documentp1

Work is a core activity in society It is cen-tral to individual identity links individu-

als to each other and locates people within thestratification system Perhaps only kin rela-

tionships are as influential in peoplersquos everydaylives Work also reveals much about the socialorder how it is changing and the kinds of prob-lems and issues that people (and their govern-

2008 PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS

Precarious Work Insecure WorkersEmployment Relations in Transition

Arne L KallebergUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

The growth of precarious work since the 1970s has emerged as a core contemporary

concern within politics in the media and among researchers Uncertain and

unpredictable work contrasts with the relative security that characterized the three

decades following World War II Precarious work constitutes a global challenge that has

a wide range of consequences cutting across many areas of concern to sociologists

Hence it is increasingly important to understand the new workplace arrangements that

generate precarious work and worker insecurity A focus on employment relations forms

the foundation of theories of the institutions and structures that generate precarious

work and the cultural and individual factors that influence peoplersquos responses to

uncertainty Sociologists are well-positioned to explain offer insight and provide input

into public policy about such changes and the state of contemporary employment

relations

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW 2009 VOL 74 (February1ndash22)

Direct correspondence to Arne L KallebergDepartment of Sociology CB 3210 Hamilton HallUniversity of North Carolina Chapel Hill NorthCarolina 27599-3210 (Arne_Kalleberguncedu)Revision of 2008 Presidential Address to theAmerican Sociological Association delivered onAugust 2 2008 in Boston MA I thank Ivar BergPeter Cappelli Dalton Conley Dan Cornfield

Duncan Gallie Kevin Hewison Randy HodsonSandy Jacoby Rob Lambert Kevin Leicht PeterMarsden Ted Mouw Frances Fox Piven BarbaraReskin Vinnie Roscigno and especially DonTomaskovic-Devey Steve Vallas and MikeWallace for their useful comments on earlier ver-sions and Anne-Kathrin Kronberg for her helpwith the graphics

Delivered by Ingenta to unknown

Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155

ments) must address Accordingly the study ofwork has long been a central field in sociolo-gy beginning with classical sociologists such asDurkheim (in his Division of Labor) Marx (inhis theories of the labor process and alienation)and Weber (in his conceptualizations of bureau-cracy and social closure)

For several decades both in the United Statesand worldwide social economic and politicalforces have aligned to make work more pre-carious By ldquoprecarious workrdquo I mean employ-ment that is uncertain unpredictable and riskyfrom the point of view of the worker Resultingdistress obvious in a variety of forms remindsus daily of such precarity The Bureau of LaborStatistics (BLS) estimates (and likely underes-timates) that more than 30 million full-timeworkers lost their jobs involuntarily between theearly 1980s and 2004 (Uchitelle 2006) Jobloss often triggers many unpleasant eventssuch as loss of health insurance and enhanceddebt Mortgage foreclosure rates have increasedfivefold since the early 1970s (Hacker 2006)US personal bankruptcy filings are at recordhighs (Leicht and Fitzgerald 2007) and near-ly two-thirds of bankruptcy filers reported a jobproblem (Sullivan Warren and Westbrook2001)

Precarious work of course is not necessar-ily new or novel to the current era it has exist-ed since the launch of paid employment as aprimary source of sustenance1 Nevertheless thegrowth and obviousness of precarious worksince the 1970s has crystallized an importantconcern Bourdieu (1998) saw preacutecariteacute as theroot of problematic social issues in the twenty-first century Beck (2000) describes the cre-ation of a ldquorisk societyrdquo and a ldquonew politicaleconomy of insecurityrdquo Others have called theevents of the past quarter-century the secondGreat Transformation (Webster Lambert andBezuidenhout 2008)

Precarious work has far-reaching conse-quences that cut across many areas of concernto sociologists Creating insecurity for manypeople it has pervasive consequences not only

for the nature of work workplaces and peoplersquoswork experiences but also for many nonworkindividual (eg stress education) social (egfamily community) and political (eg stabil-ity democratization) outcomes It is thus impor-tant that we understand the new workplacearrangements that generate precarious work andinsecurity

I concentrate in this address on employmentwhich is work that produces earnings (or prof-it if one is self-employed) Equating work withpay or profit is of course a limited view asthere are many activities that create value but areunpaid such as those that take place in thehousehold Given my focus largely on industrialcountries particularly the United States Iemphasize precarious employment in the formaleconomy2

REASONS FOR THE GROWTH OFPRECARIOUS WORK IN THE UNITEDSTATES

It is generally agreed that the most recent era ofprecarious work in the United States began inthe mid- to late-1970s The years 1974 to 1975marked the start of macro-economic changes(such as the oil shock) that helped lead to anincrease in global price competition US man-ufacturers were challenged initially by compa-nies from Japan and South Korea in theautomobile and steel industries respectivelyThe process that came to be known as neolib-eral globalization intensified economic inte-gration increased the amount of competitionfaced by companies provided greater opportu-nities to outsource work to lower-wage coun-tries and opened up new labor pools throughimmigration Technological advances bothforced companies to become more competitiveglobally and made it possible for them to do so

2mdashndashAMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

1 Classical social thinkers such as Marx Weberand Durkheim sought to explain the consequences ofthe precarity created by the rapid social change asso-ciated with the emergence of the market economy inthe nineteenth century (see Webster et al 20082ndash3)

2 Employment precarity results when people losetheir jobs or fear losing their jobs when they lackalternative employment opportunities in the labormarket and when workers experience diminishedopportunities to obtain and maintain particular skillsOther aspects of employment precarity are eitherdeterminants or consequences of these basic formsof uncertainty including income precarity work inse-curity (unsafe work) and representation precarity(unavailability of collective voice) (Standing 1999)


Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155

Changes in legal and other institutions medi-ated the effects of globalization and technolo-gy on work and employment relations (Gonos1997) Unions continued to decline weakeninga traditional source of institutional protectionsfor workers and severing the postwar busi-nessndashlabor social contract Government regu-lations that set minimum acceptable standardsin the labor market eroded as did rules thatgoverned competition in product markets Uniondecline and deregulation reduced the counter-vailing forces that enabled workers to share inthe productivity gains that were made and thebalance of power shifted all the more heavilyaway from workers and toward employers

The pervasive political changes associatedwith Ronald Reaganrsquos election in 1980 accel-erated business ascendancy and labor declineand unleashed the freedom of firms and capi-talists to pursue their unbridled interestDeregulation and reorganization of employ-ment relations allowed for the massive accu-mulation of capital Political policies in theUnited Statesmdashsuch as the replacement of wel-fare with workfare programs in the mid-1990smdashmade it essential for people to participate inpaid employment forcing many into low-wagejobs Ideological shifts centering on individu-alism and personal responsibility for work andfamily life reinforced these structural changesthe slogan ldquoyoursquore on your ownrdquo replaced thenotion of ldquowersquore all in this togetherrdquo (Bernstein2006) This neoliberal revolution spread glob-ally emphasizing the centrality of markets andmarket-driven solutions privatization of gov-ernment resources and removal of governmentprotections

The work process also changed and in impor-tant ways during this period Increases inknowledge-intensive work accompanied theaccelerated pace of technological innovationService industries continued to expand as theprincipal sources of jobs as the economy shift-ed from manufacturing-based mass productionto an information-based economy organizedaround flexible production (Piore and Sabel1984)

These macro-level changes led employers toseek greater flexibility in their relations withworkers The neoliberal idea at the societal levelwas mirrored by the greater role played by mar-ket forces within the workplace The standardemployment relationship in which workers

were assumed to work full-time for a particu-lar employer at the employerrsquos place of workoften progressing upward on job ladders with-in internal labor markets was eroding (Cappelli1999) Managementrsquos attempts to achieve flex-ibility led to various types of corporate restruc-turing which in turn led to a growth inprecarious work and transformations in thenature of the employment relationship(Osterman 1999) This had and continues tohave far-reaching effects on all of society

In addition to the changes discussed abovethe labor force became more diverse withmarked increases in the number of women non-white and immigrant workers and older work-ers The increase in immigration due toglobalization and the reduction of barriers to themovement of people across national bordershas produced a greater surplus of labor todayThere are also growing gaps in earnings andother indicators of labor market success betweenpeople with different amounts of education

THE CONTEXT OF PRECARITY ANDTHE US CASE

Until the end of the Great Depression in theUnited States most jobs were precarious andmost wages were unstable (Jacoby 1985)Pensions and health insurance were almostunheard of among the working classes beforethe 1930s and benefits (such as those associ-ated with experiments in welfare capitalism inthe early part of the twentieth century) werenot presented as entitlements but depended onworkersrsquo docility (Edwards 1979)

The creation of a market-based economy inthe nineteenth century exacerbated precarityduring this period In The Great Transformation(1944) Polanyi describes the organizing prin-ciples of industrial society in the nineteenthand twentieth centuries in terms of a ldquodoublemovementrdquo struggle One side of the move-ment was guided by the principles of econom-ic liberalism and laissez-faire that supportedthe establishment and maintenance of free andflexible markets (ie the f irst GreatTransformation) The other side was dominat-ed by moves toward social protectionsmdashpro-tections that were reactions to the psychologicalsocial and ecological disruptions that unregu-lated markets imposed on peoplersquos lives Thelong historical struggle over employment secu-

PRECARIOUS WORK INSECURE WORKERSmdashndash3


Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155

rity that emerged as a reaction to the negativeconsequences of precarity ended in the victoriesof the New Deal and other protections in the1930s (Jacoby 1985) Figure 1 illustrates thispendulum-like ldquodouble movementrdquo betweenflexibility and security free flexible markets ledto demands for greater security in the 1930s(Commons 1934) and now in the 2000s regu-lated markets led to demands by business formore flexibility in the 1970s (Standing 1999)

THE INTERREGNUM PERIOD (1940S TO

1970S)

The three decades following World War II weremarked by sustained growth and prosperityDuring this postwar boom economic compen-sation generally increased for most people lead-ing to a growth in equality that has beendescribed as the ldquoGreat Compressionrdquo (Goldinand Margo 1992) Job security and opportuni-ties for advancement were generally good formany workers enabling them to construct order-

ly and satisfying career narratives The attain-ment of a basic level of material satisfactionfreed workers to emphasize other concerns inevaluating whether their jobs were good suchas opportunities for meaning challenge andother intrinsic rewards

Laws enacted during the 1930s (such as thoserelated to wage and hours legislation minimumwage levels and old-age and unemploymentinsurance) dramatically increased the number ofworkers whose jobs provided employment secu-rity along with living wages and benefits(Amenta 1998) Employersrsquo power over theterms of employment was restricted by workersrsquoright to bargain collectively (granted by the pas-sage of the Wagner Act in 1935) along withincreased government control over workingconditions and employment practices

The establishment of a new social contractbetween business and labor beginning in the1930s solidified the growing security and eco-nomic gains of this period The employmentrelationship became more regulated over time


Figure 1 The ldquoDouble Movementrdquo


Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155

enforced by labor laws and the diffusion ofnorms of employer conduct Health insurancebecame part of Walter Reutherrsquos UAW bargainin 1949 and was then spread by employers tononunionized workers in an effort to forestallmore unionization Combined with the fullblooming of Fordist production techniques andthe United Statesrsquodominance in world marketsthis ushered in an era of relatively full employ-ment security and sustained economic growth(Ruggie 1982) Stability and growth made pos-sible the kinds of internalization of labor thatpermitted the creation of firm internal labormarkets and ladders of upward mobility Theldquoorganization manrdquo (Whyte 1956) who workedin large firms in the core sector of the econo-my (Averitt 1968) symbolized this phenome-non

