Answer questions below.....

Vulnerable work and strategies for inclusion: an introduction

John Burgess School of Management, Curtin University, Perth, Australia, and

Julia Connell Graduate Research School, University of Technology Sydney,

Sydney, Australia

Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to introduce this special issue volume on vulnerable work and strategies for inclusion. Definitions, measurement, analysis and policy responses to vulnerable work and strategies for inclusion are addressed before the key aspects of the nine papers included in the special issue are summarised. Design/methodology/approach – The topic of vulnerability at work is explored, before the distinguishing features of jobs that generate vulnerable conditions and the characteristics of vulnerable workers are identified. Findings – Vulnerable work is insecure and irregular with few protections accorded to the vulnerable workers who are often characterised by their age, ethnic status, gender and skill profiles. The consequences include: poor job quality, low and irregular incomes and personal/family hardship. Vulnerability is widespread across the workforce, with workers subject to work intensification, employment insecurity and poor work-life balance. Social implications – Vulnerable work and workers constitute a growing and global phenomenon. Consequently, governments and employers need to work together on programmes, such as the ILO’s decent work agenda, to ensure that basic human rights at work are widely recognised and provision to ongoing employment, safe working conditions and regular hours are offered across a variety of industries/sectors. Originality/value – This volume examines the conceptual, empirical and policy aspects of vulnerability in employment. It documents the international dimensions of vulnerability, the different forms it takes, those groups that are at risk of vulnerable employment and the underlying factors that generate and support vulnerability. Keywords Job quality, Vulnerability, Inclusion, Precariousness Paper type Research paper

Introduction Vulnerable work is not new; what is new is that many workers, occupations and sectors seem to be susceptible to vulnerability at work. This situation has occurred as a result of workforce restructuring and structural change, public policies such as downsizing and contracting out, public sector activity and corporate strategies that include: restructuring, relocating, offshoring and “lean operations”, particularly following the global financial crisis (GFC) (Kirkpatick and Hoque, 2006; Kalleberg, 2011; McDonnell and Burgess, 2013; Thornley et al., 2010). Moreover, vulnerability is not a condition that is exclusive to particular job arrangements, such as contingent employment, or to particular groups in the workforce such as the young, the disabled, the old and migrant workers, as vulnerability now embraces all job arrangements and groups within the workforce.International Journal of Manpower

Vol. 36 No. 6, 2015 pp. 794-806 © Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0143-7720 DOI 10.1108/IJM-06-2015-0085

Received 7 June 2015 Revised 7 June 2015 Accepted 7 June 2015

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7720.htm

The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the editors and the editorial staff at IJM, together with the referees and authors who made this volume possible.

794

IJM 36,6

Francis Green’s book on job quality subtitled The Paradox of Job Quality in the Affluent Economy (Green, 2006) suggests that national economic progress does not necessarily translate into improvements and well-being for individuals, especially through better jobs. Clark (2005) sought to assess whether new jobs created in Europe in the 1990s were of better quality than the jobs that they replaced. He suggests that, in terms of pay and working hours, European job markets performed well in the 1990s, but this came at a cost, resulting in increased work intensity, job insecurity, anxiety and pressure at work. In other words, economic progress was job generating, but many new jobs possessed more inferior terms and conditions than the jobs of the past or the jobs they replaced. Hence, the assessment of well-being requires an investigation that goes beyond job creation, pay and hours of work. This leads to consideration of a broad variety of conditions associated with work that cover a range of terms in the literature that are associated with degraded conditions of employment. These descriptive terms include insecurity, poor work, contingent jobs, bad jobs and precarious work (Kalleberg, et al., 2000; Kalleberg, 2011; Thornley et al., 2010).

In this volume we present studies that focus on vulnerable work, vulnerable workers and the consequences of vulnerability. A key intention is to distinguish between the features of jobs that generate vulnerable conditions, including irregular and insecure employment, dangerous working conditions and unsociable working hours; and the characteristics of workers in vulnerable jobs – including factors such as their age, gender, ethnicity, educational attainment and disability. There is a range of conceptual, analytical, empirical and policy challenges associated with vulnerable work which leads to a number of fundamental questions such as: what is vulnerable work? What makes jobs vulnerable? Who are the vulnerable workers? What are the conditions that generate vulnerable work? Is vulnerability a transitional condition in the labour market? What are the consequences of vulnerability for workers and how can public and organisational policy address vulnerability and reduce the adverse consequences associated with it?

