This essay seeks to define the concept of ‘precarious employment’ in the context of post-industrial societies and explain how it can impact on individuals’ quality of life and well-being. Analysis of classical social theory demonstrates that this is not a uniquely contemporary issue. Much of Marx’s and Engels’ writings focused on economic class systems and worker alienation (Kalleberg, 2011). However, precarious employment has garnered greater prevalence in recent years with the emergence of the so-called sharing economy and it disruption of the labour market (Bracha and Burke, 2014). This recent development has been dramatic but it is just a single element of the wider social change that has occurred since the 1970s with the establishment of ‘post-industrial society’.
The term popularised by Daniel Bell (1973), describes changes in ‘social structure’ of industrialised countries. This involves the transition from a ‘Fordist’ rigid, mechanised system to a flexible, knowledge based economy. This is characterised by a shift to service production, dominance of professional and technical occupations and the control and application of ‘intellectual technology’. These changes have resulted in ‘new social relationships and new structures which have to be manged politically’, notably work arrangements (Bell, 1973). This is highlighted by the continued growth of precarious temporary work since the 1970s in developed regions e.g. western Europe (OECD, 2018). The study of ‘work reveals much about the social order and how it is changing’ (Kalleberg, 2011). Therefore, analysis of employment relationships facilitates an understanding of its consequences in the context of ‘post-industrial society’.
Precarious employment is generally regarded as low wage work which is ‘uncertain, unpredictable, and risky from the point of view of the worker’ (Kalleberg, 2011). The concept encapsulates a multitude of atypical employment relationships including short term and zero-hour contracts and uncertain schedules. Precarious workers lack the basic social benefits associated with the primary labour market such as medical insurance and pensions. The majority of these workers are employed in the services sector that dominate post-industrial economies e.g. health, retail and hospitality industries in Ireland (Bobek, Pembroke and Wickham, 2017).
A range of measurements of precarious employment exists in contemporary social study. Standing (2011) places individuals who lack a set of seven forms of security, e.g. income and skill reproduction, in an emerging class called the ‘precariat’. The reliance on subjective interpretation of insecurity poses great limitations in accurately measuring precarious employment however. Savage (2013) similarly identifies this new social class. Although his approach is more empirically reliable and supported by quantitative data. The precariat in this context has very poor economic, social and cultural capital scores. Alternatively, Kalleberg (2011) utilises specific indicators of precarious work such as attachment to employers. He concedes these indicators are limited by not providing a direct measure of precarious employment. However, selectively combining elements of each of these approaches provides a clearer definition of precarious work specifically in the context of post-industrial society.
This matter of precarious employment has emerged in post-industrial societies largely due to economic and structural factors. These macro factors include globalisation, technological change, worker and job market deregulation and unemployment. Micro level factors such as occupational class and education determine how likely the individual is to suffer from precarious employment as a result of the structural factors defining post-industrial society. Unsurprisingly less educated and lower occupational class groups are most affected by technological change and consequently precarious employment. (Oesch and Menes, 2011; David, 2010).
In the context of post-industrial society, this issue is rooted in employers’ desire for flexible specialisation of both production and labour. Increasingly jobs have been replaced by ‘projects’ carried out on short term contracts. This was initially facilitated by the feminisation of the labour market (Sennet, 1998). Both women and migrants have been exploited ‘shamelessly’ by firms in post-industrial society through these part-time work agreements (Standing, 2011). UK’s social trends presents an alternative view claiming 8 in 10 women actually state this is their own choice (Macionis and Plummer, 2008). Yet, such uncertain flexible work arrangements still undermine both their job and economic security, placing these workers in the precariat class according to Standing’s criteria. Due to the increased pressure of globalisation accompanied by technological advancements, corporations are eroding Weber’s bureaucratic ideal to remain competitive (Cappelli, 1999). Consequently, the opportunity for career promotion is severely hindered and power shifts to the employer under the guise of employee ‘flextime’ as explained by Sennet (1998).