THE CONTEMPORARY PERIOD (1970S TO

THE PRESENT) AND THE DISTINCTIVENESS

OF PRECARITY TODAY

We now understand that the postwar period (upuntil the mid-1970s) was unusual for its sus-tained growth and stability Precarious worktoday differs in several fundamental ways fromthat which characterized precarity in the pre-World War II period

First there has been a spatial restructuring ofwork on a global scale as geography and spacehave become increasingly important dimen-sions of labor markets labor relations and work(Peck 1996) Greater connectivity among peo-ple organizations and countries made possi-ble by advances in technology has made itrelatively easy to move goods capital and peo-ple within and across borders at an ever-accel-erating pace ldquoSpatializationrdquo (Wallace andBrady 2001) freed employers from conventionaltemporal and spatial constraints and enabledthem to locate their business operations opti-mally and to access cheap sources of laborAdvances in information and communicationtechnologies allow capitalists to exert controlover decentralized and spatially dispersed laborprocesses Moreover the entry of China Indiaand the former Soviet bloc countries into theglobal economy in the 1990s doubled the sizeof the global labor pool further shifting thebalance of power from labor to capital (Freeman2007)

Second the service sector has becomeincreasingly central This has resulted in achanging mix of occupations reflected in adecline in blue-collar jobs and an increase inboth high-wage and low-wage white-collaroccupations Market forces have also extendedinto services through the privatization of activ-ities that were previously done mainly in thehousehold (eg child care cleaning homehealthcare and cooking) The growth of theservice sector has also enhanced the potentialfor consumerndashworker coalitions to influencework and its consequences3 By contrast in themanufacturing economy there was often a splitbetween consumers and producers and the keysocial relations were primarily defined as thoseamong workers (labor solidarity) or betweenlabor and management (class conflict)

Third layoffs or involuntary terminationsfrom employment have always occurred andhave fluctuated with the business cycle Thedifference now is that layoffs have become abasic component of employersrsquo restructuringstrategies They reflect a way of increasingshort-term profits by reducing labor costs evenin good economic times (although there is lit-tle evidence that this strategy improves per-formance in the medium or long run [Uchitelle2006]) and a means to undermine workersrsquocollective power

Fourth in the earlier precarious period therewere strong ideologies (eg Marxism) that con-ceptualized what a world without market dom-ination would look like These older theories arenow largely discredited and we are operating inwhat amounts to an ideological vacuum with-out anything close to a consensus theory aboutthe mechanisms fostering precarity and how todeal with its costs (Piore 2008)

Finally precarious work was often describedin the past in terms of a dual labor market withunstable and uncertain jobs concentrated in asecondary labor market (for a review seeKalleberg and Soslashrensen 1979) Indeed precar-ity and insecurity were used to differentiatejobs in the primary as opposed to secondary


3 Such coalitionsrsquopotential for enhancing workersrsquocollective agency was demonstrated recently by thesupport members of the American SociologicalAssociation provided to striking Aramark employeesat the 2008 ASA meetings in Boston


Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155

labor market segments Now precarious workhas spread to all sectors of the economy and hasbecome much more pervasive and generalizedprofessional and managerial jobs are also pre-carious these days

EVIDENCE OF THE GROWTH OFPRECARIOUS WORK IN THE UNITEDSTATES

There is widespread agreement that work andemployment relations have changed in impor-tant ways since the 1970s Still there is somedisagreement as to the specif ics of thesechanges Studies of individual organizationsoccupations and industries often yield differentconclusions than do analyses of the economy asa whole Peter Cappelli (1999113) observesthat

Those who argue that the change [in labor marketinstitutions] is revolutionary study firms espe-cially large corporations Those who believe thechange is modest at best study the labor market andthe workforce as a whole While I have yet to meeta manager who believes that this change has notstood his or her world on its head I meet plentyof labor economists studying the aggregate work-force who are not sure what exactly has changed

The prominence of examples such as automo-bile manufacturing and other core industrieswhere precarity and instability have certainlyincreased might account for some of the dif-ferences between the perceived wisdom of man-agers and the results obtained from data on theoverall labor force

The lack of availability of systematic longi-tudinal data on the nature of employment rela-tions and organizational practices also makes itdifficult to evaluate just how much change hasreally occurred The US government and otheragencies such as the International LabourOrganization often collect data on phenomenaonly after they are deemed problematic Forexample the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)did not begin to count displaced workers untilthe early 1980s and did not collect informationon nonstandard work arrangements and con-tingent work until 1995 Also the CurrentPopulation Surveyrsquos measure of employer tenurechanged in 1983 making it difficult to evalu-ate changes in job stability using this measureIn addition there is a paucity of longitudinaldata on organizations and employees that might

shed light on the mechanisms that are produc-ing precarity and other changes in employmentrelations

Moreover there is considerable measurementerror in many of the indicators of precariouswork For example worker-displacement dataissued biennially by the BLS almost certainlyundercount the number of people who lost theirjobs involuntarily This is due to the wording ofthe question which was developed in the early1980s to measure primarily blue-collar dis-placement4 Uchitelle (2006) argues that a morecomprehensive indicator of whether people losttheir jobs involuntarily would likely produce abiennial layoff rate averaging 7 to 8 percent offull-time workers rather than the 43 percent thatthe BLS reported from 1981 through 2003Nevertheless we can glean several pieces ofevidence that precarious work has indeedincreased in the United States

1 DECLINE IN ATTACHMENT TO

EMPLOYERS

There has been a general decline in the averagelength of time people spend with their employ-ers This varies by specific subgroups womenrsquosemployer tenure has increased while menrsquos hasdecreased (although tenure levels for womenremain substantially lower than those for menin the private sector) The decline in employertenure is especially pronounced among olderwhite men the group traditionally protected byinternal labor markets (Cappelli 2008 Farber2008)