This introduction to the special issue volume goes some way towards addressing a number of these issues concerning conceptualisation, definition, measurement, analysis and policy responses concerning vulnerable work and inclusion before outlining the contents of the special issue.

What is meant by vulnerability at work? In the literature there is no consensus as to what constitutes vulnerable work. Usually there are a set of documented conditions that encompass the employment contract, the conditions of work and the workplace, the location of work in the labour regulation system and the terms of employment, including pay and non-wage conditions. Vives et al. (2013) use a six dimensional construct to analyse employment precariousness. The workplace power relations dimensions comprise worker vulnerability or defencelessness, and powerlessness to exercise legal rights. Pollert (2008, p. 2) also suggests that:

[…] the analytical approach to vulnerability must be based on consideration of power relations in the labour market and workplace: lack of union representation in the context of weak statutory employment rights is the first dimension of vulnerability. This can be narrowed to those who lack “skill” – a measure of weak labour market power associated with disposability. A proxy for weak bargaining power, in terms of poor or absent collective representation and weak labour market strength, is low pay. Thus, a strong indication of vulnerability is absence of union membership combined with low pay.

795

Vulnerable work and strategies

Given this interpretation of vulnerability, Pollert (2008) suggested that 40 per cent of the UK workforce were considered to be vulnerable workers at the time of writing; whereas the International Labour Organisation (2008) estimates that about half of all the world’s workers are in vulnerable employment situations. That is, they are exposed to high risk of poverty, unregulated working conditions and a lack of employment security. Vulnerability is a set of conditions that affects worker well-being and living standards; it does not refer to one condition but is associated with a set of arrangements that are associated with precariousness, poor work and insecurity in employment. Vulnerability constitutes more than temporary jobs, fixed-term contracts and seasonal work. Indeed, it incorporates employment which is outside the labour market in terms of estimation, regulation and status. Day jobs, undocumented work, especially for migrants and unreported and unregulated work do not enter into the official employment count nor are such jobs subject to the entitlements and protections associated with documented work. All of these jobs possess different forms and degrees of vulnerability and workers in these jobs are vulnerable across a number of criteria including: income; voice; lack of training/career development; working hours; work-life balance; career development, protection and discrimination.

Linking Pollert’s assessment that vulnerability is a manifestation of unequal power (or lack of power) in the labour market, Saunders (2006, p. v) commenting on vulnerability in Canada sees the process of increased vulnerability in the workforce as a process of passing risk from employers and governments onto individuals, families and communities:

Employers, faced with the pressures of global competition (and the opportunity to move production anywhere) have shifted risk to employees, as more work is temporary, or part-time, or contracted out, than in the past, and the demands on many regular employees have intensified. Governments, in an effort to reduce or eliminate fiscal deficits, have shifted risk to individuals, cutting back on the availability of social support. All workers are affected in some fashion by these developments, but many are left in a vulnerable position, struggling to make ends meet or improve their prospects. We are wasting their potential. This not only weakens the social fabric, but also hampers our productivity and competitiveness as a nation.

Standing (2011) in his influential book on workforce vulnerability used the term the “precariat” to indicate a class of citizens who are on the edge of the labour market who find it difficult to sustain employment and acceptable living standards. They are workers who frequently find themselves outside of labour protection and trade union membership, and their hold on employment and attachment to the labour market is often sporadic and unpredictable. Standing (2011, p. 10) suggests that the precariat lack seven forms of protection that are associated with industrial citizenship. These are: labour market security – access to paid employment; employment security – access to ongoing employment; job security – access to income and career development; work security – access to safe working conditions and regular hours; skill reproduction security – access to skill development and ability to apply skills to the job; income security – access to a stable income that meets acceptable minimum living standards and representation security – rights to collective representation and organisation. Some of these conditions are absolute, for example, being able to join a trade union and engage in bargaining with an employer, whereas others are relative, for example, having the ability (or otherwise) to apply one’s skills to the job. However, each of these forms of insecurity is present across the globe, and many workers have to manage more than one of the seven factors, or in many cases, all of the above forms of insecurity in the

796

IJM 36,6

course of their daily jobs. Thus, vulnerability at work refers to a condition where the worker has to manage one or more forms of insecurity; it is not sector or occupationally specific, and according to Standing (2011) it is ubiquitous and growing. Indeed, in this volume, vulnerability is identified as a factor related to irregular and undocumented work (as might be expected) – see Theodore et al. – however, with the growth of outsourcing, downsizing and organisational restructuring, vulnerability has also been extended into all sectors and occupations.

