will then be the following:

1. Does work-life balance have a mediating effect on the relationship between precarious

employment and subjective well-being for employees in the United Kingdom?

2. What are the effects (positive or negative) of precarious work on subjective well-being?

3. What are the effects (positive or negative) of precarious work on work-life balance?

They will yield the following conceptual model on which this research shall be based on:

Fig1.Conceptual model of the mediating effect of work-life balance on the relationship between precarious work and subjective well-being.

(7)

6

2. THEORY

2.1. Legal and economic environment

To better understand the context in which the research question is asked, I shall look at the country on which the focus of this research is on. The United Kingdom represents the 5th largest economy in the world and the second largest in Europe and is widely recognized as an economic powerhouse as well as being a major player on the financial markets (IMF, 2015). As of

February 2015, the UK labour force comprises 31.05 million individuals according to the Office of National Statistics (ONS, 2015). Although once home to powerful trade unions, the

reorganization of industrial relations and the push for flexibilization during the Thatcher government in the 1980’s has greatly reduced both union coverage, membership and

fundamentally altered employment relations in the country (Blanchflower et.al, 1996). A further influence on the changes of employment relations are the increase in competitiveness and the uncertain economic climate associated with globalization (Penycook et.al, 2013).

The global financial crisis of 2007 played a major role and led to a European-wide

(8)

7

form of atypical employment, that of temporary agency work with legislation stretching back as far as 1973 (Arrowsmith, 2006).

Furthermore, the changing labour environment was reflected in European legislation, too. Under the European Union directive 1999/70/EC put into force in the UK, in 2002 firms are required to offer fixed-term workers the same treatment with regard to pay and benefits as permanent workers, along with the same rights to be protected against discrimination (Bardasi & Francesconi, 2003). Also, the 2010 Agency Workers Regulations which implemented the 2008 European Union Temporary and Agency Worker Directive (2008/104/EC), guaranteed the same pay, term and working conditions as their full-time equivalents after 12 weeks (Penycook et.al, 2013).

2.2. Employment and contractual forms in the UK labour market

The extent to which an individual has access to various employment rights will depend on their employment status. Currently, under UK legislation where a contract exists there are 3 main categories of employment status: a) employee (employee shareholder) b) worker and c) self-employed (DBIS, 2013). There exists no concrete way to determine an individual’s employment status. However, in court, a contract will be considered a starting point but it will also consider three main aspects to ascertain the existence of an employment relation:

 Mutuality of obligation – the employer is obliged to provide work which the individual is required to undertake for a wage;

(9)

8

 Control - employers exercise a degree of control over the individual and the way in which that individual undertakes their work (Department for Business, Innovation & Skill-DBIS, 2013).

There are significant differences between the employment statuses, most important being for this research the difference between employee and worker (Department of Work and Pensions, 2015). All employees are workers, but not all workers are employees. This distinction is made evident through the contract form an individual is employed through. For the UK three main forms of contractual agreements exist.

Firstly, the Contract for service with 73% of the workforce being employed in this way (McKay et.al, 2014). This is the “typical” full-time, permanent contract with the full range of employment and social security rights and “employee” status, giving employees the right to maternity, paternity, adoption and shared parental leave and pay. It also provides rights for time-off in case of emergencies, protection against unfair dismissal, Statutory Redundancy Pay and Statutory Sick Pay, as well as, minimum notice periods. Another crucial aspect pertains to the fact that employees must do work and must be offered work by an employer (Department of Work and Pensions, 2015).

(10)

9

Their status as “workers” does not offer them the right “to no less favourable treatment” as in the case of employees for example.

Regarding Agency Worker Contracts or Temporary Agency Work, it is stated under the Agency Workers Regulations (2010), that an agency worker is an individual who is supplied by a temporary-work agency to work temporarily under the supervision and direction of a client; and who has a contract of employment or any other type of contract (a contract for services, for example) under which they provide their services personally. The 2010 Agency Workers

Regulations oversees the functioning of this form of employment relationship. In EU legislation, according to the EU Directive 2008/104/EC, this is defined as “a worker with a contract of employment or an employment relationship with a temporary-work agency with a view to being assigned to a user undertaking to work temporarily under its supervision and direction”.

In the following sub-section I will elaborate the prevalence and characteristics of two of the most widespread forms of atypical work by offering statistical data for the breakdown and the concentration of these forms of employment. In a final sub-section I will argue why they constitute forms of precarious work and introduce my first hypothesis.

2.3. Atypical forms of employment in the United Kingdom

2.3.1. Agency Work

As a definition of temporary agency work (hereinafter abbreviated as TAW) has already been offered to understand the general outline of this nature of employment, four fundamental

(11)

10

They are as follows:

 Existence of a contract between the worker and the Temporary-Work Agency (hereinafter abbreviated as TWA);

 Work is temporarily supplied to a third party hirer by the TWA;

 When working under an assignment for a third party, the worker is subjected to the supervision and direction of that hirer;

 The individual must not have a business relationship with the hirer in a separate engagement (Agency Worker Regulations, 2011);

This further emphasizes the triangular nature of this form of employment. The following illustrative examples show a better understanding of the nature and variation of individuals as agency workers:

 Agency workers can undertake a variety of hirers on different assignments;

 Agency workers can also undertake different assignments with different hirers but also with multiple TWA;

 Pay, Statutory Sick Pay (if criteria is satisfied) and holidays are paid for by the TWA;

 Liability with regards to the agency worker largely lies with the TWA;

 If a worker is employed for a continuous period of 12 weeks with the same hirer, then the full range of employment rights are bestowed and workers must be treated as if they were hired directly.

Estimates of the number of people employed as agency workers are difficult to establish due to the nature of the employment relation itself.Arrowsmith (2006) using data from the British

(12)

11

as a percentage of the British labour market, as turnover and compared to other countries in the European Union:

Table 1. Distribution of temporary workers in the EU

Country No. of employees

Proportion of total workforce

No. of

companies No. of branches Turnover

UK 1.434.000 5.1 6.500 10.000 34.693 France 569.314 2.1 1.000 6.299 18.400 Netherlands 157.000 2.5 1.250 4.200 6.500 Germany 399.789 1.2 4.526 7.153 - Spain _150.000 _0.8 ₃₄₁ _{1.953 2450}

Source: Arrowsmith (2006) & Labour Force Survey (2006).

