InternationalJournalof Manpower
Vulnerabilityandagencywork:fromtheworkers’perspectives
RobynCochraneTuiMcKeown
Article information:
Tocite this document:
RobynCochraneTuiMcKeown, (2015),"Vulnerability andagencywork: fromthe workers’perspectives", InternationalJournalofManpower,Vol.36 Iss 6pp.947-965
Permanentlinktothisdocument:
Downloadedon:31October2015,At:15:27(PT)
References:thisdocumentcontainsreferencesto50otherdocuments.Tocopythisdocument:
Thefulltextofthisdocumenthasbeendownloaded130timessince2015*
Users whodownloadedthisarticlealso downloaded:
John Burgess,JuliaConnell, (2015),"Vulnerable workandstrategies for inclusion:anintroduction",InternationalJournalofManpower,Vol.36 Iss 6pp.794-806
IJM-06-2015-0085
VassilKirov, PernilleHohnen, (2015),"Trade unionsstrategies to addressinclusionofvulnerableemployeesin“anchored”servicesin Europe",InternationalJournalofManpower,Vol.36 Iss 6pp.848-873
SophieHennekam,(2015),"Employabilityofolderworkersin the Netherlands:antecedentsandconsequences", InternationalJournalofManpower,Vol.36 Iss 6pp.931-946
AccesstothisdocumentwasgrantedthroughanEmeraldsubscriptionprovidedbyemerald-srm:451335[]
For Authors
Ifyouwouldliketowriteforthis,oranyotherEmeraldpublication,thenpleaseuseourEmeraldforAuthorsserviceinformationabouthowtochoosewhichpublicationtowriteforandsubmissionguidelinesareavailableforall.Pleasevisit
About Emerald
Emeraldisaglobalpublisherlinkingresearchandpracticetothebenefitofsociety.Thecompanymanagesaportfolioofmorethan290journalsandover2,350booksandbookseriesvolumes,aswellasprovidinganextensiverangeofonlineproductsandadditionalcustomerresourcesand services.
Vulnerability andagencywork: fromtheworkers’perspectives
RobynCochraneandTuiMcKeown
DepartmentofManagement,MonashUniversity,Clayton,Australia
Abstract
Purpose–Thenotionofworkervulnerabilityisoftenseenassynonymouswithdisadvantageindiscussionsofnonstandardwork.Thepurposeofthispaperistoseparateandexaminethesetwonotionsbyconsideringeconomic,socialandpsychologicalperspectivesandexploringtherealityasexperiencedbyagencyworkers.
Design/methodology/approach–Intotal,178Australianclericalagencyworkersemployedbyeightagenciescompletedamailquestionnaire.Personalisedresponsesweresubjectedtocomputer-assistedtemplateanalysis.
Findings–Samplecharacteristicsrevealedagenderedandheterogeneousworkforce.Findingsshowedevidenceofeconomic,psychologicalandsocialvulnerabilitiesalthoughfavourablefeatureswerealsoreported.Thisapparentcontradictionsuggestslinkagesbetweenthefeaturesofnonstandardwork,workerpreferences,individualcharacteristicsandtheexperienceofworkervulnerability.
Researchlimitations/implications–Thenotionofvaryingdegreesofworkervulnerabilityoffersanewlenstoinvestigateagencywork.Therelativelysmallsamplesize,focusonclericalworkandfeaturesoftheAustraliancontextmaylimitgeneralisability.
Practicalimplications–Findingsdemonstratethenatureandextentofagencyworkervulnerabilitywhichallowsustoofferpolicyinterventionsforgovernments,agenciesanduserorganisationsandinsightsforprospectiveagencyworkers.
Originality/value–Thewidespreaduseofagencyworkersprovidesanimperativeforframeworks toassessthenuancesoftheagencyworkexperience.Thisstudypresentstherealityofagencyworkasexperiencedbytheworkersandrevealsthegoodandbadaspectsofagencywork.
KeywordsGender,Contingentworkers,Labourmarket,Flexiblelabour,Disadvantagedgroups, Temporaryworkers
PapertypeResearchpaper
1.Introduction
Theuseoftemporarystaffingagenciesandcontractedworkarrangementsallows
organisationstoadapttoanincreasinglycompetitiveanddynamicenvironment.Whilesuch“demand-driven”practicesmayprovebeneficialforemployersandfinancially
lucrativeforagencies,therearepotentiallyfar-reachingconsequencesforindividualworkers. As reported by Kalleberg(2011),thegrowth and profile ofprecariousworkinternationallysince the 1970s has crystallised concerns about the qualityofemploymentthat is unpredictable and involves risk shifting from employerstoemployees.
Thenotionofworkervulnerabilityisacentralfeatureindiscussionsofnonstandardwork(alsolabelledprecarious,contingentortemporarywork).However,asnotedby
Burgessetal.(2013,p.4084),“vulnerabilityandprecariousnessarenotsynonymouseveniftheyarelinked”.Itisthislinkagethatourpaperseekstoexplore.Theseminal
workofDoeringerandPiore(1971)madethetheoreticalconnectionbetweenvulnerableemploymentand nonstandard workandthishas beensupportedbyawealth ofempiricalstudies.However,itisthepaceandextentofoverallgrowthtrendsinnonstandardworkthathasledtowidespreadconcernsandcallsforfurtherresearch(Ashfordetal.,2007;BurgessandConnell,2004).
Vulnerabilityandagency
work
947
Received30January2014
Revised 1 July2014
15September2014
15November2014
Accepted19 November2014
InternationalJournalofManpower
Vol.36No.6,2015
pp.947-965
©EmeraldGroupPublishingLimited
0143-7720
DOI10.1108/IJM-01-2014-0030
IJM36,6
948
Agencyworkhasbeenanimportantfeatureofthegrowthwithinthenonstandardworkforceinternationallyandisthefocus ofthispaper.The temporarystaffingindustrymakesasubstantialeconomiccontributionandagenciesemployandassignsignificantnumberofworkersworldwide(Ciett,2014;Coeetal.,2009).Agencyworkersarecommonlyemployedonatemporarybasisandhaveatriangularworkarrangementwherebytheworkerisplacedbytheagencytoworkatthepremisesofathirdparty(userorganisation)andthusservesmultiplemasters(BurgessandConnell,2004;Ruberyetal.,2004).Forthesereasons,agencyworkersarelikelytobevulnerablealthoughtheextentmaydependuponindividualcharacteristics,occupationalstatusandthedegreeoflabourmarketprotection(Kalleberg,2011).Howeverthenotionof
agencyworkervulnerabilityiscomplexassomeevidencesuggests“supplyside”
factorsandworkerpreferenceshavealsocontributedtothegrowthtrends(Ciett,2014;LopesandChambel,2014;TanandTan,2002).
Withthiscontextinmind,theaimofthisstudyistoexaminethecomplexityofagencyworkervulnerabilitybyexploringtheexperiencesandperceptionsofagencyworkers.Australiawasselectedastheresearchsettingasthetemporarystaffingindustryiswellestablished,lightlyregulatedandgovernmentinvestigationsofagencyworkarrangementshavenotaddressedthenotionofworkervulnerability.Thispaperisorganisedasfollows.First,weconsiderthetheoreticalperspectivesandempiricalevidenceunderpinningthedimensionsofworkervulnerability(economic,socialandpsychological)aswellasthelessestablishedliteraturewhichrevealsfavourableaspects.KeyfeaturesofagencyworkintheAustraliancontextarethenoutlined.Themethodsectiondescribestheresearchprocess,samplecharacteristics,datacollectionandanalysisapproach.Thefindingsarethenpresentedanddiscussed.Thefinalsectionprovidesaconsiderationofourfindings,outlinesstudylimitationsandareasforfutureresearch.