2 INCREASE IN LONG-TERM

UNEMPLOYMENT

Not having a job at all is of course the ultimateform of work precarity5 Long-term unemployed


4 The question asks ldquoDid you lose your jobbecause a plant or office closed your position wasabolished or you had insufficient workrdquo (Uchitelle2006211ndash12)

5 Commonly used measures of joblessness andunemployment fail to capture the full extent of pre-carious work because they neglect to consider work-ers who become discouraged (perhaps because workis so precarious) and stop looking for a job In addi-tion the number of people who work part-time (but


Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155

workers (defined as jobless for six months ormore) are most likely to suffer economic andpsychological hardships In contrast to earlierperiods long-term unemployment remainedrelatively high in the 2000s The large propor-tion of unemployed persons who found it diffi-cult to obtain employment after the 2001recession is likely due to both low rates of jobgrowth and challenges faced by workers inindustries such as manufacturing where jobshave been lost (Mishel Bernstein and Shierholz2009)

3 GROWTH IN PERCEIVED JOB INSECURITY

Precarity is intimately related to perceived jobinsecurity Although there are individual dif-ferences in perceptions of insecurity and riskpeople in general are increasingly worried aboutlosing their jobsmdashin large part because the con-sequences of job loss have become much moresevere in recent yearsmdashand less confident aboutgetting comparable new jobs Figure 2 derived

from Fullerton and Wallacersquos (2005) analysis ofGeneral Social Survey data shows the trend inresponses to the question ldquoHow likely do youthink it is that you will lose your job or be laidoffrdquo (See also Schmidt 1999 Valetta 1999)The fluctuating line represents overall assess-ments of job security with higher values denot-ing greater perceived security Thedownward-sloping line shows the trend con-trolling for the unemployment rate and otherdeterminants of insecurity This line indicatesthat perceived job security generally declined inthe United States from 1977 to 2002

These results may help explain the findingsof a 1995 survey by the New York Times(1996294) in which 75 percent of respondentsfelt that companies were less loyal to their work-ers than they used to be and 64 percent felt thatworkers were less loyal to their companies

4 GROWTH OF NONSTANDARD WORK

ARRANGEMENTS AND CONTINGENT WORK

Employers have sought to easily adjust theirworkforce in response to supply and demandconditions by creating more nonstandard work


Figure 2 Perceived Job Security 1970s to 2000s

would prefer to work more hours) is at record levelsin the United States (Goodman 2008)


Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155

arrangements such as contracting and tempo-rary work6

Data from a representative sample of USestablishments collected in the mid-1990s indi-cate that over half of them purchased goods orservices from other organizations (Kallebergand Marsden 2005) Examples of outsourcingin specific sectors illustrate the pervasivenessof this phenomenon food and janitorial ser-vices accounting routine legal work medicaltourism military activities (eg the use of mer-cenary soldiers such as employees ofBlackwater in Iraq) and the outsourcing ofimmigration enforcement duties to local lawenforcement officials (reflected in the section287(g) program from Homeland Security)7 Thekey point about outsourcing is the threat that vir-tually all jobs can be outsourced (except perhapsthose that require personal contact such ashome healthcare and food preparation) includ-ing high-wage white-collar jobs that were onceseen as safe

The temporary-help agency sector increasedat an annual rate of over 11 percent from 1972to the late 1990s (its share of US employmentgrew from under 3 percent in 1972 to nearly 25percent in 1998) (Kalleberg 2000) The pro-portion of temporary workers remains a rela-tively small portion of the overall labor forcebut the institutionalization of the temporary-help industry increases precarity because itmakes us all potentially replaceable Even thehalls of academia are not immune from thetemping of America Figure 3 shows the declinein full-time tenured and full-time tenure-trackfaculty in academia from 1973 to 2005 as wellas the increase in full-time nonndashtenure-trackand part-time faculty during this period Theoccupation that Aronowitz (2001) called theldquothe last good job in Americardquo is becomingprecarious too with likely negative long-term

consequences such as reductions in teacherquality

5 INCREASE IN RISK-SHIFTING FROM

EMPLOYERS TO EMPLOYEES

A final indicator of the growth of precariouswork is the shifting of risk from employers toemployees (see Breen 1997 Hacker 2006Mandel 1996) which some writers see as thekey feature of precarious work (Beck 2000Jacoby 2001) Risk-shifting from employers toemployees is illustrated by the increase indefined contribution pension and health insur-ance plans (in which employees pay more of thepremium and absorb more of the risk than doemployers) and the decline in defined benefitplans (in which the employer absorbs more ofthe risk than the employee by guaranteeing a cer-tain level of benefits) (see Mishel Bernsteinand Allegretto 2007)

SOME CONSEQUENCES OFPRECARIOUS WORK

Work is intimately related to other social eco-nomic and political issues and so the growthof precarious work and insecurity has wide-spread effects on both work-related and non-work phenomena

GREATER ECONOMIC INEQUALITYINSECURITY AND INSTABILITY

Precarious work has contributed to greater eco-nomic inequality insecurity and instability Thegrowth of economic inequality in the UnitedStates since the 1980s is well documented(Mishel et al 2007) Earnings have also becomemore volatile and unstable with greater fluctu-ations from year to year (Hacker 2006) Povertyand low-wage work persist and the economicsecurity of the middle class continues to decline(Mishel et al 2007)

Economic inequality and insecurity threatenthe very foundations of our middle-class soci-ety as workers are unable to buy what they pro-duce This results in a growth in pessimism anda decrease in satisfaction with onersquos standard ofliving as people have to spend more of theirincome on necessities such as insurance andhousing and there has been a rise in debt andbankruptcies (Sullivan et al 2001) TheUniversity of Michiganrsquos consumer sentiment