The British Trade Union Congress (TUC) has estimated that for the period of April-June

2013, just below 300.000 workers were TAW. However, they do confirm the previously mentioned number of 1.1 million people being placed into working assignments for the whole year (Hudson, 2013). The same TUC research argues that although numbers have dropped with regards to agency workers this is partly justified by the rise of other forms of atypical

employment such as zero-hour contracts and that TAW numbers remain statistically high (Hudson, 2013).

The prevalence of TAW is shown by a study conducted by the Recruitment Employment

Confederation (REC), a representative of British employers, in 2013, has shown that 24% of the

(13)

12

In the following I will offer a breakdown of TAW and also other forms of employment based on data gathered by the Trade Union Congress (TUC) in its 2013 study using data from the Quarterly Labour Force Survey of 2013. Firstly, to see where TAW are distributed within the British economy, the following table highlights the main sectors of employment, pay and typical working hours:

Table 2. Distribution by sectors in the UK

Sector

All employees aged

16+ (%) Agency workers (%)

Agriculture, forestry, fishing 0.7 0.4

Energy and water 1.9 1.7

Manufacturing 10.9 19.4

Construction 5.2 4.4

Transport and communication 19.7 17.2

Banking, finance, insurance 8.4 8.5

Education, health, public admin 15.7 22

Tourism and distribution 33.1 23.8

Other services 4.6 2.6

Source: TUC (2013) & Labour Force Survey (2014).

Table 3. Distribution by hours in the UK

Typical weekly

working hours All employees Agency workers (%)

Zero-hour contract workers(%) 1-7 2 0.7 8.9 8-15 6.2 5.1 24.9 16-23 11 9 18 24-30 10 9.7 19.1 31-35 10 8.2 5.5 35+ 60.8 67.2 23.5

(14)

13

Table 4. Pay distribution in the UK

Employment type

Average gross weekly pay (£)

Average gross hourly pay (£) Median hourly pay (£) All employees 469 13.19 10.58 Permanent workers 479 13.30 10.71 Temporary workers 296 11.28 8.40 Agency workers 407 11.17 8.97

Zero-hour contract workers 188 8.46 6.77

It is easy to notice that agency workers are paid under the average of permanent workers but still earn much more than those in alternate forms of temporary work or those on zero-hour contracts. An explanation for why this figure is relatively high is offered by Booth et. al (2000) who argues that wages for agency workers can be high for those who are employed in successive agency assignments and the figure can also be driven up by those hired in high skill jobs through employment agencies. (Booth et al. 2002).

With regards to the motivation of why individuals chose to work as temporary agency workers there seems to be a consensus on this. The REC has found in its research that 53% of respondents responded that they “could not find permanent work” (REC, 2013). The same view is echoed by the TUC’s data collected from the Quarterly Labour Force Survey.

2.3.2. Zero-hour contracts

(15)

14

variation and employees receive pay only for the hours worked (Penycook et.al, 2013). Although reported numbers of individuals working under a zero hour contract are said to constitute 3.1 % (1 million people) of the UK workforce in 2013 according to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development-CIPD (CIPD, 2013). Other numbers (counting the number of contracts) range from 600.000 to 2.2 million (ONS, 2015). Currently the UK has no legislation defining ZHC’s in domestic law (DBIS, 2014). There are no regulations that govern their existence or its

application other than entitlement to core employment rights such as minimum wage, or the protection from unlawful deductions from pay. Any other rights depend on the employment type individuals fall under (DBIS, 2014).

Although not regulated or defined, ZHC’s are not unlawful as long as they are freely entered into. They constitute a legitimate form of contract between the individual and employer (DBIS, 2014). Often, zero hour contracts are defined through a clause similar to the following example: “The Company is under no obligation to provide work to you at any time and you are under no obligation to accept any work offered by the Company at any time.” (DBIS, 2014)

(16)

15

The use of ZHC’s can be traced back to the mid-late 1990’s when prior to the introduction of Working Time Regulations(1998) and the National Minimum Wage (1999) employers used these forms of contracting work to reduce working hours (“clock-off”) during quiet periods while still retaining them as on-site employees (Penycook et. al, 2013). The need for flexibility was cited as the main reason for using types of contracts by employers (CIPD, 2013) and this need can be reflected in the 20% rise in the number of ZHC’s between 2012-2013 (de Poel, 2015). However according to the ONS (2015) the main reason for accepting this form of employment on the employee side is that there usually are no viable alternatives on the market and one third of individuals on ZHC’s desire to work more hours (ONS, 2015).

Table 5. Motivations to enter atypical employment in the UK

Sector

Could not find a permanent contract

2008(%) Agency workers (%)

Temps on zero-hour contracts 19 41.4

Temporary agency workers 48.7 62.6

(17)

16

With regards to sectoral/industry breakdown of where those on ZHC’s work there is a large concentration of these types of contracts in accommodation and food industry (50%+) followed by education and health & social work (28%) and health and social work (18%) (ONS, 2015).

With regards to length of service of those, CIPD data has shown that some one third of individuals work between 6 months and 3 years. Zero hour workers are, on average, less likely to stay with an employer as long as full time employees. Interestingly, the survey conducted by the CIPD suggests that a significant number of employees on ZHC do not characterize their working arrangements as being short term or temporary (CIPD, 2013).

The distribution by age, education and gender consistently shows that people working on ZHC’s are largely female and tend to be concentrated in the 16-24 and 50-65 age groups. They are also less likely to have a degree (21%) and are more likely to have a GCSE as their highest level of education (27%) (Penycook et.al, 2013).

The TUC considers that zero hour work plays a crucial role in fuelling the number of individuals who are deemed to be in the category of low paid work (Hudson, 2013). The

following table (check Table no. 4) shows a significant disparity in gross earnings with zero-hour workers experiencing an even more severe pay penalty than agency workers. Some estimated 60% of those on ZHC do not earn the living wage rate of 7.65 £ (Hudson, 2013).