2.Theoreticalperspectivesconnectingnonstandardworkandvulnerableworkers
Workervulnerabilityisacentralfeatureintheliteratureexaminingnonstandard
work.TheBritishTradesUnionCongress(2008,p.3)capturestheessenceoftheliterature,definingvulnerableemploymentas“precariousworkthatplacespeopleat
riskofcontinuingpovertyandinjusticeresultingfromanimbalanceofpowerintheemployer-work relationship”. This power imbalance is evident in the theoretical
discussionsoforganisationalflexibility.
SeminalworkbyAveritt(1968)ondualmarketstructuresemphasisedacore-peripherydivisioninrelationtotheorganisation,industrystructureandlabourmarket.Doeringer
andPiore(1971,p.165)providedaspecificlabourmarketperspective,identifyingprimaryandsecondarymarkets,wherethesecondarymarketischaracterisedby“lowwages
andfringebenefits,poorworkingconditions,highlabourturnover,littlechanceofadvancement,andoftenarbitraryandcapricioussupervision”.
Researchersinthemid-1980smovedtowardsmodelsoforganisationallabourutilisationstrategieswhichemphasisedandcombineddifferenttypesofflexibility.Arguably,oneofthemostinfluentialapproachesistheflexiblefirmmodel(Atkinson,1984).Inthelate1980s,organisationalbehaviourresearchersreconsideredthecore-peripheryapproachandexaminedworker-organisationconnections,identifyinglongterm,permanent attachmentsthroughtorelativelyweak,flexibleattachments(PfefferandBaron,1988).Belous(1989)expressedthissameideaasanemployer-employeeaffiliationspectrumwhichproposedstandardworkershaveastrongaffiliationtotheemployerorganisationandnonstandard
workershaveashortandweak affiliation witha specificorganisation. Empiricalevidenceinsupportofthesepropositionshasbeenmixed.
Insum,thesetheoreticalperspectivesprovideageneralplatformwhichportraysnonstandardworkasinsecure,inferiorandasignificantdeparturefromthestandardemploymentmodel.
3.Theworkexperiencesofnonstandardandagencyworkers
Nonstandardworkersarenotvulnerablesimplydue to the temporary nature oftheirworkarrangement.Indeed,thesimpledichotomyofnonstandardvsstandardemploymentispartofamorecomplexworker-employer/organisationrelationship.Psychologicalcontracttheoryisadominantframeworkusedtoexaminethereciprocalexchangeagreementinemployee-employerrelationshipsaswellasanindividual’ssubjectivebeliefsaboutthemutualobligationsandpromisesthatexistbeyondtheformalcontract(Rousseau,1995).Recentstudieshavedemonstratedthataspectsofthepsychologicalcontractarechallengedandcomplexinagencyworkarrangements(Guest,2004;Lapalmeetal.,2011;McLeanParksetal.,1998).Thus,thisstudydrawsonworkbyMcLeanParksetal.(1998)whichrefinedandextendedthetheoryonpsychologicalcontractstoaccommodatemorediversetypesofworkrelationships.AsshowninTableI,theauthorspresentedeightcoredimensions(stability,scope,tangibility,focus,timeframe,particularism,multipleagencyrelationshipsandvolition)tohighlightthedifferencesandsimilaritiesamongstworkrelationships.
Vulnerabilityandagency
work
949
Psychologicalcontact dimensions(McLeanParksetal.,1998)
Distinguishingfeaturesoftemporarywork(BurgessandConnell,2004,p.4)
Dimensionsofworker vulnerability(Kalleberg,2011)
Stability:likelytobemorestaticandlessmalleable
Scope:morelikelytobenarrower,withlittlespilloverbetweenworkandpersonallifeTangibility:likelytobemoretangibleorobservable
Focus:lessemphasisonsocio-emotionalconcerns
Durationofwork:generallylimited,shortterm,unpredictable
Labourforcestatus:fullandpart-timeworkers,employees,own-accountworkers,employedandunemployed
Entitlements:reducedduetolimiteddurationofemployment
Economic:referstothelevelandstabilityofcompensation
(suchasearnings,fringebenefitsespeciallyleaveoptions,healthinsuranceandretirement benefitsaswellasopportunities toincreaseearnings)
Social:relatesto theextenttowhichindividualshavecontrol
Timeframe:expecteddurationof andoftennotmeeting qualifying overtheiropportunitiesto
relationshipis shorterwithmore conditions
participateindecisionmaking,
finitetimeframes Particularism:resources exchangedarelikelytobelessuniqueandnon-substitutableMultipleagencyrelationships:
Locationofwork:mayhavemultiplelocations,willchange witheachengagement Regulation:differsacrosscountries,associatedwith
teamsorcommitteesandcommunications withothersPsychological:referstothedegreeofautonomyandcontroloverworkactivities,work
likelytobemorefragmentedand reducedregulationandlimited
schedule, termination of the
TableI.
ambiguous,simultaneously
regulation
jobandintrinsicrewards
Framework
fulfilsobligationstotwoormore Representation: lowerratesof
underlyingthe
entitieswithfullknowledgeand
sanctionfrombothVolition:lesslikelytohave
voluntarilyselectedthenatureoftheemploymentrelationshiporhad
inputintothetermsofthe“deal”
unionisation,difficultieswith
recruitment,protectionandorganisation
Engagement:tendtohavesimultaneousormultipleengagementsovertheyear
review ofthe
literaturedistinguishingtemporaryand
standardemploymentmodels
IJM36,6
950
BurgessandConnell(2004)providedacomprehensiveoutlineofthedistinguishingfeaturesoftemporaryemployment,namely:durationofwork;labourforcestatus;entitlements;locationofwork;regulation;representation;andengagement.Theprogression,fromtheexplicitpsychologicalfocusofMcLeanParksetal.(1998),tothedistinctionsofferedbyBurgessandConnell(2004),pointstothemultipleimplicationsthateachfeaturemayhaveintermsofKalleberg’s(2011)dimensionsofvulnerability.TheframeworkpresentedinTableIprovidesacomprehensivebasistoguideaninvestigationofworkervulnerability.Further,theimportanceofworkervolitionandpersonalchoiceraisedbyMcLeanParksetal.(1998)isevidentin
theemergingevidenceof“supplyside”drivers(Evansetal.,2004;Kirkpatrickand
Hoque,2006).Accordingly,thisliteratureisalsoreviewed.
3.1Dimensionsofworkervulnerabilityandagencywork
AccordingtoKalleberg(2011),changesoccurringwithinemploymentarrangementsareconnectedtoworkervulnerabilityintermsofjobquality.Inviewofthecomplexityunderlyingjobquality,Kalleberg(2011)distinguishedeconomicandnon-economic(socialandpsychological)aspectsandnotedtheroleofpersonalchoiceindeterminingjobquality.Asshowninlistbelow,thesedimensionsprovideaframeworkforre-consideringthecomplexityandfeaturesofagencywork(Featuresofagencyworkrelatedtodimensionsofvulnerabilityandillustrativecitations):
(1)Economic vulnerability:
•economicorjobinsecurity(Boothetal.,2002;CaseyandAlach,2004;Kundaetal.,2002);
•nopaidemploymententitlements,sickleaveorannualleave(Evansetal.,2004;KirkpatrickandHoque,2006;McGovernetal.,2004;Mitlacher,2008;OxenbridgeandMoensted,2011;UnderhillandQuinlan,2011);
•fewfringebenefits,healthinsuranceorpensions(Kallebergetal.,2000;KirkpatrickandHoque,2006;McGovernetal.,2004;Mitlacher,2008);
•periodsofunwantedunemploymentorunderemployment(Evansetal.,2004;Kundaetal.,2002;McKeown,2005;Rogers,2000);
•generallyloworvariablepayrates(Kallebergetal.,2000;Knox,2014;Mitlacher,2008;OxenbridgeandMoensted,2011);and
•lowadvancementorlimitedpromotionprospects(Boothetal.,2002;Knox,2014;McGovernetal.,2004).