Does vulnerability equate to having a bad job? The precariat embraces the well-paid and those in full-time employment; however, they may lack collective rights, work under oppressive conditions and work very long and unpredictable hours. The European Foundation (Constable et al., 2009) divided jobs into four types according to their characteristics. The four classifications are: high paid/good jobs; well-balanced/good jobs; poorly balanced jobs; and low-quality jobs. Using set criteria and job characteristics the European Foundation clusters jobs into each of these four categories. The methodology involves a three stage process (Constable et al., 2009) and the criteria or conditions used to assess jobs were: earnings, intrinsic job quality, working time quality and job prospects. The topic of job prospects covers aspects of the job that contribute to a person’s need for employment. This indicator also incorporates job security, career progression and contract quality. Extrinsic job quality refers to workers having a good physical environment that is safe and lacks physical and posture-related hazards. Intrinsic job quality refers to the aspects of the job that concern the work itself and its environment. This incorporates the quality of the work, including skill use and job autonomy, the social environment of work and the intensity of work. Working time quality refers to the extent with which the job balances the demands of work and life outside paid employment.

The lowest job cluster, accounting for a fifth of all workers in the European Union (EU), is that of poor quality jobs. Such jobs possess a set of conditions that, relative to the other clusters, entail low earnings, poor job prospects and low intrinsic job quality. Such jobs are bad jobs relative to the “norm” and involve inferior employment. Analysis links the job conditions to objective social and economic outcomes finding that workers located in the bad jobs cluster have the highest incidence of work-related health problems, the least meaningful work and the lowest level of subjective well-being. As a result, the “bad” job classification represents the consequences of the various forms of work/worker vulnerability and insecurity, resulting in adverse material, health and social outcomes. Within this cycle, those in vulnerable work frequently find it difficult to escape from bad jobs and their consequences. For example, insecure labour markets and employment conditions forces many workers into taking on several insecure jobs at once with short, unstable and possibly unsociable working hours (Lee et al., 2008; Rogers et al., 2009).

Although vulnerability encompasses bad jobs in terms of the Eurofound analysis, it goes beyond bad jobs encompassing conditions, both objective and subjective, that impact on job quality and well-being. These conditions may be related to factors outside of employing organisations and companies, such as macroeconomic conditions and increasing unemployment (such as in the ongoing aftermath of the GFC) (Rogers et al., 2009), or may be generated through organisational programmes linked to work rosters, restructuring, outsourcing, overtime access, promotion and employment contracts (Flecker and Meil, 2010).

797

Vulnerable work and strategies

Who are the vulnerable workers? Vulnerable workers are located in jobs that possess vulnerable conditions or they may have personal characteristics that funnel them towards vulnerable jobs. Vulnerable employment is extensive and spreads beyond the official workforce. It includes the unemployed and those working in self-employment and in dependent employment arrangements, including ambiguous employment arrangements, such as contractors and agency workers. It also includes those on the fringes of the official labour market who are engaged in undeclared, informal and illegal work. Vulnerability is not confined to employees and those holding formal jobs. It includes the self-employed, contractors and day workers all of whom have unstable incomes and earn below minimum wages (Peck and Theodore, 1998). Saunders (2006) suggests that vulnerability is found in those jobs that include: the self-employed who are outside of protective employment conditions, those who are employed in unprotected jobs (undeclared, illegal and informal work) and those who are in contingent jobs (seasonal and on temporary contracts) who do not qualify for standard employment protection and conditions. This suggests that vulnerability is embodied in the conditions of the job or the form of labour market marginalisation. However, there are also demographic and personal conditions that result in high incidences of vulnerability (such as migrant workers) – see Cueto and Rodriguez who examine migrant self-employment in Spain in this volume and older workers – see Hennekam who presents research on older workers in the Netherlands also in this volume.

In terms of the characteristics of vulnerable workers, McGovern et al. (2004) analysed “bad jobs” in Britain according to a range of criteria. They found that bad jobs were related to part time and temporary work and that the workers were female and more likely to be young (under 20 years) or old (over 60 years). The vulnerable workers did not belong to a trade union; they had limited job autonomy, worked in small firms in the private sector and had limited formal qualifications. Holman and McClelland (2011) reviewed evidence for the EU, and also reported that those workers employed under vulnerable conditions were mostly women, young and old workers, and those in part time and temporary jobs. Pollert’s (2008) survey of vulnerable workers reinforced these findings, indicating high representation from the young, women, minority ethnic groups, private sector workers, small businesses and those working in the hospitality and retail sectors. Thus, there is a recurring pattern of vulnerability being associated with gender, age, ethnicity, employment arrangements and organisational characteristics. Vulnerable workers are marginalised through irregular and unprotected employment arrangements, working in businesses with high employee and business turnover. They also tend to be outside formal forms of voice and representation, have limited formal skills and training (or recognised skills and training in the case of migrants), limited experience (for youth) and are stigmatised by gender, age or disability.