6 Workers in these nonstandard work arrangementsare often called ldquocontingentrdquo workers because theiremployment is contingent upon an employerrsquos needs(for a review see Kalleberg 2000)

7 A recent review concludes that offshore out-sourcing to developing countries accounts for aboutone quarter of the jobs lost in manufacturing indus-tries in the United States from 1977 to 1999 (Harrisonand McMillan 2006)


Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155

index released in April 2008 shows thatAmericans are now more pessimistic about theireconomic situation than they have been at anypoint in the past 25 years (Krugman 2008) Thisis due to both objective economic conditions anda loss of confidence in economic institutions

Economic inequality and insecurity in theUnited States are exacerbated by relatively lowrates of intergenerational income mobility com-pared with advanced economies such asGermany Canada and the Scandinavian coun-tries (Mishel et al 2007) Immigrants tradi-tionally have been forced to work in low-wagejobs but today they are less likely to see thepromise of America as their forerunners did duelargely to precarious work and the lack of oppor-tunities for upward mobility

OTHER CONSEQUENCES OF PRECARIOUS

WORK

Precarious work has a wide range of conse-quences for individuals outside of the work-place Polanyi (194473) argued that theunregulated operation of markets dislocates

people physically psychologically and moral-ly The impact of uncertainty and insecurity onindividualsrsquohealth and stress is well documented(eg De Witte 1999) The experience of pre-carity also corrodes onersquos identity and promotesanomie as Sennett (1998) argues (see alsoUchitelle 2006)

Precarious work creates insecurity and oth-erwise affects families and households Thenumber of two-earner households has risen inthe United States over the past several decadesand these families have had to increase theirworking time to keep up with their incomeneeds (Jacobs and Gerson 2004) Moreoveruncertainty about the future may affect cou-plesrsquodecision making on key things such as thetiming of marriage and children as well as thenumber of children to have (Coontz 2005)

Precarious work affects communities as wellPrecarious work may lead to a lack of socialengagement indicated by declines in member-ship in voluntary associations and communityorganizations trust and social capital moregenerally (Putnam 2000) This may lead tochanges in the structure of communities as


Figure 3 Contingent Work in Academia Trends in Faculty Status 1975 to 2005 (all degree-grant-ing institutions in the United States)

Source US Department of Education IPEDS Fall Staff Survey compiled by the American Association of UniversityProfessors


Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155

people who lose their jobs due to plant closingsor downsizing may not be able to afford to livein the community (although they may not beable to sell their houses either if the layoffs arewidespread) Newcomers may not set downroots due to the uncertainty and unpredictabil-ity of work The precarious situation may alsospur nativesrsquo negative attitudes toward immi-grants This all happens just as many commu-nities experience an upsurge of new immigrantsboth legal and illegal who are more willingthan other workers to work for lower wages andto put up with poorer working conditions

DIFFERENTIAL VULNERABILITY TO

PRECARIOUS WORK

People differ in their vulnerability to precariouswork depending on their personality dynamicslevels and kinds of education age familyresponsibilities type of occupation and indus-try and the degree of welfare and labor marketprotections in a society (Greenhalgh andRosenblatt 1984)

For example minorities are more likely thanwhites to be unemployed and displaced fromtheir jobs Older workers are more likely to suf-fer from the effects of outsourcing and indus-trial restructuring and be forced to put offretirement due to the inadequate performanceof their defined contribution plans or the fail-ing pension plans in their companies

Education has become increasingly importantas a determinant of life chances due to theremoval of institutional protections resultingfrom the decline of unions labor laws and otherchanges discussed above The growing salienceof education is reflected in the rise in the col-lege wage premium (relative to high school) inthe 1980s and 1990s (Goldin and Katz 2008Mishel et al 2007) and the growing polarizationin job quality associated with education andskill (Soslashrensen 2000)

But the growth of precarious work has madeeducational decisions more precarious too Theuncertainty and unpredictability of future workopportunities make it hard for students to plantheir educations For example what is the bestsubject to major in to ensure occupational suc-cess Moreover economically precarious situ-ations (even for those employed full-time) maymake parents less comfortable investing in theirchildrenrsquos education Correspondingly children

may have to cover more of their educationalcosts leading them to graduate from collegewith more debt (Leicht and Fitzgerald 2007) ifthey are able to attend college at all

Opportunities to obtain and maintain onersquosjob skills to keep up with changing job require-ments are also precarious Many workers arehard pressed to identify ways of remainingemployable in a fast-changing economic envi-ronment in which skills become rapidly obso-lete Unlike workers of the 1950s and 1960stodayrsquos workers are more likely to return toschool again and again to retool their skills asthey shift careers

CHALLENGES FOR THE SOCIOLOGYOF WORK WORKERS AND THEWORKPLACE

The growth of precarious work creates newchallenges and opportunities for sociologistsseeking to explain this phenomenon and whomay wish to help frame effective policies toaddress its emerging character and conse-quences The current theoretical vacuum in ourunderstanding of both the mechanisms gener-ating precarity and possible solutions providesan intellectual space for sociologists to explainthe nature of precarious work and to offer pub-lic policy solutions To meet these challengeswe need to revisit reorient and reconsider thecore theoretical and analytic tools we use tounderstand contemporary realities of workworkers and the workplace

The first heyday of the sociology of work(under the label ldquoindustrial sociologyrdquo) in theUnited States was during the 1940s 1950s andpart of the 1960s Industrial sociology inte-grated the study of work occupations and organ-izations labor unions and industrial relationsindustrial psychology and careers and the com-munity and society (Miller 1984)8 It addressedsocietyrsquos major challenges and problems manyof which focused on industrial organizationsproductivity unions and laborndashmanagementrelations Industrial sociologists explained work-