(2)Socialvulnerability:
•isolationandlimitedsocialintegration(Mitlacher,2008;SwartandKinnie,2014;UnderhillandQuinlan,2011);
•alienationandsocialexclusion(GundertandHohendanner,2014;KirkpatrickandHoque,2006;Rogers,2000);
•clientemployees’negativeattitudesordisinterest(Evansetal.,2004;Mitlacher,2008);and
•treatedasanoutsider,differentlytoregularemployees(KirkpatrickandHoque,2006;Kundaetal.,2002;Rogers,2000;SwartandKinnie,2014).
(3)Psychological vulnerability:
•clientdominatesthearrangement(SwartandKinnie,2014);
•skillsunderutilised(Rogers,2000;UnderhillandQuinlan,2011);
•zerohoursnotice,employmentatwilldoctrine(Mitlacher,2008);
•repeatedlylookingfororaligningwork(Evansetal.,2004;Kundaetal.,2002);
•higherratesofinjuries,harassment,poorhealthandwell-being(ConnellyandGallagher,2004;Knox,2014;Mitlacher,2008;OxenbridgeandMoensted,2011;Rogers,2000;UnderhillandQuinlan,2011);
•assignmenthasundesirablefeaturesofduration,locationorhours(Evans
etal.,2004;Ruberyetal.,2004;Rogers,2000;UnderhillandQuinlan,2011);
•low-statusposition,dispensable,onlya“temp”(GundertandHohendanner,
2014;KirkpatrickandHoque,2006;Rogers,2000;UnderhillandQuinlan,2011);
•lackofcontroloverlabourprocessortasks(Evansetal.,2004;CaseyandAlach,2004;Knox,2014);
•diminishedlifecoursepredictability(GundertandHohendanner,2014;Knox,2014);
•distancedfromemployingagency(Marchingtonetal.,2011;SwartandKinnie,2014);
•limitedaccesstoinduction,trainingandlearningopportunities(Bonetetal.,2013;Boothetal.,2002;Knox,2014;UnderhillandQuinlan,2011);
•littleinfluenceinnegotiatingworkconditions(Bonetetal.,2013);and
•ambiguitiesorconflictduetoserving multiple masters(Bonetetal.,2013;Ruberyetal.,2004;UnderhillandQuinlan,2011).
“Economicvulnerability”referstothelevelandstabilityofeconomiccompensation.Indicatorssuchaslowerlevelsofearnings,earningsinstabilityandlimitedaccesstobenefitsarewellestablishedintheliteratureexaminingagencywork(BurgessandConnell,2004).
“Social vulnerability”relates to the extent to which workers have control over
opportunitiestoparticipateindecisionmaking,teamsandcommunicationswithothers.Theexplicitidentificationoftheseaspectsemphasisesthepotentialformulti-organisationworkarrangementstodisregardthehumanneedfor supportive relationships andsocialparticipation,whichhasimplicationsforsocialwell-being.Forinstance,empiricalevidencesuggestssomeagencyworkersfeelalienatedandlikeanoutsider(GundertandHohendanner,2014;SwartandKinnie,2014).
“Psychologicalvulnerability”referstothedegreeofautonomyandcontrol as
wellasintrinsicrewards.Agencyworkershave limitedscopetoincorporatetheirownexpectationsandhopeswithintheemploymentcontractandpsychologicalcontract
andoftenexperiencevariabilityintheextenttowhich“promises”arekept(Lapalme
etal.,2011;McLeanParksetal.,1998).Further,workersmayhaveassignmentswithundesirablefeatures(Rogers,2000),aredistancedfromtheemployingagency(SwartandKinnie,2014)andmaybeexposedtoambiguitiesorconflictinservingmultiplemasters(Bonetetal.,2013;Ruberyetal.,2004).
Vulnerabilityandagency
work
951
IJM36,6
952
Overall,basedontheevidencepresentedinlistabove,agencyworkisprecariousemploymentalthoughworkersmayexperience differing degrees of job qualityandvulnerability.
3.2Reasonsforpursuingoracceptingagencyworkarrangements
Demographicshifts,increasesinwomen’sparticipationintheworkforceandchangingworkpreferenceshaveprobablycontributedtothegrowthinagencywork(Bidwelletal.,2013;BurgessandConnell,2004),ashavetheeffortsoftheinternationalisingtemporarystaffingindustry(Coeetal.,2009).Emergingevidencesupports the contentionthatsome workers prefer and eventhriveinsuch workarrangements.Asshowninlistbelow, the framework presented by Tan andTan (2002) providesausefulbasisfor categorisingthis evidence(Supplysidedrivers,favourablefeaturesofagencyworkandillustrativecitations):
(1)Familyrelatedandflexibleschedule:
•flexibilitytobalanceworkandfamilyorpersonalneeds(BernasekandKinnear,1999;KirkpatrickandHoque,2006;Knox,2014;LopesandChambel,2014;McKeown,2005);
•fewerworkinghoursorthegreaterschedulingflexibility(Evansetal.,2004;Knox,2014);
•flexibilityoftemporaryemployment(AlonzoandSimon,2008;BernasekandKinnear,1999;CaseyandAlach,2004;McKeown,2005);and
•freedomtochoosehoursofwork(BernasekandKinnear,1999;deJongetal.,2009;Evansetal.,2004;Ellingsonetal.,1998;LopesandChambel,2014).
(2)Economicincentive:
•providesanemploymentoptionforindividuals(BernasekandKinnear,1999;Ciett,2014;LopesandChambel,2014);
•earnsupplementarywagesorextrawagesquickly(AlonzoandSimon,2008;KirkpatrickandHoque,2006);and
•reasonableorsuperiorpayrates(Evansetal.,2004;KirkpatrickandHoque,2006;Knox,2014;Kundaetal.,2002;Marleretal.,2002;McKeown,2005).
(3)Self-improvement:
•opportunitytotryoutemployersandjobs(TanandTan,2002);
•provideschallengingandmeaningfulwork(Kundaetal.,2002;Marleretal.,2002);and
•developmarketable,transferableornewskills(KirkpatrickandHoque,2006;Knox,2014;Kundaetal.,2002;LopesandChambel,2014).
(4)Personalpreference:
•prefertheautonomy,controlandindependence(CaseyandAlach,2004;KirkpatrickandHoque,2006;Kundaetal.,2002;McKeown,2005);
•bettermatchforworkpreferences(CaseyandAlach,2004);
•providesvariety(AlonzoandSimon,2008;Ellingsonetal.,1998;Evans
etal.,2004;KirkpatrickandHoque,2006;Knox,2014;Kundaetal.,2002);
•freedomfromorganisationaldemands,politicsandgossip(CaseyandAlach,2004;KirkpatrickandHoque,2006;Kundaetal.,2002);and
•preferableduringpersonaltransitionalperiods(AlonzoandSimon,2008;CaseyandAlach,2004;KirkpatrickandHoque,2006).