(18)

17

contracts are applicable for all types of working arrangements and indeed have seen a rise in using ZHC for those who are “employees’’ as opposed to “workers” (Hudson, 2013; Penycook et. al, 2013). An environmental reason that seeks to explain the rise of zero-hour contracts relates to the economic downturn of 2007 and the increased need for flexibility that followed it in order to better manage risk (Penycook et. al, 2013).

However, with regards to the relationship between ZHC and TAW it has become more popular for employers to use ZHC with their employees rather than turning to agencies to supply labour (Penycook et.al, 2013). One hand it could represent a response to the increased regulation of agency workers on a both national and EU level (2010 Agency Worker Regulations, Agency Worker Directive 2008/104/EC). Another reason for a shift to more ZHC’s is the avoidance of agency fees by employers (Penycook et.al, 2013). However, this has not actually affected the increase of agency workers and overall the 2007 downturn has led to a significant rise in the use of all forms of atypical employment (Penycook et.al, 2013).

2.3.3. Principal effects of precariousness

This subchapter will offer a look at the potential for precariousness originating from the nature of these atypical forms of work in the UK and in what ways it can potentially influence the well- being and potentially create work-life conflict for individuals.

Four principle characteristics emerge when looking at definitions of precarious work (McKay et.al, 2012): job insecurity, low pay, subordinate employment and absence of rights and

(19)

18

workers on non-standard contracts which is an accurate reflection of groups generally at risk overall in the EU (McKay et.al, 2012).Workers in atypical forms of employment cannot plan their future and lack the security of basic social protection (Jeannet et.al, 2011). They are left in an ambiguous situation of not knowing who is to be held responsible or accountable for their rights and benefits. This type of ambiguity leads to difficulty in being able to use legislation to protect their rights for those employed in triangular employment leading thus to a condition of precarious work (Jeannet et.al, 2011). It has also been suggested that agency work plays a part in the reproduction of maintenance of vulnerability and precariousness in the labour market, so instead of offering a transitional employment phase for job-seekers it creates a ‘’ core of permanent temporary workers’’ (McKay et. al, 2012), (Elciouglu, 2010).

Acker et.al (2002) argues that the view of employment in neo liberal countries, such as the UK, as a commodity to be traded on the market gives disproportionate power and puts focus on, the employer. Since power is firmly shifted in the hands of the employer, on a larger, societal level this can spell highly negative outcomes for employees such as low pay, long hours and job insecurity especially for the less skilled individuals (Acker et.al, 2002).

The following paragraphs will look at the potential impact of atypical work on subjective well-being. The concept of subjective well-being (SWB) is often linked to the notions of

(20)

19

of negative affect and a cognitive part. The first refers to a subjective evaluation of guided by feelings and emotions while the second is an information-based appraisal of one’s life and the appraisal of the degree of attainment of their envisioned ideal life (van Hoorn, 2007).

Van den Zanden (2014) in her study of the effects of flexibilization on subjective well-being found that job insecurity plays a major role as a stressor for temporary workers due to the threat of unemployment, and this was negatively related to well-being.

A study conducted by Dawson and Veliziotis (2013) in the UK has revealed that when controlling for job security, individuals in temporary work, experience much lower levels of subjective well-being as well as life satisfaction than their counterparts in full time employment and experience higher levels of work related stress.

Virtanen et. al (2005) looking at the effects of temporary work on individuals health have found that there exists a significant association between temporary work and psychological morbidity and pointing out the potential health risks of temporary employment.

Heywood and Green (2011) looking at flexible contracts and their effects on subjective well-being found that agency work is strongly related to lower overall satisfaction for men with a very sharp effect on job security.

Finally, Carrieri et.al (2012) looking at the case of Italian employees showed that there is a negative relationship between individual psychological well-being and having a temporary job but that this effect is largely confined for men.

(21)

20

Hypothesis 1: Precarious employment has a negative effect on subjective well-being.

Furthermore in looking at potential effects of temporary work on work-life balance, Olofsdotter (2008) researching agency workers in Sweden, found that these types of working arrangements cause significant problems in combining work and family life and that benefits are mostly centred on the employer rather than the employee.

The notion of work-life balance is defined by Greenhaus and colleagues (2003) as:

“extent to which an individual is equally engaged in and equally satisfied with his or her work

role and family role”. In their view, work-life balance consists of three components: time

balance, the time given to work and family roles, involvement balance, the degree of

psychological involvement in work and family and finally satisfaction balance which refers to the satisfaction levels in the two fields (Greenhaus et.al, 2003). In the absence of a proper balance, work-family conflict can appear and is defined as a source of stress resulting from irreconcilable pressure from work and family spheres (Carlson, Kacmar & Williams, 2000). Work-life conflict is associated with a list of indicators of poor health and low well-being including: poor mental and physical health, less life satisfaction, higher levels of stress and emotional exhaustion and increased anxiety and depression to name a few. It is also associated with negative organizational outcomes such as decreased job satisfaction, high levels of stress, high turnover and absenteeism levels and low performance (Carlson, Kacmar & Williams, 2000).

Golden, Henly & Lambert (2013) have revealed the importance of congruence of

(22)

21

possibility to vary start and ending times and that this data is most relevant for hourly paid workers.

The effects of non-standard working schedules was explored by Fagan et.al (2011). They concluded that those who have non-standard working schedules, due to it being a job

requirement, experience higher levels of work-conflict and stress. Furthermore, the same study quoting results of Eurostat in 2007 showed that atypical workers in the UK were more likely to report their working arrangements as inconvenient as their EU counterparts.

Finally, Anxo et.al (2012) showed that on-call forms of atypical employment, such as in the case of agency workers, have detrimental effects for both work-life balance and health. These

findings lead us to posit that:

Hypothesis 2: Precarious employment has a negative effect on work-life balance.

