Precarious work, job stress, and health‐related quality of life

Abstract

Objectives Recent technological and work organization changes have resulted in an increased prevalence of nonstandard work arrangement types. One of the consequences has been an increased prevalence of precarious work. Our objective was to generate a scale to measure work precariousness in the United States and examine the associations between this study precariousness scale with job stress, unhealthy days, and days with activity limitations among US workers from 2002 to 2014, to determine if precarious work adversely affects worker health. Methods Our scale was inspired by the Employment Precariousness Scale that measures work precariousness reported by salaried workers and developed for the US workforce. We used pooled cross‐sectional data from 22 representative items from the General Social Survey, Quality of Work Life survey for the years 2002, 2006, 2010, and 2014. These data included 4534 observations for analysis. We used regression models to examine associations between work precariousness and job stress, unhealthy days, and days with activity limitations. Results Statistically significant positive association existed between job stress and work precariousness. Workers reporting work precariousness were more likely to experience more days in poor physical and mental health and more days with activity limitations due to health problems. Conclusions The results of our study provide support for our precariousness scale and its suitability for assessing the health‐related quality of life of workers in different work arrangements.

Barriers and Facilitators of Implementing Injury Prevention Practices by Massage Therapists

“…This demonstrates that management can act adversely on employees who want to implement safety changes in the workplace. Research demonstrates that negative relations with management and a management that does not promote workplace safety are associated with higher injury rates at work, higher turnover, absenteeism, and presenteeism 11,21,40,41,47,48 …”

“…To complicate matters further, at the individual level MTs have varying degrees of personal control over known risk factors such as client type, equipment, hours of work, frequency and duration of breaks, and time off between shifts 1 . Research has demonstrated that when employees work in settings characterized by low decision authority, lack of autonomy, and unsupportive management, they have higher job stress, dissatisfaction, absenteeism, job turnover, and increased physical complaints 11,21,27–31 …”

Work Stressors and Occupational Health of Young Employees: The Moderating Role of Work Adaptability

“…Work stress caused by high demand-low control tasks influences the wellbeing of employees ( Heyeon et al, 2019 ; Kern et al, 2020 ). Work stress from job precautious affects health-related quality of life ( Bhattacharya and Ray, 2021 ), and workplace-related stress can be detrimental to employees’ mental health ( Dunnette, 1992 ; Wan et al, 2020 ; Bogaerts et al, 2021 ). Work stress has a long history of influencing the occupational health of employees, and scientific intervention strategies need to be developed in order to combat this issue ( Roozeboom et al, 2020 ).…”

The NIOSH Future of Work Initiative Research Agenda.

“…Distinctions for concepts specifically related to non-standard work arrangements also include contingent work (a job that is not expected to last) and precarious employment [Bushnell et al 2017, NIOSH 2019 (work with some degree of insecurity; temporariness; vulnerability to unfair treatment; inability to negotiate pay, benefits, and work schedule; lack of ability to take leave; and no social safety net, including unemployment and workers' compensation insurance) [Bhattacharya et al 2021]. These differentiations are further used to understand certain aspects of newer types of non-standard work arrangements that have materialized over the years, such as "gig" ones, which are temporary, short-term commitments that arose in part due to the development and implementation of new technologies (Goal 6).…”

“…Various aspects of organizational design (Goal 1), such as flexibility in schedule, location, and work arrangements (Goal 3), can also undesirably affect workers' economic security. Compared to workers in permanent, full-time jobs, workers in nonstandard work arrangements (Goal 3) frequently earn less income, have fewer benefits, work in less safe and healthy environments, and experience more precariousness [Bhattacharya et al 2021]. In addition, businesses continue to face shareholder pressure to produce short-term profits, foregoing investments in their workforce that Indeed, financial accounting standards classify costs associated with workers as expenses even though equipment and other tangible goods are considered as assets; as a result, employers optimize the latter and minimize the former [Coff et al 1993].…”