(5)Bridgeorpathwaytoapermanentormorestablejob:
•Pathwaytothelabourmarket,temp-to-permtransition,permanentormorestablework(AlonzoandSimon,2008;Bonetetal.,2013;Boothetal.,2002;Ciett,2014;deJongetal.,2009;Knox,2014;McKeown,2005;Mitlacher,2008).
“Familyrelatedandflexibleschedule”referstothe benefitsassociated withflexibilityto
manage work and non-work needs and interests. Some individuals have reported
schedulingflexibilityisafavourableaspectofagencywork(AlonzoandSimon,2008;Evansetal.,2004;KirkpatrickandHoque,2006).“Economicincentive”relatestoearning
anincomeorextraincomewhenneededandwithouthavingtocompriseotherworkornon-workcommitments.Agencyworkhasbeenfoundtoenhanceworkeremploymentoptionsandprovidereasonableorsuperiorpayrates(Ciett,2014;McKeown,2005).
“Self-improvement”referstotheopportunitytogainworkexperience,newskills
andenhanceemployability.Forinstance,workersaccessemployersandjobsonatemporarybasis,experiencechallengingandmeaningfulwork,learnnewsystemsanddevelopskills(Evansetal.,2004;LopesandChambel,2014).
“Personalpreference”iscloselyrelatedtoworkervolitionandreferstotheaspects
ofautonomy,independenceandfreedomassociatedwithagencywork.Forsomeindividuals,agencyworkisabetterfitwiththeirpersonalneedsorsenseofworkwell-being(KirkpatrickandHoque,2006;LopesandChambel,2014).Thefinalcategory
of “bridge or pathway” sees agency work operate as a vehicle to more stable
employment,whichisevidentintheinternationalliterature(Boothetal.,2002;BurgessandCampbell,1998;Knox,2014).
Insum,incontrasttotheevidencepreviouslypresentedintheabovelistspresentsagencyworkasdesirableandnotnecessarilydetrimentaltoworkers.Inanattempttoshedlightonthesecontradictoryfindings,weinvestigatetheworkers’experienceofjob qualityand vulnerabilityand containourinvestigationto a single national contextandoccupation.
4.TheAustraliancontextofagencywork
Theliteratureexaminingagencyworkcommonlyfindsthattheextentofprecariousnessandworkervulnerabilitymaybeinfluencedbythedegreeoflabourmarketprotectioninthenationalsetting,theregulatoryapproachtothetemporarystaffingindustryandoccupationalstatus.ThesefindingsarespecificallyrelevanttoAustraliawherethelightlyregulatedframeworkiscitedbysomeasanexplanationforthegrowthofagencyworkandconcernshavebeenraisedaboutagencyworkervulnerability(Coeetal.,2009;UnderhillandQuinlan,2011).InAustralia,thetemporarystaffingindustryisgrowinganddiversifying.Agenciesvaryintermsofserviceofferingsandscopeofoperations,andthemajorityofagencyworkersarecasualemployees(BurgessandConnell,2005;Coeetal.,2009).CasualemploymentisapracticefirmlyanchoredinelementsoftheAustralianlabourregulationsystem(BurgessandCampbell,1998).
SimilartotheUSA,UK,CanadaandNewZealand,inAustraliatherearefewnationalregulationssurroundingagencywork,sectorallimitations,limitationson
Vulnerabilityandagency
work
953
IJM36,6
954
reasonsforhire,maximumdurationofhire,maximumrenewalortotalduration(BurgessandConnell,2004,2005).Whiletheagencyisgenerallyregardedastheemployer,boththeagencyanduserorganisationmayhavelegalhealthandsafetyobligationstoagencyworkers(JohnstoneandQuinlan,2006).Duetonationaldatacollectionlimitations,theexperienceofagencyworkerswithinthislightlyregulatedindustryremainsunclear.However,itisclearthattheworkers’experiencesvaryaccordingtooccupationalstatus.
Attheprofessionalandeliteendoftheagencyworkspectrum,whilethereissomeacknowledgementofthechallenges,theoutlookwithinAustraliaandinternationally,appearstobe somewhatoptimisticand individuallydriven(AlonzoandSimon,2008;KirkpatrickandHoque,2006;McKeown,2005).Incontrast,workersinlowerendandservicesectoroccupationsaremorelikelytohavepoorjobquality.InAustralia,agencyworkersrangingfromhotelhousekeeperstoclericalworkersareemployedonacasualbasis,oftenexperiencepoortreatmentbyuserorganisationsandhavegreaterexposuretohealthandsafetyhazards(Knox,2014;OxenbridgeandMoensted,2011;UnderhillandQuinlan,2011).
Inthepasttenyears,therehavebeenanumberofgovernmentinvestigationsofagencyworkandlabourhirearrangements(seeHouseofRepresentativesStandingCommitteeonEmployment,WorkplaceRelationsandWorkplaceParticipation,2005;ParliamentofVictoriaEconomicDevelopmentCommittee,2005).Otherthanspurringbestpracticemodelsformanaginghealthandsafety,theseinquirieshavenotaddressedthenotionofworkervulnerability.Thus,weinvestigatethevulnerabilitiesexperiencedbyindividualsworkinginalowerendoccupation.
5.Researchmethod
InAustralia,thereisnodesignatedbodyrepresentingagencyworkersnoristhereacomprehensivenationaldatabase.However,thisisnotuncommonasempiricalresearchofteninvolvesnon-randomsamplingapproachesandrelativelysmallsamplesizes(Ashfordetal.,2007).ApurposivesamplingapproachwasusedtoselecteightagenciesoperatinginVictoria,Australiathatmatchworkerswithclericalassignments.Clericaloccupationshaveretainedastrongpresenceinthelabourmarket and agency work,andclerical agency workhas broad applicability toarangeofindividualsparticularlyfemales,inAustraliaandinternationally(Knox,2014;Rogers,2000;Vosko,2010).
Theselectionofmultipleagencieswithdiversecharacteristicsattemptedtoreducerestrictionofrangeissuesandavoidpeculiaritiesduetospecificrecruitmentstrategies.Participatingagenciesaremembersoftheindustryassociation(RecruitmentandConsultingServicesAssociationLimited)andtheircharacteristicsarepresentedinTableII.
5.1Descriptionofsample
Agenciesdistributedmailquestionnairesto757employeesand178(or24percent)useableresponseswerereturned.Anon-statisticalcomparisonofrespondentswithnon-respondentsondemographiccharacteristicsprovidedbyagenciesindicatednomajordifferences.Respondents’characteristicsarepresentedinTableIII.
5.2Datacollectioninstrument
Thisstudydrawsontheresponses totwoopen-endedquestions:“Overall,whatarethedisadvantagesorproblemsassociatedwithagencyworkforyoupersonally?”