2.4. The relationship between work-life balance and subjective well-being

in the context of atypical work

The consequences of work-life balance levels on employee well-being have been explored by Vallone & Donaldson (2001). Their findings show that the balancing of work and life were detrimental to well-being of those with no college education and low income (two characteristics that are common for many TAWs) and is as such not limited to traditional forms of employment. They also showed that the effects of work-life conflict are immediate and long-term for

(23)

22

Munir et. al (2011) in looking at the mediating effects of work-life conflict between psychological well-being and transformational leadership types found that work-life balance plays a major both as a mediator of the relationship but also plays a significant role in well-being outcomes. Also, work-life balance has been shown to play a mediating role in the relationships workplace support, supervisory support and employee well-being (Jiang, 2012).Conversely, the effects of work-family conflict have also been shown to have negative consequences for job-life satisfaction (Kossek & Ozeki, 1998).

Hochschild (1997) introduced the term “time-bind’’ to refer to a situation where the desired division of time between work and family is different from the existing division. He goes on the refer to a series of negative effects of the time bind including but not limited to: withdrawal from family interaction, increased conflict in marriage, less involvement in children’s experiences, greater likelihood of abusing alcohol and an overall decrease in quality of life.

(24)

23

Hypothesis 3: There is a significant relationship between work-life balance and subjective

well-being.

Hypothesis 4: Work-life balance plays a mediating role in the relationship between precarious

work and subjective well-being.

3. METHOD SECTION

3.1. Dataset

In testing the hypothesis of this paper a dataset was sought out that would include not only a statistically significant sample but also include reliable measure of subjective well-being and work-life balance and where the differentiations of precarious and non-precarious work can be clearly established.

The dataset that was chosen to be used for this analysis was the European Social Survey (ESS), using rounds 5 from 2010 and round 2 from 2004 combined into one dataset.

(25)

24

The survey involves random probability sampling, a minimum target response of 70% and strict translation protocols. Research is cross sectional and partly repetitive.

The basic unit of analysis is the individual and includes all persons aged 15 and over, resident within private households regardless of their nationality, citizenship, language or legal status. The method of data gathering used was a structured face-to-face interview, with a duration of one hour with questions on a variety of topics relating to the research aims set out by the ESS (ESS Documentation Report, 2010).

The two rounds that were chosen to be used from the bi-annual rounds of the ESS were rounds 5 from 2010 and round 2 from 2004. The surveys include both a core module as well as rotating modules that are repeated. The modules of main interest for this research have been: core modules: C- principally referring to subjective well-being. F-referring to social

demographic profiles, education, occupation, marital status. The rotating module, F which includes work-life balance, job security and work experience was the principal reason why these two rounds were selected.

Using only one database would not have sufficed to be able to have a sufficient number of statistically significant cases as such the 2 databases were combined. The newly formed database excluded all unnecessary variables that were not relating to the focus of this paper limiting it only to approximately 87 variables and focusing largely on those pertaining to subjective well-being, work-life balance, precarious employment as well control variables and any other relevant variables to be used in the analysis.

(26)

25

3.2.

Measures

3.2.1. The dependent variable – Subjective well-being

The ESS databases offered two important variables that according to existing theory can be classified as reliable measures of subjective well-being: happiness and life satisfaction (Diener, Lucas & Oishi, 2003). The variable relating to happiness asked respondents ‘’How happy are

you?’’. Variable named ‘’happy’’ which was structured on scale of items ranging from 1 to 10

with 10 representing Extremely Happy and 1 representing Extremely Unhappy.The variable measuring life satisfaction, named ‘’stflife’’ asked respondents ‘’How satisfied are you with life as a whole?’’. A scale of 10 items was similarly ranging from 1 to 10 with 10 representing Extremely Happy and 1 representing Extremely Unhappy.

Happiness has been domains of subjective defined to refer to a consistent optimistic mood state and is included into the same -well-being along with life satisfaction, affect and quality of life (Steel, Schmidt, Shultz 2008). Similarly to life satisfaction, happiness has been deemed to assess SWB over a more extended period of time (Steel, Schmidt, Shultz 2008).

The two items were tested for reliability and received a score of Cronbach’s Alpha of .830 and as they constituted a reliable measure were combined into one variable named “swb” labelled “Subjective well-being”.

3.2.2. The independent variable – precarious employment

(27)

26

work and the types of work that can be considered precarious in the theory section the

independent variable was defined through 3 measures of precariousness: contract type, number

of hours worked and job security. To be able to look at the impact of all 3 measures on SWB the

analysis was rerun using each measure separately as an independent variable.

Contract type was measured using the variable named “wrkctra” which referred to type of employment contract the respondent was on either limited or unlimited. Based on the theory explored in section A it was concluded that precarious jobs will be largely concentrated in jobs in which contract types are limited. Although this does not completely exclude the fact that jobs can be precarious for those in unlimited contractual arrangements. Those who have no contracts at all were not included as this can include the significant number of self-employed registered in Great Britain and who do not necessarily fall under the precarious jobs umbrella. Also in case of temporary agency workers and those on zero-hour contracts, a contractual agreement is always present may it be either unlimited or limited.

The number of hours worked was measured based on the variable named “wkhtot” which measured the total number of hours worked in a week, overtime excluded. This variable was recoded into a new binary variable where value 1 represented all those working less than or equal to 25 hours a week and value 0 representing all others. As stated earlier those on Zero Hour contracts, in temporary agency work and who qualify as employed in a form of precarious work will on average put in 25 hours or less of weekly work.

(28)

27

3.2.3. Mediator: Work-life balance

In measuring our mediator, work-life balance (WLB) we must take into consideration the implications of the term. The measure of work-life balance according to Greenhaus et. al (2003) is based on three specific components: involvement balance, satisfaction balance and time balance.

Brough et al. (2014) in measuring WLB in their study of workers in New Zealand and

Australia, viewed it as a resource as individuals could access at any given time assess the amount of it that they possessed. It was also concluded that the individual assessment was subjective and not verifiable by external sources. Finally Brough et. al (2014) concluded that the loss or gain of this resource is influenced by their work environment or working arrangements.

