Empirical Study of Employment Arrangements and Precariousness in Australia

Abstract

Much research on precarious employment compares permanent workers with one or two other broadly-defined employment categories. We developed a more refined method of examining precariousness by defining current employment arrangements in terms of job characteristics. These employment arrangement categories were then compared in terms of socio-demographics and self-reported job insecurity. This investigation was based on a cross-sectional population-based survey of a random sample of 1,101 working Australians. Eight mutually exclusive employment categories were identified: Permanent Full-time (46.4%), Permanent Part-time (18.3%), Casual Full-time (2.7%), Casual Part-time (9.3%), Fixed Term Contract (2.1%), Labour Hire (3.6%), Own Account Self-employed (7.4%), and Other Self-employed (9.5%). These showed significant and coherent differences in job characteristics, socio-demographics and perceived job insecurity. These empirically-supported categories may provide a conceptual guide for government agencies, policy makers and researchers in areas including occupational health and safety, taxation, labour market regulations, the working poor, child poverty, benefit programs, industrial relations, and skills development.

Precarious employment, psychosocial working conditions, and health: Cross‐sectional associations in a population‐based sample of working Australians

“…Nonetheless, psychological demands were highest in permanent FT employment, which is consistent with casual jobs tending to be lower skilled than permanent ones. Our findings also reinforce the importance of considering the heterogeneity of precarious employment arrangements [Aronsson et al, 2002;Virtanen et al, 2005], and add to a growing body of literature suggesting that 'precarious' employment may not be inferior in all aspects and contexts, and may be adversely associated with some health outcomes but not others [Saloniemi et al, 2004;Louie et al, 2006;Lewchuk et al, 2008;LaMontagne et al, 2012b;#].…”

“…Those outside the labour force, including full-time students, were excluded from the sample. Employment arrangements were classified by self-report into 8 mutuallyexclusive categories [Louie et al, 2006]. We focused on the casual groups because casual work is the most prevalent form of precarious employment, and other forms were only represented in the sample in small numbers.…”

Knowledge Transmission in Light of Recent Transformations in the Workplace

“…The scientific literature also shows that the concept of precarious employment conceals a non-homogenous continuum of employment and working conditions, and employment insecurity, as well as a diverse range of consequences for occupational health and safety (Louie et al, 2006;Vosko, Zukewich and Cranford, 2003). For example, the health and safety problems may differ, depending on the level of precarity experienced by the workers.…”

How Precarious Employment Affects Health and Safety at Work: The Case of Temporary Agency Workers

“…It has since grown steeply in some countries (such as Canada, Germany and several Northern and Eastern European countries), slowed in others (such as France), and fallen in yet others, such as the United Kingdom (Biggs, 2006;Arrowsmith, 2009;Vosko, 2010). In Australia, temporary agency workers' share of the workforce peaked at around five percent in the mid-2000s before falling quickly to around 2.5% in late 2008 when, with the onset of the global financial crisis, agency workers were amongst the first to lose their jobs (Louie et al, 2006;ABS, 2008;Skilled Group, 2009). Occupying only a small percentage of the workforce, national statistics belie the importance of agency employment.…”

“…These include poorer supervision (Rebitzer, 1995); inadequate training and experience (François and Lievin, 1995;Rebitzer, 1995;Paoli and Merllié, 2001); a younger workforce with fewer qualifications (François and Lievin, 1995;Underhill, 2008); exposure to higher risk tasks (François and Lievin, 1995;Paoli and Merllié, 2001;Iacuone, 2006;Louie et al, 2006); lack of workplace voice; and pervasive regulatory failure (Johnstone and Quinlan, 2006;Vosko, 2010). Some characteristics (such as younger age distribution and lack of voice) are shared with other precarious workers (see for example Aronsson, 1999;Benavides et al, 2006;Lewchuk, Clarke and de Wolff, 2008;Keegel, 2009).…”