Vulnerabilityandagency
work
955
Table II.Aggregatedcharacteristicof
agencies
IJM36,6
956
Table III.Personalandwork-relatedcharacteristicsreportedbyrespondents
CharacteristicResponsesforentiresample(n¼178)
GenderFemale:80%
Male:20%
AgeMean¼36(range19-64years)
Median¼33years
MaritalstatusSingle:54%
Married/WithPartner:46%
DependentchildrenoradultsNone:81%
Oneormore:19%
HighestlevelofeducationSecondary/Highschooleducation:22%Certificatelevel:18%
Advanceddiploma/Diploma:12%
Bachelordegree:36%
Graduatediploma/Certificate:6%
Postgraduatedegree:6%
WorkexperienceasanagencyworkerMean¼32(range0-180months)LengthofregistrationwithagencyMean¼20(range0.50-144months)Yearsofworkexperience Mean¼12(range0-45years)
LengthofcurrentassignmentMean¼261(range0-3,740days)
PreviousassignmentwithcurrentclientNo:66%
Yes:34%
Grosshourlyrate($AUDbeforetax)Mean¼21(range$17-$33perhour)
HouseholdincomeearnerstatusMainearner: 48%Supplementaryearner:52%
HoursworkedperweekinallpaidjobsMean¼32(range6-50hours)
Preferred work schedule(hoursperweek)Full-time(35+):56%
Part-time(o35):44%
Numberofagenciespaidbyinpast12months One:62%,Two:25%,Three:8%,Fourormore:5%
and“Overall,whatarethemainadvantagesorbenefitsofagencyworkforyoupersonally?”Thequestionswereembeddedwithinamostlyquantitativesurveyas
partofalargerresearchproject.
5.3Dataanalysisapproach
Contentanalysishasbeen acrossa wide variety ofdisciplines. Thetemplateapproachwasconsideredsuitableastheframeworkspresentedinthelistgivenabovecouldbeefficientlyusedtocategorisetheresponses.Aseparatewordfilewascreatedforeachsurveyresponseandthetextwasenteredverbatim.Thedataweresubjectedtomanualandcomputer-assistedanalysesusingtheNVivo10softwareprogramme.Thewordandphraselevelwasusedastheunitofanalysis.
6.Findings
Thefindingsfromthisstudyarepresentedanddiscussedinthecontextofrespondentcharacteristics.Frequencycountsandillustrativequotesareincorporatedwithinthepresentationofthefindings.
6.1Workervulnerabilityanddisadvantagesassociatedwithagencywork
ThedisadvantagesassociatedwithagencyworkarepresentedinTableIVandgrouped by gender. Most respondents mentioned one or more disadvantages;
Female(n¼142)Male(n¼36)No.% No. %
Vulnerabilityandagency
work
957
Notes:n¼178.Respondentsreportedzero,oneormultipledisadvantages
Table IV.Disadvantagesassociatedwith agencywork presentedbytheme
andgender
malesreportedproportionallymoredisadvantagesthanfemalesand22respondentsindicated“nodisadvantages”areexperienced.
AsshowninTableIV,economicvulnerabilitywasexperiencedby60percentoffemalesand75percentofmales.Overall,economicandjobinsecuritywasthemostdominantthemefollowedbylackofpaidentitlementsandperiodsofunwantedunemploymentorunderemployment.Malerespondentsinparticularreferredtothegenerallylowandvaryingpayrates,fewfringebenefitsandlowadvancementorpromotion prospects.References toeconomic vulnerabilitywere commonacross
bothgendersandallagegroups.“[…]thelackofjobsecurity–ifyou’reavailable24/7,
365daysayear,thenyougetplentyofassignments;ifyouhaveotherconstraintsthenyouneverknowwhenyournextassignmentwillbe”(Female,25years).“Insecurity,aftersomeyearsinthesamejobasa‘temp’beinga‘temp’isacontradictioninterms”
(Male,59years).
Alackofpaidemploymententitlementsandlowhourlypayrateswasalsoevident.
“Payrateisquitelowincomparisontopermanentwork”(Female,25years).“[…]no
bonusesanditisamyththatyouearnmoremoneytocompensateforthis.Ihaveonlyeverreceivedlesspayperhourwhiletempingthanworkingperm”(Female,34years).“Money!
IJM36,6
958
SamerateofpayforthesametypeofassignmentsIwasundertakingin1990outrageous!”(Female,46years).“Theagencyconstantlyunderpays or triestoforcethelowestpossiblerateontemps”(Female,55years).“Payrateisquitelowincomparisontopermanentwork.Sinceitishourly,anytimelostmeanslessmoneyreceived”(Male,28years).
Socialvulnerabilitieswereexperiencedtoalesserdegree,withresponsesfrom17percentoffemalesand6percentofmales.Problemsofsocialexclusionandnegativeattitudesordisinterestshownbyuserorganisationco-workerswereevidentforfemales.
“Ihavemetalotofrudeandnastypeopleonassignments.Feelingofinferioritytopermanentstaffwhenonassignment”(Female,20years).“Alwaysfeellikeabitofanoutsider”(Female,48years).“Somepermanentstaffmemberstreatyoulikeyouarenotpartoftheteam(this is common),evenaftersixyears” (Female,50years).
Psychologicalvulnerabilitywasexperiencedby59percentoffemalesand67percentofmales.Lackofcontroloverthelabourprocessandjobsecuritywasadominanttheme.
“lackofcontrolastohowworkisdone,rigidstructureforbreaks[…]employercansendyouhomeaftertwohoursofworkifnotenoughwork(wasteoftrainticketcomingin)”(Male,29years).Theproblemofbeing“justatemp”wasevidentforfemalesonly.“AsatempIsometimesfeellikeI’mnothingmorethanadisposableconvenience”(Female,25years).“Peoplenotbeinginterestedinmeasaperson,I’mjust‘thetemp’!”
(Female,54years).Incontrast,theproblemofdiminishedlifecoursepredictabilityemergedasmoreofamaleissue.“Difficulttogetamortgage”(Male,31years).“Nothavingacontinuousincome,unabletomakefinancialdecisions,relianceonthe
Centrelink(Governmentsocialwelfare)safetynet”(Male,40years).
Referencestoundesirableassignmentsandissuesspecificto the triangularworkarrangementrevealedotheraspectsofpsychologicalvulnerability.“Agencies
tendtofilljobswithoutreallytakingyourdesiresintoaccount,oftensayinghowfabulousajobiswhentheyknow,andyouknow,it’sprettyawful”(Female,29years).“Someagenciesputclientneedsbeforeyourown.Tempsshouldcomefirst”(Female,
24years).Ofthe22respondentsthatexperienced“nodisadvantages”,21werefemales,
allagegroupswererepresented,fourhaddependents,11weresupplementaryhouseholdincomeearnersandall educationlevelswererepresented.
Overall,arangeofdisadvantageswerereportedwhichsuggestsmanyrespondents,particularlymales,experienceworkervulnerability.Economicandpsychologicalvulnerabilitiesinparticularappeartobeembeddedwithintheexperienceofclericalagencywork.
6.2Advantagesassociatedwithagencywork
TheadvantagesassociatedwithagencyworkarepresentedinTableVandgroupedbygender.Mostrespondentsmentionedoneormoreadvantages;femalesreported
proportionallymoreadvantagesthanmalesand15respondentsindicated“noadvantages”areexperienced.
AsshowninTableV,“familyrelatedandflexibleschedule”advantageswerereported
by54percentoffemalesand47percentofmales.Freedomandflexibilitytochoosehoursofworkwasthemostdominantthemealongwiththenotionofflexibility,acrossmanyage
groups.“Ihaveachoiceofhours/days,ammeetingnewpeopleandlearningnewskills”(Female,42years).“Icanbasicallychoosetoworktotimes Iwishto”(Male,20years).
Withreferenceto“economicincentive”,responsesshowedagencyworkprovidesatimely,paidemploymentoptionparticularlyforfemales.“Theyfindmeworkquickly.Lackof down-timebetween jobs”(Male,33years). “Independence–financiallywithouttheburdenofself-employment.Theworkisveryeasyandwellpaid”(Female,42years).