Based on these theoretical examples of measurement of work-life balance and definitions of the concept in the theory section, a selection of the following 8 variables was made from the combined ESS dataset that would constitute a reliable measures of WLB:

1. Difficult to concentrate on work because of family responsibilities (variable name “dfcnswka”)

2. Partner/family fed up with pressure of your job, how often (variable name “pfmfdjba”) 3.Job prevents you from giving time to partner/family, how often (variable name “jbprtfp”) 4.Too tired after work to enjoy things like do at home, how often (variable name “trdawrk”) 5. Worry about work problems when not working, how often (variable name “wrywprb”) 6.Work involve working at weekends, how often (variable name “wrkwe”)

(29)

28

All the above mentioned variables were measured on a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 represented “Every week” and 1 “Never”. Most notably in the above mentioned variables, number 1. constitutes the only measure of overlap of family life into work life while all the others express the effects of work arrangements on family or personal time.

A reliability test was conducted on these 8 items looking at those in paid employment in the United Kingdom and it yielded the following result of Cronbach’s Alpha of .740 we can posit that the selected variables constitute a reliable measure of work-life balance. The 8 items were combined into one variable representing work-life balance called “wlbc”.

3.2.4. Control variables

1. Gender

As theoretical data has suggested that concentrations of precarious work tend to be more represented in females than in males gender was controlled for. The original two factor gender variable was recoded into a dummy variable “gndrdum’’ where 1 represented Females and 0 Males.

2. Partner living with respondent

(30)

29

dummy variable “partnerdum” with 1 representing those who live with a partner and 0 those who do not.

3. Children living at home

Similarly to the previous control, this variable was assumed to play an important role in defining the importance and impact balance. The two factor variable was recoded intro a dummy variable “chldrdum” where 1 represented respondents with children living in the household and 0 those who do not fall under this category.

4. Belonging to an ethnic minority

Theoretical data has shown that ethnic minorities are strongly represented in the category of precarious workers. As such the original two factor variable representing belonging to an ethnic minority was recoded into a dummy variable “blgtegdum” with value 1 representing those belonging to an ethnic minority and 0 those who do not.

5. Education

Education was recoded into 4 dummy variables: “edudum1”, “edudum2”, “edudum3”, “edudum4” with the values of lower secondary, upper secondary and post-secondary.

6. Occupation

Occupation was coded using ISCO-88 standard and was recoded respecting this

(31)

30

7. Source variables

After the merger of the 2 databases a variable was created representing the source of cases. 1 represented data from 2010 while 0 represented data from 2007.

8. Age

Respondent age was included as the original string scale variable “agea”. Age was included as a control variable as existing theory has shown that concentration of precarious work tend to fall into the end spectrums of age groups specifically the youngest and oldest individuals on the scale.

In the following section I will offer the results of the descriptive analysis, correlations between variables and finally the results of the regression analysis.

4. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND RESULTS

4.1. Profile of respondent

(32)

31

employed in the service sector with a weekly wage ranging between 528 and 634 British pounds. Respondent is unmarried but is currently living with a partner.

Comparatively when selecting for those working less than 25 hours a week and on a limited contract the profile was the following: Respondent was female, with an average age of 42 born in the United Kingdom and a citizen of the country who does not belong to a minority ethnic group or a group discriminated against. Average number of years in education was of 13 years with the respondent likely being employed in the education and healthcare industry with an average wage of between 362 and 440 British pounds. Respondent is unmarried but is currently living with a partner.

4.2. Descriptive results and Correlations

Means, range, standard deviations and correlations are reported in Table 1 for main variables..

Table 1.Means, range, SD and correlations for main variables

Mean Std.Deviation 1 2 3. 4. 1.Work-life balance 21.3 7.055 2.Subjective well-being 14.53 3.399 -.162** 3.Hours worked .2243 .417 -.199** -.004 4.Limited contract .0797 .270 -.055* .009 .028 5.Job security _2.85 _.978 _-.029 _{.128** .026 -104**}

(33)

32

There is a significant negative correlation between subjective well-being and work-life balance (-162**). Furthermore subjective well-being is negatively correlated with short working hours (-.199**) and positively with job security (.128**) and to a lesser degree with limited contract type (0.55*). Furthermore job security is negatively correlated with limited contract type (-104**). It can be easily observed that although some of the correlations have significance overall the intensity is low with values not exceeding .200.

4.3. Regression analysis

(34)

33

Table I. Effects on subjective well-being (happiness)

Effect of Limited

contract Effect of Limited hours

Effect of Job Security

Effects of Work-life balance

B S.e. B S.e. B S.e. B S.e

Constant(subjective well-being) 13.885 0.714 13.923 0.710 12.449 0.890 16.698 0.810 Age of respondent -0.009 0.006 -0.009 0.006 -0.009 0.007 -0.012 0.006 Occup.Legislators 0.352 0.665 0.340 0.664 0.516 0.821 -0.012 0.714 Occup. Professionals 0.585 0.673 0.567 0.672 0.807 0.828 0.096 0.722 Occup.Technicians 0.458 0.677 0.434 0.675 0.647 0.830 -0.109 0.725 Occup. Clerks 0.426 0.680 0.402 0.680 0.729 0.835 -0.340 0.730 Occup.Serv Workers 0.073 0.671 0.039 0.672 0.228 0.827 -0.349 0.721 Occup. Skilled Agricultural -0.208 0.873 -0.232 0.871 -1.202 1.669 -0.345 0.903 Occup.Craft 0.237 0.697 0.215 0.696 0.291 0.869 -0.349 0.744 Occup. Plant&machinery -0.350 0.707 -0.372 0.706 -0.178 0.865 -0.727 0.755 Occup.elementary 0.154 0.688 0.126 0.690 0.492 0.845 -0.543 0.738 Gender -0.042 0.165 -0.059 0.170 -0.152 0.179 -0.249 0.165 Lives with partner 1.566 0.162 1.567 0.162 1.625 0.175 1.483 0.162 Children living at home -0.280 0.156 -0.290 0.157 -0.285 0.170 -0.248 0.155 Belonging to ethnic minority -0.498 0.278 -0.487 0.278 -0.558 0.310 -0.403 0.276 Education less than

(35)

34

Table II. Mediating effects of work-life balance on the relation between precarious work and subjective well-being

Effects of limited contract Effects of limited hours Effects of job security

B S.e. B S.e. B S.e.