8 This tradition is illustrated by the writings ofBendix (1956) Berg (1979) Form and Miller (1960)Gouldner (1959) Hughes (1958) Lipset Trow andColeman (1956) and Roy (1952)


Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155

related issues by means of an organizationalindustrial blue-collar model that described theoperation of large corporations and the promo-tion and management systems within them aswell as the nature of laborndashmanagement rela-tions An important theme common to many ofthese analyses was the informal underside ofworkplace life through which workers oftenrenegotiated the terms and conditions underwhich they were employed (Gouldner 1959)

Ensuing decades brought specialization inthe sociological study of work but the study ofwork also became increasingly fragmented inthe 1960s and 1970s both within sociology andbetween sociology and other social science dis-ciplines Topics previously subsumed under therubric of industrial sociology were spreadamong sociologists of work occupations organ-izations economy and society labor and labormarkets gender labor force demography socialstratification and so on Boundary changes cre-ated divides in the study of work between soci-ology and disciplines such as anthropologyindustrial psychology and social work Much ofthe research on these topics (especially on organ-izations) was taken over by professional schoolsof business and industrial relations and sepa-rate associations and journals were founded(such as the Administrative Science Quarterlyand Organization Studies) (Barley and Kunda2001)

Moreover social scientistsrsquo interests in study-ing issues associated with industrial sociologywaned as unions declined in power in the UnitedStates and as many of the older workplace issueswere no longer a problem for employers whocould hire whomever they needed and couldpush workers for more and get it The growingavailability and use of large-scale surveys (withtheir bias toward methodological individual-ism) diverted attention away from qualitativestudies of work and workers case studies oforganizations and difficult-to-measure con-cepts such as work in the informal sector Withits focus on markets and institutions the increas-ing popularity of economic sociology tended toleave workers out of explanations of work-relat-ed phenomena (Simpson 1989)

There have been of course many valuablesociological studies of work since the 1970sThese include the contributions to the laborprocess debate and the organization of workinitiated by Braverman (1974) in the mid-1970s

investigations of the effects of technology stud-ies of race class and the working poor andimportant studies of gender and work9

Nevertheless the study of issues such as pre-carious work and insecurity and their links tosocial stratification organizations labor mar-kets and gender race and age has largely fall-en through the cracks In recent yearssociologists have tended to take the employ-ment relationship for granted and insteadfocused on topics related to specific work struc-tures such as occupations industries or work-places how people come to occupy differentkinds of jobs and economic and status out-comes of work These more limited foci miss thesea changes occurring in the organization ofwork and employment relations Sociologistshave thus failed to consider the bigger picturesurrounding the forces behind the growth andconsequences of precarious work and insecuri-ty

Sociological theory and research is furtherhindered by limitations in our conceptualizationsof work and the workplace we need to returnto a unified study of work Such an approachwould integrate studies of work occupationsand organizations along with labor marketspolitical sociology and insights from psychol-ogy and labor and behavioral economics

The need for a more holistic approach to thesociological study of work and its correlateswas recognized in the mid-1990s by theOrganizations Occupations and Work sectionof the American Sociological Association whenit changed its name from ldquoOrganizations andOccupationsrdquo But the need to link the study ofwork to broader social phenomena is also cen-tral to many other sociological specialtiesincluding the ASA sections devoted to laborand economic sociology and those focused ongender medical sociology education socialpsychology aging and the life course interna-tional migration and many others My argu-


9 Studies of the labor process include those byBurawoy (1979) and Smith (1990) on technologyNoble (1977) and Zuboff (1988) on raceclassgen-der McCall (2001) Tomaskovic-Devey (1993) andWilson (eg 1978) and on gender and work Epstein(eg 1970) Hochschild (eg 1983) Jacobs (1989)Kanter (1977) and Reskin and Roos (1990)


Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155

ments are thus directed at the discipline of soci-ology as a whole not to a particular specialtyarea

THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP

A cohesive study of precarious work shouldbuild on the general concept of employmentrelations These relations represent the dynam-ic social economic psychological and politi-cal linkages between individual workers andtheir employers (see Baron 1988) Employmentrelations are the main means by which workersin the United States have obtained rights andbenefits associated with work with respect tolabor law and social security These relations dif-fer in the relative power of employers andemployees to control tasks negotiate the con-ditions of employment and terminate a job10

Employment relations are useful for studyingthe connections between macro and micro lev-els of analysismdasha central feature of all sociol-ogy not just the sociology of work (Abbott1993)mdashbecause they explicitly link individualsto the workplaces and other institutions where-in work is structured This brings together aconsideration of jobs and workplaces on the onehand and individual workers on the otherMoreover employment relations are embeddedin other social institutions such as the familyeducation politics and the healthcare sectorThey are also intimately related to gender raceage and other demographic characteristics ofthe labor force

Changes in employment relations reflect thetransformations in managerial regimes and sys-tems of control The first Great Transformationwas characterized by despotic regimes of con-trol that relied on physical and economic coer-cion The harsh conditions associated with thecommodification of labor under market des-potism led to a countermovement characterizedby the emergence of hegemonic forms of con-trol that sought to elicit compliance and consent(Burawoy 1979 1983) The second GreatTransformation has seen a shift to hegemonicdespotism whereby workers agree to make con-

cessions under threat of factory closures cap-ital flight and other forms of precarity (Vallas2006)

The more specific concept of employmentcontract is particularly valuable for theorizingabout important aspects of employment rela-tions Most employment contracts are infor-mal incomplete and shaped by socialinstitutions and norms in addition to their for-mal explicit features Research by economistson incomplete contracts (eg Williamson 1985)and psychologists on psychological contractsbetween employers and employees (Rousseauand Parks 1992) supplement sociological the-ories and provide bases for understanding theinterplay among social economic and psy-chological forces that create and maintain pre-carious work Differences among types ofemployment contracts can also be used to defineclass positions as Goldthorpe (2000) argues inhis conceptualization of service (professionalsand managers) labor (blue-collar) and inter-mediate employment contracts (see alsoMcGovern et al 2008)