Female(n¼140)
Male(n¼34)
Vulnerabilityandagency
No.%No.%
work
959
Table V.Advantagesassociatedwith agencywork presentedbytheme
andgender
Inrelationto“self-improvement”,respondentsreferredtodevelopingnewandtransferableskillsbyaccessingdifferentworksituations.“Allowingyoutoworkindifferentindustriesandthendecidingwhichindustrysuitsyoubest”(Male,37years).“Becomingmulti-skilled,employerstendtofindthisimpressive”(Female,25years).
“Personal preference”responses highlightedtheappealofexperiencing avariety ofjobs,peopleandorganisations.“Igettoworkinavarietyofenvironmentswithsomegreatpeople”(Male,37years).“Variety,challengeofnewenvironments,meetingnew
peopleanddon’thavetothinkaboutworkoutsideofworkhours.Noorverylittleofficepoliticstodealwith”(Female,36years).
Thepotentialforagencyworktoprovideanemployment“bridgeorpathway”wasevident.“If apermanentrolecomes up inacompanyIam placed in thatIlike, thenIwillapplyforthepositionthroughtheagency”(Male,37years).“Iwouldpreferapermanentjob;however,workingthroughanagencyisbetterthannojob”(Female,59years).Anemergent themewaslabelled“agency support and encouragement”and relatedmostlytofemales.“TheyhelpmetogetworkexperienceintheAustralianmarket.Theyhavebeenveryencouraging”(Female,42years).
Intotal,15respondentsexperienced“noadvantages”.Oftheeightmales,fourwereaged
inthemidtolate50s,onehaddependents,threewerethemainhouseholdincomeearnerandfive heldqualificationsattheBachelorDegreeor GraduateDiploma/Certificatelevel.Contrarytothepreviousfindings,arangeoffavourablefeatureswerereported,especiallybyfemales.Thesedivergentfindingsrevealthenotionofvaryingdegreesofworkervulnerabilitybyconsideringitslinkageswiththefeaturesofnonstandard
work,workerpreferencesandindividualcharacteristics.
IJM36,6
960
7.Discussion
Nonstandardworkandvulnerableworkersareaworldwidephenomenonwhichisnotlikelytoreverseintheforeseeablefuture.Thus,investigatingjobqualityandworkervulnerabilityinthecontextofagencyworkisimportantduetoitspotentialconsequencesforindividual,household,organisationalandnationalwell-being.
Inthisstudyweexaminedthecomplexityofagencyworkervulnerabilitybyexploringtheexperiencesandperceptionsofagencyworkers.Incontrasttothecharacteristicsoftentheorisedasbeingassociatedwithsecondarylabourmarkets(Belous,1989;DoeringerandPiore,1971),ourfindingssuggestclericalagencyworkinvolvesabroadrangeofindividuals,predominantlyfemales,withdiversepersonalandwork-relatedcharacteristics.Forinstance,respondentsvariedgreatlyintermsofeducationlevels,workexperienceandlengthofattachmentwiththefocalagencyandcurrentuserorganisation.Theheterogeneouscharacteristicsofthissample,permitsustorevealavarietyofgoodandbadaspectstoagencywork.
InlinewiththecontentionsputforwardbyMcLeanParksetal.(1998)andBurgessandConnell(2004),ourfindingsshowtherealityofagencyworkinvolveslimited(andextended)timeframes,multi-organisationrelationships(withoneormoreagencies),restrictedvoluntariness(inagencyworkandworkassignments),limitedaccesstoemploymententitlementsandmultipleengagements(withuserorganisationsandchanginglocations).Further,ourfindingsdemonstratetheconnectionsbetweenthepsychologicalcontractdimensions,distinguishingfeaturesofagencyworkandworkervulnerability.Agencyworkislikelytobeassociatedwithpoorjobqualityunlesstheindividualworkerdeterminesthatthefavourableaspects(freedom,flexibility,employmentprospectsandvariety)outweightheinherentambiguitiesandchallenges.Whilethefindingsreportedhereareconsistentwiththosepresentedintheemerginginternationalliterature(KirkpatrickandHoque,2006;LopesandChambel,2014),wealsorevealedtheextenttowhichfavourablefeaturesareexperiencedandnotedconnectionstogenderandage.
Basedonourfindings,weofferthefollowingsuggestions.Whileagencyworkmeetstheneedsandpreferencesofsomeindividuals,casualemploymentisunlikelytoserveasabridgeintopermanentemploymentandmaynotbreaktheemployment-unemploymentcycle(Burgess andCampbell,1998).For individuals, agency work canbe: anacceptable
and “decent” form of work; substandard employment and a trap into insecure
employmentandmarginalisation;orabridgetosomethingbetter.Ourfindingsshowagencyworkmayinvolveskillsunderutilisation,underemployment,mainhouseholdincomeearners(oftenwithdependents)andindividualsbeinginvoluntarilyconfinedtoagencywork.Agencyworkersarepotentiallyvulnerableinthelabourmarketsoindividualsmustcarefullyscreenagenciesandclarifytheformalandinformalobligationsandexpectations(Lapalmeetal.,2011).Itmayalsobebeneficialtoestablishpersonalsupportmechanismstomanagethevulnerabilitiesoftenassociatedwithagencywork.
Whiletherealityisnotentirelybleak,thechallengeistodesignpolicyinterventionswhichreduceworkervulnerabilitywithout comprisingthe favourable aspects ofagencyworkandgovernmentshavebeenencouragedtoembracetheinternationaldebatesurroundingagencywork(InternationalLabourOrganization,2009).Basedonourfindings,wecontendthatlargescaleresearchisnecessarytomonitortheconsequencesofagencywork,particularlywherethetemporarystaffingindustryislightlyregulated.Futureinquiriesshouldexaminetheeconomic,socialandpsychologicalaspectsaswellastheambiguitiessurroundingagencywork.Indeed,regulatoryresponsesmaybeakeymechanismtoimprovejobqualityandworking
conditionsforagencyworkersasproposedbyOxenbridgeandMoensted(2011).Howeverinterventionsmustbewellinformed,notcomprisethelegitimateabilityofagenciestofacilitatepathwaystothelabourmarketandshouldconsiderthebroaderconnectionswithgovernmentsupportedincomeandtrainingprogrammes(Burgessetal.,2013).
Consistentwiththewiderliterature,ourfindingsshowthe“arms-length”practices
of userorganisations contributetothevulnerabilities experiencedby agencyworkers.
Forinstance,therationaleforusingagencyworkersinassignmentswithdurationsinexcessofoneyearisnoteasilyinterpreted.Wesupporttheuseof“valueadding”
humanresourcemanagement(HRM)practicesasnotedbyKnox(2014)andsuggestorganisationsreconsiderandbroadentheirHRMpracticestoincorporateagencyworkarrangements.Ourfindingssuggestimprovementsintheareasofjobstatements,agencyworkerorientationandsocialisationwouldbeparticularlybeneficial.Betteroutcomesforallpartiesmightbeachievedbyaddingarelationalelementtothetransactional,market-basedfirm-to-firmrelationshipthathasreplacedthehierarchicalemploymentrelationship(Bidwelletal.,2013).
AgenciescommonlyperformmanyofthetraditionalHRMfunctionsforagency
workersandmustcomprehendtheirworkers’needsandconstraintstoobtainanoptimaljobmatch(deJongetal.,2009).Ourfindingsshowtheworker-agencyexchangerelationshipisintegraltojobqualityandworkervulnerabilityandmayhavespillovereffectsontheagency-userorganisationrelationship(Lapalmeetal.,2011).Toretainqualityemployees,agenciesmustadvocate ontheirbehalfandmanagethecostpressuresposedbyuserorganisations(Marchingtonetal.,2011;Ruberyetal., 2004),toensureaqualityserviceispromisedanddeliveredtobothparties.