Constant(subjective well-being) 16.722 0.815 16.700 0.810 14.758 0.979 Age of respondent -0.012 0.006 -0.012 0.006 -0.012 0.007 Occup.Legislators -0.023 0.716 -0.012 0.715 0.787 0.851 Occup. Professionals 0.086 0.723 0.102 0.722 0.947 0.858 Occup.Technicians -0.122 0.727 -0.101 0.726 0.727 0.860 Occup. Clerks -0.350 0.731 -0.330 0.731 0.593 0.866 Occup.Serv Workers -0.356 0.722 -0.324 0.724 0.480 0.857 Occup. Skilled Agricultural -0.359 0.905 -0.337 0.903 -1.182 1.655 Occup.Craft -0.362 0.746 -0.342 0.744 0.313 0.896 Occup. Plant&machinery -0.740 0.757 -0.720 0.756 0.072 0.895 Occup.elementary -0.547 0.738 -0.522 0.740 0.434 0.874 Gender -0.249 0.165 -0.234 0.169 -0.368 0.179

Lives with partner 1.483 0.162 1.482 0.162 1.532 0.175 Children living at home -0.249 0.155 -0.241 0.156 -0.272 0.168 Belonging to ethnic minority -0.400 0.276 -0.407 0.276 -0.496 0.309 Education less than

(36)

35

Table III. Effects of precarious work on work-life balance

Effects of limited contract Effects of limited hours Effects of job security

B S.e. B S.e. B S.e.

Constant(work-life balance) 26.433 1.575 25.711 1.557 26.770 1.871 Age of respondent -0.045 0.013 -0.039 0.013 -0.044 0.014 Occup.Legislators 0.689 1.477 0.889 1.465 0.724 1.725 Occup. Professionals -1.908 1.491 -1.534 1.479 -1.447 1.740 Occup.Technicians -1.990 1.499 -1.496 1.487 -1.587 1.743 Occup. Clerks -4.998 1.505 -4.462 1.495 -4.449 1.751 Occup.Serv Workers -1.333 1.489 -0.485 1.483 -0.465 1.737 Occup. Skilled Agricultural 2.906 1.866 3.345 1.850 -1.808 3.356 Occup.Craft -1.707 1.538 -1.256 1.525 -1.708 1.816 Occup. Plant&machinery 0.084 1.562 0.508 1.549 -0.118 1.815 Occup.elementary -2.655 1.522 -1.942 1.515 -2.062 1.771 Gender -1.603 0.338 -1.135 0.346 -1.435 0.361

Lives with partner -0.250 0.333 -0.261 0.331 -0.169 0.353 Children living at home 0.231 0.319 0.456 0.318 -0.024 0.339 Belonging to ethnic minority 1.297 0.569 1.118 0.565 1.102 0.625

Education less than

(37)

36

4.4. Testing hypotheses

The results of the regressions shown in tables I. II. and III. are presented in the following. The results section shows that the relationship between the independent and dependent variable as well as the mediator shows only minimal effects and such the relationship between the variables shall have to be looked at within this context when looking at the results of the analysis.

Hypothesis 1. Stated that: Precarious employment has a significant negative effect on happiness.

Results of the regression analysed in Table I have shown that in the case of limited contracts and limited hours there is no significant relationship with the two variables explaining only 5% of the variance of the dependent, subjective well-being. In the case of job security however this relationship is more significant than in the case of the first two variables. We can conclude that the first hypothesis is only partially confirmed.

Hypothesis 2. Stated that: Precarious employment has a negative effect on work-life balance.

This is the case when looking at limited hours and limited contract however it does not apply in a fully equal measure to job security. The second hypothesis thus is only partially confirmed.

Hypothesis 3. There is a significant relationship between work-life balance and

subjective-well-being. Work-life balance has been shown to have an effect on subjective well-being based on the

results of Table I. There is a significant relationship leading us to posit that the third hypothesis is confirmed.

Hypothesis 4. Work-life balance plays a mediating role in the relationship between precarious

(38)

37

balance does not play a significant role as a mediator as presented in the results of Table II with variance in adjusted R square reporting only a mild increase.

5. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS

This research tested a conceptual model that implied using atypical forms of employment that potentially fall under the category of precarious work to analyze the effects of these working arrangements on subjective well-being with work-life balance acting as a mediator of this

relationship. The overall expectation was to find a significant relationship between precarious work and well-being in the first place and that this relationship would be significantly mediated by work-life balance.

5.1. Findings

The underlying finding, and one that disproves the initial assumptions on the independent variable is that effect of precarious work on subjective well-being is small and it is only significant in the case of job security. This is in discordance with the initially theorized

(39)

38

dependent variables, which constituted the main focal point of this paper has not been proven to be significantly present.

Although effects have been small overall and the association between the variables has not yielded significant outcomes. A major takeaway from the findings of this paper pertain to the role of job security in potentially increasing the well-being of working citizens in the UK. Job security has also been shown to major role as a mediator between flexible employment and well-being in a similar study conducted using the ESS database.(Van den Zanden, 2007).Secondly, since work-life balance has been shown to play a significant role on well-being, limited contracts with few working hours have been shown to play a role in influencing work-life balance and implicitly the well-being of individuals. Thus, there are underlying relations between the variables included in the conceptual model of this research However when controlling for individuals in paid employment in the United Kingdom this effect is largely indirect and small with significance limited and not at the levels initially expected.

5.2. Limitations

When comparing the data researched in introduction and theory and the results obtained a series of limitations must be taken into consideration.

(40)

39

associations while the second is associated with various employers’ organizations. The TUC on the other hand represents their industrial rivals as the main trade union still existent in the United Kingdom. Information included in this paper was largely based on third party sources such as the Quarterly Labour Survey, however there was also data presented that was gathered by the above mentioned sources and the potential for bias in representing atypical work could have influenced the representation of these forms of employment.