Globalisation presents the opportunity to outsource production and minimise labour costs. The resulting layoffs due to these changes have become a universal ‘fact of work life’ (Uchitelle, 2006). The surplus of cheap labour acts as a ‘reserve army’. This demonstrates that no worker is indispensable explains Bourdieu (1999), as cited by Seymour (2012). Coupled with the decline of trade unions, workers’ jobs are far less secure and more susceptible to change. Increasingly in this post-industrial society, workers change jobs more than 11 times between the ages of 18-48 (BLS, 2017). They must accept lower reservation wages and diminished economic security (Uchitelle, 2006). In these circumstances where individuals fear losing their jobs and have no alternative employment options, precariousness materialises. Even one of the most ‘prestigious professions, university teaching’ is plagued by temporary contracts (The Guardian, 2016). Thus, it is argued that the precariat is not just a single class, rather ‘we are all precarious’ in the context of post-industrial society (Seymour, 2012).
The term well-being refers to the standard of an individual’s physical, mental and social welfare. Closely related, quality of life generally indicates an individual’s state of comfort and happiness with their position in life. In post-industrial society, precarious workers struggle to produce the means of existence i.e. their wages do not allow a minimum standard of living, leading to diminished well-being and quality of life. This financial insecurity has a detrimental effect on the lives of precarious workers, underlined by death of nearly 45,000 Americans annually due to lack of health insurance (Bor et al., 2009).
Poor physiological health is similarly associated strongly with precarious work conditions i.e. stress. There is a sizable amount of empirical evidence supporting this claim e.g. ‘association between self-reported job insecurity and incident of coronary heart disease’ (Batty et al., 2013). However, researchers lack consensus regarding causality due to the limitations of defining self-reported insecurity. As such further study is required to establish the definitive causal direction. Despite this, the multitude of studies that support the association between poor physical health and job insecurity should not be disregarded. Rather, they can be used as indicators of workers’ diminishing well-being in post-industrial society (Green, 2011).
Precarious work’s impact on mental quality of life is relatively more definitive. Green (2011) demonstrates that the ‘threat of job loss’ (a key component of precarious work) ‘is a direct source of loss of life satisfaction and mental health’. This is supported by longitudinal data obtained in the HILDA survey of Australian households. Additionally, in the context of post-industrial society, the populous has become ‘increasingly conscious of its fate’ and ‘seeks to control its own fortune’ (Bell, 1973). Unconducive with this is desire, the average hourly compensation in America has remained stagnant since 1973, while expected productivity has risen by almost 75% (Bivens et al., 2015). As such the precariat’s insecure economic base does not allow them to determine their life outcomes and satisfy post-materialist values. This results in anomie, alienation, anxiety and anger (Standing, 2011). Industrial-related suicides can occur as a result of these emotions. This is exemplified by the case of France Telecom where ‘systematic job insecurity’ as part of a restructuring programme resulted in 30 workers’ suicides in 2008-2010 (Standing, 2011).
Sennet (1998) elaborates further on this line of thought. He declares the ‘corrosion’ of workers’ characters is due the changing workplace of post-industrial society. He notes the shift towards a desire for ‘rapid returns’ associated with precarious employment has become the norm. This he believes, ‘corrodes trust, loyalty, and mutual commitment’ weakening social networks and thus individuals’ well-being (Sennet, 1998). Empirical evidence appears to support this theory. For example, Precarious workers’ inability to develop the same social network associated with full-time employment has accompanied rising anomie, especially in urban Britain since 1971 (Ballas, 2008).
As detailed in this essay, the concept of precarious employment has emerged as a defining issue in contemporary society. Through analysis of sociological theory and data we have identified how this precariousness occurs in the post-industrial context: most notably technological advancement, globalisation and labour market deregulation. Furthermore, we have identified the significant characteristics of precarious employment including short-term contracts and low wages. Employers claim the resulting flexible work arrangements, that were established in response to these competitive forces, provide employees with greater freedom. Empirical data however clearly demonstrates its negative effects on individuals’ quality of life and well-being including damage to physical health and alienation.
The study of precarious employment and its impact has so far been limited by the absence of a clear and objective criteria outlining the topic itself, precarious employment. As a result, the true extent of precarious employment remains yet unknown. Nevertheless, the data and information presented in these studies still provide extensive understanding of the association between work and the other elements of society. For example, the rise of nationalist parties across Europe, who have strong support among economically insecure individuals for their anti-immigrant policies (Debating Europe, 2016). With technological advancement and globalisation showing no sign of decline, developing economies are likely to emerge as future post-industrial societies. The introduction of new public policy to limit the effects of precarious employment in these regions will be of key concern. The information raised in this essay can act to inform this future policy in order to protect worker rights and limit the effects of precariousness.