Employment contracts vary between trans-actional (short-term market based) and rela-tional (long-term organizational) (see Dore1973 MacNeil 1980) The ldquodouble movementrdquobetween flexibility and security described inFigure 1 parallels to some extent the alternat-ing predominance of market-based transactionaland organizationalrelational contracts respec-tively A rise in the proportion of transactionalcontracts will likely be associated with greaterprecarity as such contracts reduce organiza-tional citizenship rights and allow market powerand status-based claims to become more impor-tant in local negotiations

THE CHANGING ORGANIZATIONAL

CONTEXTS OF EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS

Employers sought to obtain greater flexibility byadapting their workforces to meet growing com-petition and rapid change in two main waysSome took the ldquohigh roadrdquo by investing in theirworkers through the use of relational employ-ment contracts creating more highly-skilledjobs and enhancing employeesrsquo functional flex-ibility (ie employeesrsquoability to perform a vari-ety of jobs and participate in decision making)Other firmsmdashfar too many in the United Statescompared with other countries such as Germany


10 About 90 percent of people in the United Stateswork for someone else Even self-employed peoplecan be considered to have ldquoemployment relationsrdquowith customers suppliers and other market actors


Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155

or those in Scandinaviamdashsought to obtainnumerical flexibility by taking the ldquolow roadrdquoof reducing labor costs by hiring workers ontransactional contracts whose employment wascontingent upon the firmsrsquoneeds (Smith 1997)Some organizations adopted both of these strate-gies for different groups of workers ldquoCore-peripheryrdquo or ldquoflexible firmsrdquo use contingentworkers to buffer their most valuable core work-ers from fluctuations in supply and demandThese firms use a combination of hegemonicand despotic regime controls (for discussionssee Kalleberg 2001 Vallas 1999)

We need to understand better the changingorganizational contexts of employment rela-tions and the new managerial regimes and con-trol systems that underpin them What accountsfor variations in organizationsrsquo responses totheir requirements for greater flexibility Whydo some organizations adopt transactional con-tracts for certain groups of workers while otheremployers use relational contracts for the sameoccupations and what are the consequences ofthese choices (Dore 1973 Laubach 2005)Unfortunately organizational research beganto shift away from studies of work in the mid-1960s as organizational theorists turned theirattention to the interactions of organizationswith their environments

A renewed focus on the employment rela-tionship will help us rethink organizations inlight of the growth of precarious work (seeeg Pfeffer and Baronrsquos [1988] discussion of theimplications of employment externalization fororganization theory) The workplace is stillimportant but the form of the workplace haschanged How for example do organizationsobtain the consent of contingent employees(Padavic 2005) How can managers blend stan-dard and nonstandard employees (Davis-BlakeBroschak and George 2003)

Studies of employment relations can help usappreciate emergent organizational forms ofwork such as new types of networks Thegrowth of independent and other types of con-tracting creates opportunities for skilled work-ers to benefit from changing employmentrelations as Barley and Kunda (2006) and Smith(2001) demonstrate in their case studies (Theseindependent contractors are insecure but notprecarious) Indeed one can profitably analyzethe firm as a ldquonexus of contractsrdquo as Williamsonand his colleagues have done (Aoki Gustafsson

and Williamson 1990 Williamson 1985) Thegrowth of temporary-help agencies and con-tract companies has created triadic relationsamong these organizations their employeesand client organizations that need to be expli-cated11

Explaining changes in employment relationsoften requires the use of multilevel data sets thatpermit the analysis of the effects of organiza-tional or occupational attributes on the behav-iors and attitudes of workers A growing numberof multilevel data sets that include informationon organizations and their employees are avail-able such as the National Organizations Studieslinked to the General Social Survey the Multi-City Study of Urban Inequality and the CensusBureaursquos Longitudinal Employer-HouseholdDynamics Surveys Moreover methods for ana-lyzing such multilevel data are fast disseminat-ing among sociologists These organizationalndashindividual data sets offer the promise of help-ing us understand better the mechanisms thatgenerate important inequalities in the work-place (Reskin 2003) Such data sets need to besupplemented by industry and firm studies asmany key social psychological dimensions ofinstability are missed with aggregate labor mar-ket data

FORMS AND MECHANISMS OF WORKER

AGENCY

We also need to understand better the formsand mechanisms of worker agency which gen-erally receive less attention than studies of socialstructure12 Workersrsquo actions did not play amajor role in my story of the growth of precar-ious work in the United States in recent yearsI emphasized primarily employersrsquo actions inresponse to macroeconomic pressures producedby globalization price competition and tech-nological changes The decline in unionsrsquopower


11 See the reviews of this literature by Davis-Blakeand Broschak (forthcoming) DiTomaso (2001) andKalleberg (2000)

12 Notable exceptions to this generalization includeBurawoyrsquos (1983) categorization of various types ofpolitical and ideological regimes in productionHodsonrsquos (2001) study of dignity at work and Vallasrsquos(2006) analysis of workersrsquo responses to new formsof work organization


Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155

during this period left workers without a strongcollective voice in confronting employers andpoliticians

Nevertheless as Hodson (200150) arguesldquoworkers are not passive victims of social struc-ture They are active agents in their own livesrdquoWorkers can resist management strategies ofcontrol and act autonomously to give meaningto their work

Studying the employment relationship forcesus to consider explicitly the interplay betweenstructure and agency This helps us rethinkworker agency by explaining how workers influ-ence the terms of the employment relation andit can ldquobring the worker back inrdquo to explanationsof work-related phenomena (Kalleberg 1989)We need to understand how workers exerciseagency both individually and collectively