The consequences of vulnerability? The consequences of vulnerability are frequently associated with issues related to the duration of work and lack of control over aspects of work. Some forms of vulnerability can be addressed through effective regulation, especially issues around long working hours, shift patterns, discrimination in employment and unpaid working hours. However, as Pollert (2008) emphasises, the issue is one of power and the ability to change the objective and subjective conditions of employment. In terms of conditions associated with vulnerable work the ILO (2012) “World of

798

IJM 36,6

Work 2012” report focuses on the recovery of the labour market after the GFC in 2008 by comparing data from Eurostat and the OECD employment database for the years 2007 and 2011. The data show that the employment situation in Europe continued to deteriorate and after a brief respite, following the GFC, there has been no apparent improvement occurring in the labour markets of many countries. At a macro level, forecast economic growth is insufficient to cover the employment deficit; labour market imbalances are becoming more structural with increasing levels of long-term unemployment and precarious employment is becoming more evident. The ILO (2012) report indicates that involuntary part-time employment and temporary employment has increased by two-thirds in more than half the advanced economies in the world. Women and youth are disproportionally affected by these trends with youth unemployment having increased in about 80 per cent of advanced economies and in two-thirds of developing countries. The report concluded that increasing job instability is not only a human tragedy for workers and their families, but also a waste of productive capacity, with skill losses resulting from increased job rotation and long periods of unemployment (ILO, 2012). Moreover, there is evidence that a lack of decent work is related to other conditions including poor health, family break ups and to a heightened risk of social unrest (ILO, 2012).

The cycle of vulnerability The papers in this volume discuss some of the different dimensions and forms of vulnerability, suggesting different organisational strategies and policy approaches to address vulnerability and work towards inclusion. The first point to note is that many of those who are engaged in vulnerable work are invisible. That is, they are often omitted from workforce counts since their employment is irregular, informal or illegal (see Theodore et al., 2015, on day labour). Also, vulnerability encompasses an inability to obtain a job or to keep a job for any period of time. Second, many vulnerable workers are excluded from forms of employment and social protection, since their employment does not qualify for protection (see day labour, the self-employed, informal workers). There are gaps in vulnerable workers entitlements and representation across. In turn, this leads to challenges for trade unions and NGOs that seek to represent and protect the most vulnerable, since formalisation or representation is difficult for informal and illegal workers, day labourers and the self-employed (see Kirov and Hohnen, 2015). For those workers who are outside the formal mechanisms of representation and protection, organisational HRM policies and internal labour market arrangements can result in workforce segregation and exclusion from promotion, training, skill development and wage increases (see Lengfeld and Ohlert, 2015; Sgobbi, 2015, on wage inequalities). Also, there is the dilemma for those involved in contingent employment arrangements with regard to whether such work may lead to a bridge to permanent employment or result in a contingent work trap that they cannot move out of (Burgess et al., 2008). On this point, contingent and non-standard employment arrangements such as day labour, self-employment and agency work (all discussed in this volume), while offering labour market entry often evolves into ongoing arrangements. This is pertinent to workfare arrangements that are predicated on the basis that employment access, regardless of insecurity and contingency, is effective in moving the unemployed into regular employment (see Cochrane and McKeown, 2015).

Returning to Standing’s (2011) precariat, the conditions of the precariat are linked to the economic, social and regulatory arrangements that exist within a particular country. Post the GFC in many countries across the globe there is still evidence

799

Vulnerable work and strategies

of recession and high rates of unemployment (Mcdonnell and Burgess, 2013) with increased labour market insecurity (ILO, 2012; Rogers et al., 2009). Contingent working arrangements with short term, irregular and unpredictable working provisions expand as a response to the challenging market conditions (see Kirov and Hohnen, 2015, on the outsourced services sector in Europe). Contingent arrangements, by their very nature, limit access to career and skill development (Trades Union Congress, 2008). Unemployment, irregular and contingent work go hand in hand and results in unpredictable and irregular income, and this is a feature of many forms of contingent work and forms of work that are “on the edge” of the labour market such as undeclared and illegal work that is performed by vulnerable groups such as migrants (Burgess and Connell, 2009). Those without jobs, those in contingent jobs and those on the edges of the labour market are also those who are often excluded from the rights and entitlements associated with regular employment, including collective representation (Thornley et al., 2010). Vulnerability extends beyond precarious and contingent employment arrangements with issues such as increasing job insecurity, declining job autonomy, job segmentation; irregular and long working hours and poor work-life balance being found in many standard jobs (see the Le Fevre et al., 2015, on work intensification; Lengfeld and Ohlert, 2015, on wage inequalities within organisations).