8.Conclusion
Labourmarket theoriesand substantial empiricalevidence support the contentionthatagencyworkersaresubjectedtoinferiorworkingconditionsincomparisontostandardworkers.Althoughthisstudydoesnotdisputethiscontention,wealsosoughttoexaminethecomplexityofagencyworkervulnerabilitybyexploringthegoodandbadaspectsfromtheworkerperspective.Tothisend,weexploredthelinkagesbetweenvulnerabilityandprecariousness,revealedthenotionofvaryingdegreesofworkervulnerabilityandsuggestedinterventionstoreduceworkervulnerability.
Onthesurface,wefoundeconomic,psychologicalandsocialvulnerabilitiesareembeddedwithintheexperienceofclericalagencyworkinAustralia.Yetourfindingsalsoshowedthatthe reality is not entirely bleak and some workers appreciatethefreedom,flexibility,employmentprospectsandvarietyassociatedwithagencywork.Thusbyconsideringthelinkagesbetweenthedistinguishingfeaturesofagencywork,workerpreferencesandindividualcharacteristics,werevealedanewlenstoinvestigatetheexperienceandqualityofagencywork.
Thesefindingsshouldbetakenastentativeandservetowidenthecurrentdebatesurroundingagencyworkervulnerability.Aspreviouslyexplained,thisstudygatheredcross-sectionaldatafromanon-randomsampleofagencyworkers;focusedontheclericaloccupationandwasconductedwithintheAustraliancontext.Whilethefocusonasingleoccupationpermittedustooffermorespecificrecommendations,itisalimitation.Further, the applicabilityof thesefindingsmay be limitedtoliberal marketeconomiessuchastheUSA,UK,CanadaandNewZealand.Ongoingresearchisrequiredtomonitorthe dynamicexperiencesofagency workersas workvulnerabilityposesseriousconsequencesforindividuals,households,organisationsandsociety.
Vulnerabilityandagency
work
961
IJM36,6
962
References
Alonzo,A.A.andSimon,A.B.(2008),“Havestethoscope,willtravel:contingentemploymentamongphysicianhealthcareprovidersintheUnitedStates”,Work,EmploymentSociety,
Vol.22No.4,pp.635-654.
Ashford,S.J.,George,E.andBlatt,R.(2007),“Oldassumptions,newwork:theopportunitiesandchallenges of research on nonstandard employment”, The Academyof Management
Annals,Vol.1No.1,pp.65-117.
Atkinson,J.(1984),“Flexibility,uncertaintyandmanpowermanagement”,ReportNo.89,Institute ofManpower Studies,Brighton.
Averitt,R.T.(1968),TheDualEconomy:TheDynamicsofAmericanIndustryStructure,
W.W.NortonandCompany,NewYork,NY.
Belous,R.S.(1989),TheContingentEconomy:TheGrowthoftheTemporary,Part-Timeand SubcontractedWorkforce,NationalPlanningAssociation.
Bernasek,A.and Kinnear,D.(1999),“Workers’willingnesstoacceptcontingent employment”,
JournalofEconomicIssues,Vol.33No.2,pp.461-469.
Bidwell, M., Briscoe, F., Fernandez-Mateo, I. and Sterling, A. (2013), “The employment
relationship and inequality: how and why changes in employment practices arereshapingrewardsin organizations”,The Academyof ManagementAnnals, Vol.7 No.1,
pp.61-121.
Bonet,R.,Cappelli,P.andHamori,M.(2013),“Labormarketintermediariesandthenewparadigmforhumanresources”,TheAcademyofManagementAnnals,Vol.7No.1,
pp.341-392.
Booth,A.,Francesconi,M.andFrank,J.(2002),“Temporaryjobs:steppingstonesordeadends?”,
TheEconomicJournal,Vol.112No.480,pp.F189-F213.
BritishTradesUnionCongress(2008),“Generalcouncilreporttocongress”,140thAnnualTradesUnionCongressProceedings,Brighton,8-11September.
Burgess,J.andCampbell,I.(1998),“CasualemploymentinAustralia:growth,characteristics,abridgeoratrap?”,TheEconomicandLabourRelationsReview,Vol.9No.1,pp.31-54.
Burgess,J.andConnell,J.(Eds)(2004),InternationalPerspectivesonTemporaryAgencyWork,Routledge,London.
Burgess,J.andConnell,J.(2005),“Temporaryagencywork:conceptual,measurementandregulatoryissues”,InternationalJournalofEmploymentStudies,Vol.13No.2,pp.19-41.
Burgess,J.,Connell,J.andWinterton,J.(2013),“Vulnerableworkers,precariousworkandtheroleoftradeunionsandHRM”,TheInternationalJournalofHumanResourceManagement,
Vol.24No.22,pp.4083-4093.
Casey,C.andAlach,P.(2004),“Justatemp?Women,temporaryemploymentandlifestyle”,
Work,EmploymentandSociety,Vol.18No.3,pp.459-480.
Ciett(2014),EconomicReport–2014Edition,InternationalConfederationofPrivateEmploymentAgencies/Ciett, Brussels.
Coe,N.M.,Johns,J.andWard,K.(2009),“Agentsofcasualization?ThetemporarystaffingindustryandlabourmarketrestructuringinAustralia”,JournalofEconomicGeography,
Vol.9No.1,pp.55-84.
Connelly,C.E.andGallagher,D.G.(2004),“Emergingtrendsincontingentworkresearch”,
JournalofManagement,Vol.30No.6,pp.959-983.
deJong,J.,DeCuyper,N.,DeWitte,H.,Silla,I.andBerhard-Oettel,C.(2009),“Motivesforacceptingtemporaryemployment:atypology”,InternationalJournalofManpower,Vol.30
No.3,pp.237-252.
Doeringer,P.B.andPiore,M.J.(1971),InternalLaborMarketsandManpowerAnalysis,LexingtonBooks,Lexington,MA.
Ellingson,J.E.,Gruys,M.L.andSackett,P.R.(1998),“Factorsrelatedtothesatisfactionandperformanceoftemporaryemployees”,JournalofAppliedPsychology,Vol.83No.6,
pp.913-921.
Evans,J.,Kunda,G.andBarley,S.(2004),“Beachtime,bridgetime,andbillablehours:thetemporalstructureoftechnicalcontracting”,AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,Vol.49
No.1,pp.1-38.
Guest,D.(2004),“Flexibleemploymentcontracts,thepsychologicalcontractandemployeeoutcomes: ananalysis and review of the evidence”,InternationalJournal of Management
Review,Vol.5/6No.1,pp.1-19.
Gundert,S.andHohendanner,C.(2014), “Do fixed-term and temporary agency workersfeelsociallyexcluded?Labourmarketintegrationandsocialwell-beinginGermany”,
ActaSociologica,Vol.57No.21,pp.135-152.
Houseof Representatives StandingCommitteeonEmployment, WorkplaceRelations andWorkplaceParticipation(2005),MakingitWork:InquiryintoIndependentContractingand LabourHireArrangements,CommonwealthofAustralia,Canberra.
InternationalLabourOrganization(2009),“Privateemploymentagencies,temporaryagencyworkersandtheircontributiontothelabourmarket”issuespaperfordiscussionatthe
workshoptopromoteratificationofthePrivateEmployment Agencies Convention,1997(No.181),InternationalLabourOffice,SectoralActivitiesProgramme,Geneva,20-21October.
Johnstone,R.andQuinlan,M.(2006),“TheOHSregulatorychallengesposedbyagencyworkers:evidencefromAustralia”,EmployeeRelations,Vol.28No.3,pp.273-289.
