| Chapter 2: | The Contingent Work Employment Relationship and Its Implications |
|
|
This is a limited free preview of this book. Please buy full access.
location of work, and work schedules (Lewchuk et al., 2003; Lewchuk, de Wolff, King, & Polanyi, 2006; Vosko, 2006); and a corresponding unpredictability and lack of control over personal and work life.
Contingent Work as Disadvantage
The perspective of contingent work as precariousness is closely related to its conception as disadvantage. The latter concept emphasises exploitation, marginalisation, powerlessness, race/ethnicity, and gender. Exploitation is tacitly expressed in the assertion by Barker and Christensen (1998) that contingent workers are (hyper)commodified, nonrenewable resources that are easily replenished. Several factors are seen to intersect to create the conditions and experiences of exploitation. They include the vulnerability and/or marginality of populations such as immigrants and undocumented workers as well as the dangers of unregulated work or work that takes place beyond the reach of labour laws (Broad, 2000; Burgess & Connell, 2004; Peck & Theodore, 1998; Tassie, 1997). Exploitation might occur through the lowering of wages and benefits, discrimination and/or (sexual) harassment, not being paid for work that has been done, minimal legal protections, and the shifting of some of the risks and costs of doing business to contingent workers.
From this perspective on contingent work, particular forms of work organisation (e.g., participative work practices) might be seen as exploiting workers because it taps into their aspirations and goals, such as landing a full-time position (Smith, 1998). Given that some workers approach contingent employment as a screening mechanism and use it to increase their chances for full-time employment, Smith (1998) believed that these workers would often engage in ‘deep self-discipline’, avoid ‘rocking the boat’, work to distance themselves from the prevailing stereotypes of