In summary, we find that worker vulnerability relates to: the conditions present in the labour market; the underlying system of regulations governing employment arrangements, including the treatment of contingent employment, job access and sustainability of employment, the rules governing citizenship and access to income and welfare support mechanisms; and the objective and subjective conditions of a job. In many countries there are gaps in the system of rights, conditions and representation, especially associated with contingent employment (Rogers et al., 2009). The conditions are reinforcing, with an event such as the GFC leading to job loss, increasing unemployment, the rise of contingent employment arrangements, pressure on public welfare programmes and large legal and illegal migrant flows where workers move internationally in search of jobs, and in turn this leads to community resistance to immigration in host countries (Rogers et al., 2009). Such effects result in a cycle of contingency, where conditions reinforce vulnerability along the different dimensions that have been outlined here.

In terms of public policy, vulnerable employment is a challenge at a number of levels. First, vulnerability is associated with low and irregular incomes, as many vulnerable workers cannot sustain minimum living standards. Second, vulnerability may be associated with exclusion from the rights and entitlements normally associated with industrial citizenship; minimum pay, collective rights, safety at work and non-discrimination at work (Pollert, 2008). Third, alongside vulnerability are other consequences linked to family relationships and community engagement (Lewchuck et al., 2008). Fourth, vulnerability has fiscal implications for the state in terms of income tax collections and the provision of social services such as housing, education, income supplementation and health services for those with low and irregular incomes. Fifth, there are the social implications of vulnerable jobs where vulnerability is extended across the workforce with regard to health and well-being, turnover and work-life balance (Barrett and Sargeant, 2011). Finally, for organisations there is a need to consider the effects of vulnerability within the workforce in terms of recruitment, skill development, turnover and organisational commitment (Connell and Burgess, 2006).

800

IJM 36,6

Outline of the papers and structure of the volume The nine papers in this special issue are organised according to geographical location. The themes of the special issue volume are examined in the following order: the USA and South Africa; Canada; Europe (11 countries); Germany; Spain, Italy and the Netherlands, then Australia and New Zealand. The papers cover different aspects of vulnerability including the conditions that support vulnerability; the evidence on vulnerability within industries, countries and across countries; the conditions associated with particular employment forms (such as day labour); and the policies that may support (or reduce) vulnerability.

The first paper by Theodore et al. focuses on the USA and South Africa and compares conditions in informal day labour markets in South Africa and the USA in order to gain a better understanding of the nature of worker vulnerabilities in these markets, as well as the economic conditions that have contributed to the growth of day labour. Drawing on data from the only two national surveys of day labourers that have been conducted in both countries, the authors establish the extreme vulnerability of such workers, pointing out that day labour work is characterised by low pay, hazardous conditions on the job and extensive income insecurity. The paper concludes by documenting the need for policies and programmes to increase employment opportunities for day labourers and to better enforce labour standards in the informal economy.

The focus of the second paper moves to Canada where Fang and Gunderson examine the labour market exclusion of vulnerable workers. In Canada vulnerable workers have been defined as those with the highest concentration of persistent low income in poverty, whereas those people defined as being excluded from the labour market are defined as having been out of the labour force for a full year – encompassing the negative states of being unemployed as well as not looking for work. The authors identify six target groups and base their analysis on five panels of data from the Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics ranging from 2003 to 2010. Their findings suggest that a “one-size-fits-all” policy solution is inappropriate and that customised interventions are required that are tailored to specific needs, cultures and contexts to address worker vulnerability and exclusion.

The studies then move to Europe, with the third paper analysing trade union strategies concerning vulnerable workers across 11 countries. Kirov and Hohnen investigate how and why trade unions should address the questions of inclusion of vulnerable employees in low-wage “anchored” service sectors in the EU. They define the “anchored” service sector as those “industries in which value is created through in-person service provision at the point of consumption or use” (such as cleaners). They maintain that work is often outsourced from the public sector or other private sector companies and taken over by service providers and that the outcome for employees is often insecure resulting in problematic working conditions, poor quality work and a lack of representation. Their findings indicate that such jobs have been growing across Europe during the last few years, increasing the numbers of vulnerable workers. The authors conclude by presenting a range of challenges for trade unions that concern the representation and inclusion of such groups.

