In this review of a range of studies on the health and safety effects of precarious employment in industrialized societies published since 1984, the authors examine the overall findings and methodological issues and identify areas in need of further research. Of the 93 published journal articles and monographs/book chapters reviewed, 76 studies found precarious employment was associated with a deterioration in occupational health and safety (OHS) in terms of injury rates, disease risk, hazard exposures, or worker (and manager) knowledge of OHS and regulatory responsibilities. Of the more than 25 studies each on outsourcing and organizational restructuring/downsizing, well over 90 percent find a negative association with OHS. The evidence is fairly persuasive for temporary workers, with 14 of 24 studies finding a negative association with OHS. The evidence is less strong for small business, and a handful of studies on part-time workers found no clear association with negative OHS outcomes (in some cases the reverse). Further research is needed to more clearly link health effects to particular business practices and neoliberal policies and to explore the regulatory implications of the growth of precarious employment. The authors suggest some ways to conceptualize the association between precarious employment and occupational health.

This discussion paper by a group of scholars across the fields of health, economics and labour relations argues that COVID-19 is an unprecedented humanitarian crisis from which there can be no return to the ‘old normal’. The pandemic’s disastrous worldwide health impacts have been exacerbated by, and have compounded, the unsustainability of economic globalisation based on the neoliberal dismantling of state capabilities in favour of markets. Flow-on economic impacts have simultaneously created major supply and demand disruptions, and highlighted the growing within-country inequalities and precarity generated by neoliberal regimes of labour market regulation. Taking an Australian and international perspective, we examine these economic and labour market impacts, paying particular attention to differential impacts on First Nations people, developing countries, women, immigrants and young people. Evaluating policy responses in a political climate of national and international leadership very different from those in which major twentieth century crises were addressed, we argue the need for a national and international conversation to develop a new pathway out of crisis. JEL Codes: E18, HO, I1, J64, J88

Precarious employment has been associated with adverse occupational health and safety (OHS) outcomes across a range of studies. Temporary agency workers are particularly vulnerable, with studies showing they experience a higher incidence of workplace injury, and a greater likelihood of more severe injuries than all other employment types. Explanations for agency workers’ higher risk of injury have, to date, been impeded by data limitations associated with researching temporary employment. This article seeks to begin filling this gap through analyzing the experience of agency workers based upon two data sources. The first is a unique qualitative and quantitative data set developed from investigated temporary agency and directly hired workers’ compensation files; the second is focus groups of agency workers conducted in the State of Victoria, Australia. Quinlan and Bohle’s (2004) Pressures, Disorganization and Regulatory Failure (PDR) model, developed to explain the greater OHS vulnerability of precarious workers, provides the framework for analyzing the data. After explaining the key concepts in the PDR Model, the article analyses the data to test for evidence of economic pressures, disorganization at the workplace, and regulatory failure impacting upon temporary agency workers’ health and safety. The analysis supports the relevance of the PDR model, and provides an understanding of additional and unique risk factors which contribute to agency workers’ higher risk of injury. Temporary agency workers experience economic pressures in common with other types of precarious workers. However, these appear more acute amongst agency workers. They also confront disorganization risks, extending to mismatched placements; lack of familiarity with host workplaces; and more complex fractured communication. These contribute to workplace risks and create barriers to improving their experience. Many of these outcomes are a result of, or contribute to regulatory failure. The analysis finds strong support for the explanatory value of the PDR model as a tool for understanding how precariousness contributes to temporary agency workers’ adverse health and safety outcomes. It also suggests the complexities of the triangular employment relationship create additional economic insecurities and disorganization problems beyond those experienced by other types of workers, which the regulatory environment has yet to address.

No abstract