Kalleberg,A.L.(2011),GoodJobs,BadJobs:The Rise ofPolarized and Precarious EmploymentSystemsintheUnitedStates,1970s-2000s,RussellSageFoundation,NewYork,NY.
Kalleberg,A.L.,Reskin,B.F.andHudson,K.(2000),“BadJobsinAmerica:standardandnonstandard employment relations and job quality in the United States”, American
SociologicalReview,Vol.65No.2,pp.256-278.
Kirkpatrick,I.andHoque,K.(2006),“Aretreatfrompermanentemployment?AccountingfortheriseofprofessionalagencyworkinUKpublicservices”, Work,EmploymentandSociety,
Vol.20No.4,pp.649-666.
Knox,A.(2014),“Humanresourcemanagement(HRM)intemporaryworkagencies:evidencefromthehospitalityindustry”,TheEconomicandLabourRelationsReview,Vol.25No.1,
pp.81-98.
Kunda,G., Barley,S.andEvans,J.A.(2002),“Whydocontractorscontract?Theexperienceofhighlyskilledtechnicalprofessionalsinacontingentlabormarket”,IndustrialandLabor
RelationsReview,Vol.55No.2,pp.234-261.
Lapalme,M.,Simard,G.andTremblay,M.(2011),“Theinfluenceofpsychologicalcontractbreachontemporaryworkers’commitmentandbehaviors:amultipleagencyperspective”,
JournalofBusinessandPsychology,Vol.26No.3,pp.311-324.
Lopes,S.andChambel,M.J.(2014),“Motivesforbeingtemporaryagencyworker:validitystudy of one measure according to the self-determination theory”, Social Indicators
Research,Vol.116No.1,pp.137-152.
McGovern,P.,Smeaton,D.andHill,S.(2004),“BadjobsinBritain”,WorkandOccupations,Vol.31No.2,pp.225-249.
McKeown,T.(2005),“Non-standardemployment:wheneventheeliteareprecarious”,Journal
ofIndustrialRelations,Vol.47No.3,pp.276-293.
Vulnerabilityandagency
work
963
IJM36,6
964
McLeanParks,J.,Kidder,D.L.andGallagher,D.G.(1998),“Fittingsquarepegsintoroundholes:mappingthedomainofcontingentworkarrangementsontothepsychologicalcontract”,
JournalofOrganizationalBehavior,Vol.19No.S1,pp.697-730.
Marchington,M.,Rubery,J.andGrimshaw,D.(2011),“Alignment,integrationandconsistencyinHRMacrossmulti-employernetworks”,HumanResourceManagement,Vol.50No.3,
pp.313-339.
Marler,J.H.,WoodardBarringer,M.andMilkovich,G.T.(2002),“Boundarylessandtraditionalcontingentemployees:worldsapart”,JournalofOrganizationalBehavior,Vol.23No.4,
pp.425-453.
Mitlacher,L.W.(2008),“Jobqualityandtemporaryagencywork:challengesforhumanresourcemanagementintriangularemploymentrelations”,TheInternationalJournalofHuman
ResourceManagement,Vol.19No.3,pp.446-460.
Oxenbridge, S. and Moensted, M.L. (2011), “The relationship between payment systems,workintensificationandhealthandsafetyoutcomes:astudyofhotelroomattendants”,
PolicyandPracticeinHealthandSafety,Vol.9No.2,pp.7-26.
ParliamentofVictoriaEconomicDevelopmentCommittee(2005),FinalReport:LabourHireEmploymentinVictoria,StateofVictoria,Melbourne.
Pfeffer,J.andBaron,N.(1988),“Takingtheworkbackout:recenttrendsinthestructuresofemployment”,inShaw,B.M.andCummings,L.L.(Eds),ResearchinOrganizational
Behavior,JAI,Greenwich,pp.257-303.
Rogers,J.K.(2000),Temps:TheManyFacesoftheChangingWorkplace,CornellUniversityPress,New York, NY.
Rousseau, D.M. (1995), Psychological Contracts in Organizations, Sage Publications,ThousandOaks,CA.
Rubery,J.,Carroll,M.,Cooke,F.L.,Grugulis,I.andEarnshaw,J.(2004),“Humanresourcemanagementandthepermeableorganization:thecaseofthemulti-clientcallcentre”,
JournalofManagementStudies,Vol.41No.7,pp.1199-1222.
Swart,J.andKinnie,N.(2014),“Reconsideringboundaries:humanresourcemanagementinanetworkedworld”,HumanResourceManagement,Vol.53No.2,pp.291-310.
Tan,H.andTan,C.(2002),“TemporaryemployeesinSingapore:whatdrivesthem?”,Journalof
Psychology,Vol.136No.1,pp.83-102.
Underhill,E.andQuinlan,M.(2011),“Howprecariousemploymentaffectshealthandsafetyandwork:thecaseoftemporaryagencyworkers”,RelationsIndustrielles/IndustrialRelations,
Vol.66No.3,pp.397-421.
Vosko,L.F.(2010),“AnewapproachtoregulatingtemporaryagencyworkinOntarioorbacktothefuture?”,RelationsIndustrielles/IndustrialRelations,Vol.65No.4,pp.632-653.
Abouttheauthors
DrRobynCochraneisaResearchandTeachingAssociateintheDepartmentofManagementwithintheFacultyofBusinessandEconomicsattheMonashUniversity,Australia.Herresearchinterestsincludeexaminingandimprovingtheworkexperiencesofcasualandtemporaryagencyworkersandexploringorganisationalcommitmentandmultiplecommitmentsintemporaryemploymentarrangements.Robynisalsoafreelancewriterandresearchconsultantwithover25yearsofexperienceinthelocalgovernment,vocationaleducationandtraining, highereducationandcommunitysectors.Robynhaspublishedarticlesinacademicandpractitionerjournalsandproducedarangeofpracticalresearchoutcomesforindustrypartners.Herconsultancyworkincludes:qualitativeandquantitativeresearchdesignsandanalysis;onlineandtraditionalconsultationcommunityapproaches;communityvoice,empowermentandstrengthening.DrRobynCochraneisthecorrespondingauthorandcanbecontactedat:
DrTuiMcKeownisaSeniorLecturerinthe DepartmentofManagementwithinthe FacultyofBusinessandEconomics,MonashUniversity.Herresearchagendaisaimedatanactiveexaminationofthechangingnatureofwork–withaspecificfocusontheindependentcontractor asawayofworkingwhichoffersanempiricallygroundedunderstandingofthechangingnature,dimensionsandrelationsofwork.Herworkonindependentcontractingoffersacrossingpoint betweensmallbusiness,self-employmentandentrepreneurship.Akeyphilosophyinformingthisresearchistoexploreideaswhichpromotedebateabouthowworkmightbethoughtaboutin
newwaystodevelopabroaderunderstandingofwhatconstitutesworkandhowwork“fits”
withothersocial relationsand activities. Currentprojectsinclude examiningindependent contractingasahiddenworkforce;theimplicationsofworkingasacontractor;managingtheblendedworkforceaskeytodynamic,enablingandsustainablework.
Vulnerabilityandagency
work
965
Forinstructionsonhowtoorderreprintsofthisarticle,pleasevisitourwebsite:
Or contact us for further details:
Thisarticlehasbeencitedby:
1.JohnBurgess,JuliaConnell.2015.Vulnerableworkandstrategiesforinclusion:anintroduction.
InternationalJournalofManpower36:6,794-806.[Abstract][FullText][PDF]