The next paper provides evidence from Germany where Lengfeld and Ohlert analyses whether workers of different occupational classes are affected to different degrees by between-firm wage inequality. They empirically tests whether workers are able to benefit from firms’ internal or external strategies for worker flexibility by matching employer-employee data from official German labour market statistics to estimate

801

Vulnerable work and strategies

firm-specific wage components, which are then regressed on the structural characteristics of firms. Lengfeld and Ohlert found that between-firm wage effects of internal labour markets were largest among unskilled workers as they were the most disadvantaged workers in the labour market. Hence, they were also the most dependent upon employers’ recruitment and remuneration policies, indicating that employers’ personnel policies have the greatest impact on wages. Lengfeld and Ohlert concludes by proposing a number of future avenues for further research to further expand understanding on this topic.

The fifth paper in this volume moves to Spain. Here Cueto and Rodriguez examine immigrant self-employment as they aim to determine the likelihood of immigrants being self-employed, the differences between local workers and immigrants in terms of self-employment and differences among immigrants from different regions of origin. The authors use data from the Labour Force Survey for 2005-2011 to study the determinants of immigrant self-employment and found that, unlike research conducted in other countries, the rate of immigrant self-employment in Spain is lower than that of nationals, although differences exist according to the region of origin. Specifically, the authors indicate that men and older workers were more likely to be self-employed as were those with higher levels of education, which may be attributable to the decreased availability of skilled positions for immigrants. The findings indicate that self-employment may be an opportunity for immigrants to improve their position in the labour market, especially in the case of highly skilled workers.

Sgobbi’s paper explores the impact of employer’s wage policies on the wage dynamics of vulnerable groups in large Italian firms. She identifies vulnerable workers as including younger employees, employees on fixed-term contracts and employees who take parental leave. The study analyses the wage policy models adopted by a sample of large Italian companies in terms of variables that include wage levels, wage structures and wage dynamics prior to estimating the impact of the employer’s wage policy on the wage growth path of matched employees – with particular attention paid to vulnerable workers. She concludes that, despite consistent evidence of negative labour market outcomes for vulnerable employees, the impact of firm characteristics on segregation into disadvantaged groups is still under-researched. Thus, her paper provides new evidence of how employer’s wage policies can impact the wage growth path of disadvantaged employees. Further, Sgobbi highlights critical dimensions that may assist in reducing the risks of segregation into less favourable segments of the labour market.

The next paper analysing worker vulnerability in Europe uses data from older workers in the Netherlands. Specifically, Hennekam examines the factors that influence older workers perceptions of self-perceived employability among two generations of older workers with low occupational status in the creative industries. The two groups were the Baby Boomer Generation (born between 1945 and 1964) and the Veteran Generation (born before 1945). Using survey data from 1,112 older workers registered with job agencies specializing in older workers, her findings showed that the oldest generation (the Veterans) in the workforce considered themselves to be highly employable, motivated and willing to adapt to the needs of employers, whereas the Baby Boomers emphasised their declining employability, stressing that their employment was relatively expensive for employers and negative stereotypes concerning older workers. Consequently, Hennekam concludes that the more positive a worker’s self-perceived employability, the quicker they will find a job when unemployed. Also, individuals’ positive perceptions were found to have a positive relationship with their desire to postpone retirement, which has implications both for workers and employers dealing with the challenges of an ageing workforce.

802

IJM 36,6

The final two papers consider the situation of vulnerable workers and strategies for inclusion within the context of Australia and New Zealand. Cochrane and McKeown focus on the use of temporary staffing agencies and contracted work arrangements which allows organisations to adapt to an increasingly competitive and dynamic environment. The Australian-based study set out to examine the complexity of agency worker vulnerability by exploring the experiences and perceptions of agency workers. Australia was selected as the research setting as the temporary staffing industry there is well-established lightly regulated and numerous government inquiries into agency work arrangements have not resulted in any substantive policy towards addressing the vulnerability of agency workers. A purposive sampling approach was used to select eight agencies operating in the state of Victoria that match workers with clerical assignments. Agencies distributed mail questionnaires to 757 employees and 178 (or 24 per cent) useable responses were returned. The authors also sought to examine the complexity of agency worker vulnerability by exploring both the good and bad aspects from the workers’ perspective. Their findings explore the associations between vulnerability and precariousness, revealing the notion of varying degrees of worker vulnerability and suggesting interventions to reduce them.

