Equally dressed-up, unequally casual: different experiences of precarious work in designer fashion retail boutiques

Abstract

Casual employment in Australia is highly precarious with minimal job security, and it is used heavily in the retail sector. With few legal entitlements, casual employment creates an unregulated space for workers and employers to negotiate work conditions. This underlies claims that casual employment increases flexibility for both employees and employers. However, with low employment security, casual workers have low workplace power to assert their preferences. At the same time, recent analysis shows that vulnerable workers are likely to get trapped in highly precarious work such as casual employment. This study explores the experience of 18 women working casually in designer fashion retail boutiques in Melbourne. Findings show that even in the same role in similar workplaces, some workers are able to broker better working conditions for themselves. Factors that improved participants' empowerment levels to seek better conditions were general knowledge of workplace rights and having a high workplace sense of entitlement. Those who had spent less time in the role had lower empowerment levels. The social class background of participants was an important underlying factor. The research finds that due to differences in individual agency, vulnerable workers receive inferior working conditions compared to their less vulnerable coworkers in equivalent roles.

Precarious work and precarious workers: Towards an improved conceptualisation

“…Nevertheless, even the most advanced case studies often reveal the tug of subjective understandings of diverse experiences of precarious work (see also Cooke et al, 2013;Johnson, 2015). Thus, the case study of room attendants wrongly labels individual experiences, as well as perceptions, as 'subjective' (Knox et al, 2015(Knox et al, : 1548, failing to note that the former have an objective dimension that requires careful attention.…”

The Australian Government’s business-friendly employment response to COVID-19: A critical discourse analysis

“…This process is both caused by, and contributes to, the shift in power away from labour, and towards managers (Kalleberg, 2012(Kalleberg, , 2013Wilson and Ebert, 2013). Flexible work arrangements are claimed to offer workers freedom, autonomy and choice but are often characterised by reduced income and poor working conditions (Burrows, 2013;Johnson, 2015).…”

“…The impacts of precarious work are felt most acutely by people at greater risk of social and economic marginalisation, particularly young women (Nielsen et al, 2019; Rubery et al, 2018), workers with limited skills and education or who lack knowledge of workplace rights (Buchanan et al, 2006; Burgess et al, 2013; Johnson, 2015), single mothers (Chan and Tweedie, 2015), and migrant workers (Anderson, 2010).…”

Continuing the precedent: Financially disadvantaging young people in "unprecedented" COVID‐19 times

“…HR Assured 2016; Rozner 2018), however, are often characterised by low and insecure income, reduced entitlements and poor job quality (Burrows 2013; Dixon et al. 2014; Johnson 2015). Neoliberalism promotes deregulation, privatisation, insecure labour and diminished spending in welfare and education, approaches implemented by both social democratic and conservative governments from the 1980s onwards (Connell & Dados 2014).…”

“…Young people, alongside other socially disadvantaged groups such as women, workers with misrecognised skills, limited education or knowledge of workplace rights, single mothers and migrant workers, are particularly vulnerable to these negative effects of precarious work (Burrows 2013; Dixon et al. 2014; Johnson 2015; Worth 2016; Rubery et al. 2018).…”