A second and more significant limitation pertains to the sample. Of all cases in paid employment, 70% were on an unlimited contract while only 8 % were on limited contracts giving a ratio of almost 9 to 1 in favour of those in full time employment and this in the context of 2 databases being combined. Although working hours and job security were also looked at, fixed term or limited contracts are significantly associated with flexible work (Guest et. al, 2007). Consequently this makes for a difficult evaluation of those forms of employment that are potentially precarious and reduces the overall sample of valid individuals in the research, thus partly explaining the overall small effects found for most of the analyses that were run.

(41)

40

5.3. Theoretical Implications

Firstly, the results presented in this paper posit that atypical work does not significantly correlate with individuals’ well-being. Although contrary to the initial data gathering this is explainable also in light of existing theoretical data. Guest& Clinton (2006) looked at workers with temporary employment contracts in the UK and the effects of this on workers well-being and behaviour that was covered by indicators such as depression, anxiety, and health and life satisfaction. They showed that workers on temporary contracts reported better well-being, better general health and more positive attitude toward work and better work behaviour than their permanent counterparts on all measures (Guest& Clinton, 2006). Although they reported higher levels of job insecurity this did not impact on their well-being, work attitudes or behaviour. They significantly reported higher levels of positive perception of their employment contract and the implied obligations.

The authors assessed that this might be reason for the positive perceptions of their working arrangements. Other highly relevant reasons that were given were that the workload of

permanent employees has become very high with increased levels of stress, anxiety and depression and that despite the drawbacks of temporary work, this has a much larger negative impact on individuals well-being and work-life balance. Also, young employees are generally the ones that reported high workloads in permanent full time jobs as opposed to temporary jobs (Guest & Clinton, 2006). This is a significant demographic that is covered in the

flexible/temporary work category.

(42)

41

arrangements to a lesser degree due to their lower expectations about employer obligations to themselves. In relation to job security and work-life balance Girard (2010) found that flexible working arrangements have an uneven and inconclusive effect on work-life balance but that job security plays a major role in determining choices relative to the decisions individuals make in regards to their balancing of work and family lives. On an interesting note, the CIPD in its 2013 study found that on employees who were contracted on zero hour contracts in the UK that compared to average employees, 58% of those on zero-hour contracts said that they managed to achieve a positive balance between work and home lives and that 59% of them are satisfied with their current job. The 2013 study also shows that zero-hour workers reported relatively low levels of job security with only 18% considering it likely or very likely to lose their jobs (CIPD, 2013).

5.4. Practical Implications

(43)

42

Secondly policy makers must take a closer look at the implications of work-life balance in the context of a changing labour market .Since women constitute a significant portion of those in flexible work, the use of part time, unlimited contracts could be looked at the reduce any

potential harmful effects. Monero and Rau (2015) found that part time work has beneficial effects on women in employment by increasing job satisfaction and well-being .Bardasi and Francesconi (2003) also found that part time work has a more positive effect on well-being than other forms of atypical work but that it is conditioned by willingness to enter this form of work.

5.5. Future research

Future research can be directed more specifically at those in flexible/atypical jobs that are “employer friendly” and also by using a larger sample where temporary work has a larger representation and the differences between the types of atypical work can be easily established.

(44)

43

6. CONCLUSIONS

(45)

44

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Acker P., Badia M., Guerrina R., Kabun K., Sachetto D.,Such E. (2002). The

Employment Relationship and Family Life. Cross-National Research Papers ISBN: 1

8985 64 18 3

 Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E., Bruck, C.S., & Sutton, M. (2000) Consequences associated

with work-to family conflict: A review and agenda for future research, Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 278-308.

 Anxo D., Franz C., Kummerling A. (2012). Working time and work–life balance in a

life course perspective. Fifth European Working Conditions Survey, Eurofund.  Arrowsmith J.(2006) Temporary Agency Work in an enlarged European Union,

European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, ISBN 92-897-0927-8.

 Assadullah, M.N., and R. Fernandez. 2008. “Work-Life Balance Practices and the

Gender Gap inJob Satisfaction in the UK: Evidence from Matched Employer-Employee Data.” IZA Discussion Paper 3582. Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).  Auer P. & Cazes S. (2003). Employment stability in an age of flexibility- Evidence

from industrialized countries. Geneva, International Labour Office, ISBN

92-2-112716-8.

 Bardasi E. & Francesconi M. (2003) The impact of atypical employment on individual

well-being: evidence from a panel of British workers, ISER Working Papers number

(46)

45

 Blanchflower D., Oswald A. and Sanfey P. (1996) Wages, profits and rent sharing, Quarterly Journal of Economics, February.

 Booth AL, Francesconi M, Frank J. (2002) Temporary jobs: stepping stones or dead

ends? The Economic Journal 112: 189–213.

 Carlson, D.S., Kacmar, K.M., & Williams, L.J. (2000). The development and

validation of a multi-dimensional measure of work-family conflict. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 56, 249-176.

 Carrieri V., Di Novi C., Jacobs R., Robone S., (2012). Well-Being and Psychological

Consequences of Temporary Contracts: The Case of Younger Italian Employees.

Center for Health Economics Paper 79.

 Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (2013). Zero-hours contracts:Myth

and reality. London, Issued: November 2013 Reference: 6395.

 Dawson C. & Veliziotis M. (2013). Temporary employment, job satisfaction and

subjective well-being. Economics Working Paper Series 1309.

 Department for Business Innovation & Skills (2011) Agency Workers Regulations, www.bis.gov.uk

 Department for Business Innovation & Skills (2013) Zero-hour employment contracts, www.gov.uk/bis

 Department for Business Innovation & Skills (2014) Zero hours employment contracts,

Banning Exclusivity Clauses: Tackling Avoidance, www.gov.uk/bis  Department for Work and Pensions (2015). Contract types and employer

responsibilities

(47)

46

 Diener E., Oishi S., Lucas R.E. (2003). Personality,culture and subjective well-being:

Emotional and Cognitive Evaluations of Life. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2003. 54:403–25  Diener E., Seligman E.P. (2004). Beyond Money Toward an Economy of Well-Being.