The final paper in this special issue volume asks “which workers are more vulnerable to work intensification” whereby Le Fevre et al. seek to identify whether there are particular employee groups that are more vulnerable to work intensification and its outcomes on their well-being. Analysing two New Zealand national surveys (comprising more than 2,000 workers) that were conducted in 2005 and 2009 the authors first determine which employee groups are most vulnerable to work intensification and, second, who are most vulnerable to the impacts of high work intensity on well-being, in terms of job (dis)satisfaction, stress, fatigue and work-life imbalance. Their findings show that professionals reported significantly higher levels of work intensity than all other occupational groups, as well as higher levels of stress and work-life imbalance. In addition, full time employees experienced greater work intensity than part-timers, and union members’ more than non-union members. Public sector employees reported greater stress and work-life imbalance than those in the private sector. There was also a small, but significant and consistent, interaction effect that identified women as more negatively impacted by high work intensity than men. The finding that professionals (and particularly working women) have become vulnerable workers, in the sense of high levels of work demand, has significant implications for both employees and employers.

Conclusion Vulnerability is widespread across countries, compounded by recession and practices linked to downsizing, outsourcing and reorganisation. The numbers of vulnerable workers are difficult to estimate as they include those on the margins of the formal labour market, those outside of employee status and those in undeclared and illegal work. Vulnerability is not confined to contingent employment arrangements as many full time workers are subject to different forms of insecurity in their employment. There is a cohort of workers that includes the young and old, the lower-skilled, the disabled, single parents, women and migrants that have a high incidence of vulnerability in their employment arrangements. The research and policy challenges include: identifying and estimating those in vulnerable employment; understanding the causes of and the dynamics of the processes

803

Vulnerable work and strategies

that generates vulnerability – especially how labour market conditions and worker characteristics interact in generating vulnerability; understanding the consequences of vulnerability for workers and their dependents; examining the policy responses to vulnerability from extended labour market regulation; improved enforceability of existing regulations, forms of voice and representation; modifications to taxation and welfare regimes and enhanced EEO and anti-discrimination programmes. While many of these factors are discussed in this special issue volume, and thus help to advancing understanding the findings indicate that vulnerable work and strategies for inclusion are likely to be on-going topics for policy makers, researchers, employers and employees for some time to come.

References

Barret, B. and Sargeant, M. (2011), “The health, safety and well-being of vulnerable workers”, in Sargeant, M. and Barret, B. (Eds), Vulnerable Workers. Health, Safety and Well-Being, Gower, Surrey, pp. 1-21.

Burgess, J. and Connell, J. (2009), “Migrant workers, migrant work, public policy and HRM”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 412-421.

Burgess, J., Campbell, I. and May, R. (2008), “Pathways from casual employment to economic security: the Australian experience”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 88 No. 1, pp. 161-178.

Clark, A. (2005), “Your money or your life: changing job quality in OECD countries”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 377-400.

Connell, J. and Burgess, J. (2006), “The influence of precarious employment on career development: the current situation in Australia”, Education & Training, Vol. 48 No. 7, pp. 493-507.

Cochrane, R. and McKeown, T. (2015) “Vulnerability and agency work: from the workers’ perspectives” International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 947-965.

Constable, S., Coats, D., Bevan, S. and Mahdon, M. (2009), “Good jobs”, Work Foundation, no date, available at: www.theworkfoundation.com/assets/docs/publications/226_good_jobs2 (accessed 26 June 2013).

Flecker, J. and Meil, P. (2010), “Organisational restructuring and emerging service value chains: implications for work and employment”, Work, Employment & Society, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 680-698.

Green, F. (2006), Demanding Work: The Paradox of Job Quality in the Affluent Economy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Holman, D. and McClelland, C. (2011), “Job quality in growing and declining economic sectors of the EU”, Walqing Working Paper No. 2011/3, University of Manchester, Manchester.

ILO (2012), World of Work Report 2012 “Better Jobs for a Better Economy”, International Labour Organization, Geneva.

International Labour Organisation (2008), Global Employment Trends 2008, ILO, Geneva.

Kalleberg, A.L. (2011), Good Jobs, Bad Jobs: The Rise of Polarized And Precarious Employment Systems in The United States, 1970s-2000s, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, NY.