References
Autor, D. 2014. ‘Skills, education, and the rise of earnings inequality among the “other 99 percent”’ Science 344(6186): 843-851.
Ballas, D. 2008. ‘Changing UK: The way we live now’. Available online at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/01_12_08_changinguk.pdf (22 March 2018)
Batty, G. et al. 2012. ‘Perceived job insecurity as a risk factor for incident coronary heart disease: systematic review and meta-analysis’. Available online at: http://www.hal.inserm.fr/inserm-01154089/document (26 March 2018)
Bell, D. 1973. The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting. London: Heinemann.
Bivens, J. 2014. ‘Raising America’s Pay: Why It’s Our Central Economic Policy Challenge’. Available online at: https://www.epi.org/files/pdf/65287.pdf (29 March 2018)
BLS. 2017. ‘NUMBER OF JOBS, LABOR MARKET EXPERIENCE, AND EARNINGS GROWTH AMONG AMERICANS AT 50: RESULTS FROM A LONGITUDINAL SURVEY’ Available online at: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/nlsoy.pdf (23 March 2018)
Bobek, A., Pembroke, S. and Wickham, J. 2016. ‘The nature and extent of precarious work in Ireland’. Available online at: https://www.tasc.ie/download/pdf/the_nature_and_extent_of_precarious_work_in_ireland.pdf (22 March 2018)
Bor, D. et al. 2009. ‘Health Insurance and Mortality in US Adults’. American Journal of Public Health 99(12): 2289-2295.
Bourdieu, P. 1999. Acts of Resistance. New York: The New Press.
Bracha, A. and Burke, M. 2014. ‘Informal Work Activity in the United States: Evidence from Survey Responses’. Available online at: https://www.bostonfed.org/publications/current-policy-perspectives/2014/informal-work-in-the-united-states-evidence-from-survey-responses.aspx (29 March 2018)
Cappelli, P. 1999. The New Deal at Work. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Chakrabortty, A. and Weale, S. 2016. ‘Universities accused of 'importing Sports Direct model' for lecturers' pay’. Available online at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/nov/16/universities-accused-of-importing-sports-direct-model-for-lecturers-pay (2 April 2018)
Debating Europe. 2016. ‘Why is “populism” seen as such a bad thing?’. Available online at: http://www.debatingeurope.eu/2016/02/15/why-is-populism-seen-as-a-bad-thing/#.WsVZ_EwZP-Z (23 March 2018)
Foster, J.B and Jonna, R. 2016. ‘Marx’s Theory of Working-Class Precariousness – And Its Relevance Today’. Alternate Routes 27(1): 21-45.
Green, F. 2011. ‘Unpacking the misery multiplier: How employability modifies the impacts of unemployment and job insecurity on life satisfaction and mental health’. Journal of Health Economics 30(2): 265-276.
Kalleberg, A.L. 1998. ‘Precarious Work, Insecure Workers: Employment Relations in Transition’. American Sociological Review 74(1): 1-22.
Macionis, J. and Plummer, K. 2008. Sociology: A Global Introduction. Harlow: Pearson
Menes, J.R. and Oesch, D. 2011. ‘Upgrading or polarization? Occupational change in Britain, Germany, Spain and Switzerland, 1990–2008’. Socio-Economic Review 9(3): 503-531.
OECD. 2018. ‘Labour Market Statistics: Full-time part-time employment – common definition: incidence’. Available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/data-00299-en
(1 April 2018)
Savage, M. 2013. ‘A New Model of Social Class? Findings from the BBC’s Great British Class Survey Experiment’. Sociology 47(2): 219-250.
Sennet, R. 1998. The Corrosion of Character: The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism. New York: WW Norton & Company.
Seymour, R. 2012. ‘We Are All Precarious – On the Concept Of the ‘Precariat’ and its Misuses’. Available online at: http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/we_are_all_precarious_on_the_concept_of_the_precariat_and_its_misuses (23 March 2018)
Standing, G. 2011. The Precariat: the dangerous new class. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Uchitelle, L. 2006. The Disposable American: Layoffs and their Consequences. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.