Pychological Science in the Public Interest, Volume 5—Number 1.

 Elcioglu, E.F. (2010). Producing precarity: The temporary staffing agency in the

labor market. Qualitative Sociology, 33(2), 117–136

 European Social Survey (2010). Documentation Report 2010. London: Centre for Comparative Social Survey, City University London.

 Evans J. & Gibb E (2009) Moving from Precarious Employment to Decent Work, Discussion paper no.13 Geneva: ILO.

 Fagan C., Lyonette C.,Smith M.,Saldana-Teja A.(2011). The influence of working time

arrangements on work-life integration or ‘balance’: A review of the international evidence. Conditions of Work and employment Series No. 32.

 Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Barnes, G. M. (1996) Work-family conflict, gender, and

health related outcomes: A study of employed parents in two community samples,

Journal of Occupational Psychology.

 Girard M. (2010). Effects of non-standard work on the work-family balance: A

literature review, McGill Sociological Review, Volume 1,46–58.

 Golden L., Henly J., Lambert S. (2013). Work Schedule Flexibility: A Contributor to

(48)

47

 Goudswaard A., Dhondt S.,Vergeer R., Oeji P., de Leede J., van Adrichem K., Csizmadia P, Mako P., llesy M., (2012) Organisation of working time: Implications for

productivity and working conditions, European Foundation for the Improvement of

Living and Working Conditions.

 Greenhaus, H.J., Collins, M.K. & Shaw, D.J. (2003) The relation between work-family

balance and quality of life, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol. 63, pp. 510-531.  Guest D. & Clinton M. (2006). Temporary Employment Contracts, Workers’ Well-

Being and Behaviour: Evidence from the UK, Department of Management Working

Paper No. 38.

 Heywood J. & Green C. (2010) Flexible contracts and subjective well-being, Economic Inquiry Volume 49, Issue 3, pages 716–729.

 Hochschild, A. (1997) The Time Bind: When Work Become Home and Home

Becomes Work. Metropolitan Books

 Hudson M. (2014) The Decent Jobs Deficit - the human cost of zero hours working in

the UK, ISBN 978 1 85006 963 8, Trade Union Congress.

 Jeannet A.,Bodemer A.,Vacotto B., Rubiano C., Hobden C., Hoffer F., Demaret L., Laliberte P. (2011). Policies and procedures to combat precarious employment. International Labour Organization. ISBN 978-92-2-125523-9

 Jiang, H. (2012). A model of work–life conflict and quality of employee–organization

(49)

48

 Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. (1998). Work-family conflict, policies, and the job-life

satisfaction relationship: A review and directions for organizational behavior-human resources research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 139–149.

 Kotowska, E.I., Matysiak, A., Styrc, M., Paillhe, A., Solaz, A., Vignoli, D., Vermeylen, G. & Anderson, R.,(2010) Office for Official Publications of the European

Communities, Luxembourg, pp.1-96.

 Lang C., Clauwaert S., Schomann I. (2013) Working time and atypical forms of

employment contracts in times of crisis: recent reforms in the Member States,

European trade union institute.

 McKay S., Jefferys S., Paraksevopolou A., Keles J., (2012). Study on Precarious work

and social rights. Working Lives Research Institute (VT/2010/084).

 Monastiriotis V. (2005) Labour Market Flexibility in the UK: regional variations

and the role of global/local forces, Economic and Industrial Democracy, 26 (3),

pp.445-478 [ISSN: 0143-831X]

 Monero R. & Rau T., (2015). Part-time Work, Job Satisfaction and Well-being:

Evidence from a Developing OECD Country. The Journal of Development Studies

Volume 51, Issue 4.

 Munir F., Nielsen K.,Garde A., Albertsen K., Carneiro I. (2011). Mediating the effects

of work–life conflict between transformational leadership and health-care workers job satisfaction and psychological wellbeing. Journal of Nursing Management 2011.  Office for National Statistics (2014). Quarterly Labour Force Survey, January -

(50)

49

 Office of National Statistics (2015) Analysis of Employee Contracts that do not

Guarantee a Minimum Number of Hours, www.ons.gov.uk.

 Olofsdotter G. (2008). Strangers of Flexibility-Employees in Temporary Work

Agencies. Mid Sweden University Doctoral Thesis nr: 47 ISBN: 978‐91‐85317‐88‐2

 Pennycook, M., Cory, G. and Alakeson, V. (2013) A Matter of Time: The rise of

zero-hours contracts, London: The Resolution Foundation. Social developments in the

European Union.

 Poulose, S., and Sudarsan, N. (2014) Work Life Balance: A Conceptual Review, International Journal of Advances in Management and Economics, 3(2), 1-17

 Recruitment and Employment Confederation (2013) Flex appeal: Why freelancers,

contractors and agency workers choose to work this way, www.rec.uk.com

 Steel P., Schmidt J., Shultz J. (2008). Refining the Relationship between Personality

Psychological Association 2008, Vol. 134, No. 1, 138–161

 Vallone-Grant E. & Donaldson S. (2001). Consequences of work-family conflict on

employee well-being over time. Work & Stress, 2001, vol. 15, no. 3, 214-226.

 Van den Zanden R. (2007). The Impact of Employment Contract on Workers’

Well-beingA cross-national study on the impact of flexibilization of the labor market.

Research Master Social and Cultural Science Radboud University Nijmegen.

 Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (1998). Organizational citizenship behavior of contingent

(51)

50

 Van Hoorn A. (2007). A short introduction to subjective well-being:Its’

measurement, correlates and policy use. Prepared for the international conference Is

happiness measurable and what do those measures mean for policy? 2-3 April 2007.

University of Rome

 Virtanen M., Kivimaki M., Joensuu M., Virtanen P., Elovainio M., Vahtera J. (2004)

Temporary employment and health: a review, International Journal of Epidemiology

CONSEQUENCES OF FLEXIBILITY: The effects of precarious employment on subjective well-being as mediated by work-life balance in the United Kingdom