Kalleberg, A.L., Reskin, B.F. and Hudson, K. (2000), “Bad jobs in America: standard and nonstandard employment relations and job quality in the United States”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 256-278.

804

IJM 36,6

Kirkpatrick, I. and Hoque, K. (2006), “A retreat from permanent employment? Accounting for the rise of professional agency work in UK public services”, Work, Employment & Society, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 649-666.

Kirov, V. and Hohnen, P. (2015) “Trade unions strategies to address inclusion of vulnerable employees in ‘anchored’ services in Europe”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 848-873.

Lee, S., McCann, D. and Messenger, J. (2008), Working Time Around The World: Trends in Working Hours, Laws And Policies in a Global Comparative Perspective, Routledge and ILO, London and Geneva.

Le Fevre, M., Boxall, P. and Macky, K. “Which workers are more vulnerable to work intensification? An analysis of two national surveys”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 966-983.

Lengfeld, H. and Ohlert, C. (2015), “Do internal labour markets protect the unskilled from low payment? Evidence from Germany”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 874-894.

Lewchuk, W., Clarke, M. and de Wolff, A. (2008), “Working without commitments: precarious employment and health”, Work, Employment & Society, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 387-406.

Mcdonnell, A. and Burgess, J. (2013), “The impact of the global financial crisis on managing employees”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 184-197.

McGovern, P., Smeaton, D. and Stephen, H. (2004), “Bad jobs in Britain: nonstandard employment and job quality”, Work And Occupations, Vol. 31, pp. 225-245.

Peck, J. and Theodore, N. (1998), “The business of contingent work: growth and restructuring in Chicago’s temporary employment industry”, Work, Employment & Society, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 655-674.

Pollert, A. (2008), “The experience of vulnerable and unorganised workers”, Centre for Employment Studies Research, Bristol Business School, University of the West of England, Bristol.

Rogers, A., Anderson, B. and Clark, N. (2009), Recession, Vulnerable Workers and Immigration: Background Report, Centre of Migration Policy and Society, London.

Saunders, R. (2006), Risk and Opportunities: Creating Options for Vulnerable Workers, Canadian Policy Research Networks, Ottawa.

Standing, G. (2011), The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class, Bloomsbury, London.

Sgobbi, F. (2015) “Wage policy models: what implications for vulnerable employees?”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 912-930.

Thornley, C., Jefferys, S. and Appay, B. (2010), Globalization and Precarious Forms of Production and Employment: Challenges for Workers and Unions, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Trades Union Congress (2008), “Hard work, hidden lives”, full report of the Commission on Vulnerable Employment, TUC, London, available at: www.vulnerableworkers.org.uk/files/ CoVE_full_report.pdf (accessed 2 November 2014).

Theodore, N., Blaauw, D., Schenck, C., Valenzuela, A. Jr, Schoeman, C. and Meléndez, E.E. (2015), “Day labor, informality and vulnerability in South Africa and the United States”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 807-823.

Vives, A., Amable, M., Ferrer, M., Moncada, S., Llorens, C., Muntaner, C., Benavides, F.G. and Benach, J. (2013), “Employment precariousness and poor mental health: evidence from Spain on a new social determinant of health”, Journal of Environmental and Public Health, Article ID 978656, 10 pp., available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/978656 (accessed 16 August 2014).

805

Vulnerable work and strategies

Further readings Gebel, M. (2013), “Is a temporary job better than unemployment?”, Paper No. 543, a cross-country

comparison based on British, German, and Swiss panel data, SOEP, March. Kalleberg, A.L. (2009), “Precarious work, insecure workers: employment relations in transition”,

American Sociological Review, Vol. 74, February, pp. 1-22. Sargeant, M. and Giovannone, M. (Eds) (2011), Vulnerable Workers: Health, Safety and Well-Being,

Gower, London.

About the authors John Burgess is a Professor of HRM at the Curtin Business School, Curtin University. Particular areas of interest where he has published extensively encompass: work, workplaces and labour market policy, particularly in relation to contingent labour. John has been the recipient of numerous grants on related topics and is on the editorial board of five human resource management/industrial relations journals. Professor John Burgess is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]

Julia Connell is the Director, Researcher Development at the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS) and an adjunct Professor of Management, the Curtin Business School, Curtin University. Julia has published over 80 refereed journal articles/book chapters and co-edited five books on topics related to employment (particularly precarious work), change and organisational effectiveness.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

806

IJM 36,6

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.