Considering Work Arrangement as an “Exposure” in Occupational Health Research and Practice

Abstract

Most occupational health research is conducted with the so-called “standard employment relationship” in mind, which entails ongoing, full-time employment for a single employer. Yet mounting evidence suggests the way work is organized is increasingly deviating from this standard model, and that work arrangements themselves—the terms and conditions of employment such as contract type and the extent of directive control over tasks—are important determinants of worker health and safety. However, a lack of clear conceptual definitions or taxonomic system defining the wide variety of economic work arrangements in the contemporary workplace hampers rigorous investigation of their relationship to health. The various forms of “non-standard” employment arrangements—also called non-traditional, alternative, flexible, fissured, precarious, contingent, temporary, atypical, or gig work—may have overlapping attributes, yet ambiguity regarding the character of these arrangements obscures mechanisms that lead to increased health and safety risks. Here, we attempt to clarify work arrangements as a workplace exposure, deserving of specific attention within occupational health and safety research, practice, and policy. We argue that, at minimum, three key features of work arrangements need to be considered: (1) whether an arrangement is permanent or temporary; (2) whether a worker is a contractor or an employee; and (3) whether an arrangement involves more than one firm. We further propose mechanisms linking work arrangements to increased work-related health risks to better inform strategies aimed at protecting the growing non-standard workforce.

The role of nonstandard and precarious jobs in the well‐being of disabled workers during workforce reintegration

“…While examining nonstandard work arrangements is common in the literature, these jobs tend to be heterogeneous in character with little consensus on how to categorize and define them (e.g., contractor jobs include both flexible contract work tailored toward high-skilled workers as well as low-paid gig work). 18 Furthermore, these nonstandard work arrangements may not capture important aspects of precarious employment, such as unbalanced worker-employer power dynamics central to the precarious employment construct. We developed a multidimensional measure to more thoroughly capture precarious employment experiences than a measure of nonstandard work arrangement can provide.…”

“…[9][10][11][12][13] Solutions include providing assistive technologies 14 and modifying psychosocial factors, such as co-worker and supervisor support. 15 However, despite the growing prevalence of nonstandard work arrangements and precarious employment in the occupational health and safety discourse, [16][17][18] few studies have investigated the role of nonstandard and precarious jobs in the RTW process. 19,20 Nonstandard work arrangements have become increasingly common in the United States and globally.…”

“…22 Common nonstandard work arrangements include parttime, staffing agency, and independent contractor jobs. 18,22 The flexibility, part-time nature, and ease of entry into some nonstandard jobs may offer RTW opportunities for persons with disabilities. 23,24 However, nonstandard jobs are generally associated with decreased job security, lower wage and benefit levels, and worse working conditions, 18,25 raising questions about their benefit and link to the construct of precarious employment.…”

“…22 Concerningly, these changes may exacerbate job insecurity and health and safety risks for workers. 18,31 These jobs can be financially and psychologically stressful, 32,33 as well as physically hazardous due to worse access to job accommodation, shorter job tenure, and less safe work environments. 16,17 While little in known about the role of nonstandard and precarious jobs in the lives of people with workrelated disabilities, it is known that people with disabilities are generally overrepresented in both nonstandard and precarious jobs.…”

COVID-19, Health and Vulnerable Societies

“…Since the 1980s, there has been a growing body of research (hundreds if not thousands of studies) into the health effects of precarious work, job insecurity, and the informal sector. The vast majority of these studies, using an array of methods, have found these work arrangements are associated with worse health outcomes including increased injury frequency rates, adverse physical health/hazard exposures and poor mental health as well as inferior protection under occupational health and safe and workers’ compensation/social security laws ( Quinlan, 2015 ; O’Connor et al , 2020 ). Subcontracting and the precarious work it entails also contributed to disasters in mines and factories, refineries, and oil rigs ( Quinlan, 2014 ).…”