Given the increasing diversity of the laborforce workersrsquo agendas and activities are like-ly to be highly variable and unpredictable oftenhaving creative and spontaneous effects In thecurrent world of work where workers are like-ly to be left on their own to acquire and main-tain their skills and to identify career paths(Bernstein 2006) we need a better understand-ing of the factors that influence personal agencyand its forms

We also need to be aware of and appreciatenew models of organizing and strategies ofmobilization that are likely to be effective inlight of the increased precarity of employmentrelations Collective agency is essential to build-ing countermovements yet Polanyi (1944)undertheorized how such movements are con-structed as he provided neither a theory ofsocial movements nor a theory of sources ofpower (Webster et al 2008) Research on ldquolaborrevitalizationrdquo is one scholarly expression ofthe growing emphasis on collective agencyCornfield and his colleagues for example showthat labor unions are strategic institutional actorsthat advance workersrsquo life chances by organiz-ing them engaging in collective bargainingand shaping the welfareregulatory state throughlegislative lobbying and political campaigns(eg Cornfield and Fletcher 2001 Cornfieldand McCammon 2003)

Moreover as Clawson (2003) argues mod-els of fusion that tie labor movements and labororganizing to other social movementsmdashsuchas the womenrsquos movement immigrant groupsand other community-based organizationsmdash

are likely to be more effective than those basedsolely on work This reflects the shift in theaxis of political mobilization from identitiesbased on economic roles (such as class occu-pation and the workplace) which were con-ducive to unionization to axes based on socialidentities such as race sex ethnicity age andother personal characteristics (Piore 2008)Some unions such as the Service EmployeesInternational Union have adopted this kind ofstrategy Other movements that represent alter-natives to unions organized at the workplaceinclude Industrial Area Foundations commu-nity-based organizations and worker centersThe fusion of labor movements with commu-nity-based social movements highlights thegrowing importance of the local area ratherthan the workplace as the basis for organizingin the future (see Turner and Cornfield 2007)Consumerndashproducer coalitions also illustrateforms of interdependent power (Piven 2008)

In addition occupations are becomingincreasingly important as sources of affiliationand identification (Arthur and Rousseau 1996)They are useful concepts for describing theinstitutional pathways by which workers canorganize to exercise their collective agencyacross multiple employers (Damarin 2006Osnowitz 2006) Theories of stratification suchas ldquodisaggregate structurationrdquo (Grusky andSoslashrensen 1998) take organized occupations asthe basic units of class structures13 A focus onemployment relations helps clarify the process-es of social closure by which occupationalincumbents seek to obtain greater control overtheir activities (Weeden 2002)

PRECARITY AND INSECURITY AS GLOBAL

CHALLENGES

Precarious work is a worldwide phenomenonThe most problematic aspects of precariouswork differ among countries however depend-ing on countriesrsquo stage of development socialinstitutions cultures and other national differ-ences


13 Evidence that between-occupation differencesaccount for an increasing part of the growth in wageinequality in the United States since the early 1990s(Mouw and Kalleberg 2008) underscores the salienceof occupations


Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155

In developed industrial countries the keydimensions of precarious work are associatedwith differences in jobs in the formal economysuch as earnings inequality security inequalityand vulnerability to dismissals (Maurin andPostel-Vinay 2005) and nonstandard workarrangements14 In transitional and less devel-oped countries (including many countries inAsia Africa and Latin America) precariouswork is often the norm and is linked more to theinformal15 than the formal economy and towhether jobs pay above poverty wages16 Indeedmost workers in the world find themselves in theinformal economy (Webster et al 2008)17

The term ldquoprecarityrdquo is often associated witha European social movement Feeling devaluedby businesses powerless due to the assault onunions and struggling with a shrinking wel-fare system European workers became increas-ingly vulnerable to the labor market and beganto organize around the concept of precarity asthey faced living and working without stabili-ty or a safety net European activists generally

identify precarity as a part of neoliberal glob-alization involving greater capital mobility thesearch for flexibility and lower costs privati-zation and attacks on welfare provisions

All industrial countries are faced with thebasic problem of balancing security (due to pre-carity) and flexibility (due to competition) thetwo dimensions of Polanyirsquos ldquodouble move-mentrdquo Countries have tried to solve this dilem-ma in different ways and their solutions providepotential models for the United States Somecountries adopted socialism to deal with theuncertainties associated with rapid socialchange But by the late 1980s this system wasdiscredited and capitalism became the dominanteconomic form The question now is what kindsof institutional arrangements should be put inplace to reduce employersrsquo risks and employeesrsquoinsecurity The degree to which employers canshift risks to employees depends on workersrsquo rel-ative power and control As Gallie (2007) andhis colleagues show (see also Burawoy 1983Fligstein and Byrkjeflot 1996) differentemployment regimes (eg coordinated marketeconomies such as Germany and theScandinavian countries versus liberal marketeconomies such as the United States and theUnited Kingdom) produce different solutions

The relationship between precarity and eco-nomic and other forms of insecurity will varyby country depending on its employment andsocial protections in addition to labor marketconditions It is thus insecurity more thanemployment precarity that varies among coun-tries This corresponds to the distinction betweenjob insecurity and labor market insecurity18

workers in countries with better social protec-tions are less likely to experience labor marketinsecurity although not necessarily less jobinsecurity (Anderson and Pontusson 2007)

The Danish case illustrates that even withincreased precarity in the labor market localpolitics may produce post-market security InDenmark security in any one job is relativelylow but labor market security is fairly highbecause unemployed workers are given a great


14 It is likely that the growing precarity of work inthe United States and other advanced industrial coun-tries has led more people to try to make a living inthe informal sector The evidence on this is poor asit is hard to collect data on activities in the informalsector for representative populations Official meas-ures of work generally emphasize paid work in theformal sector of the economy Qualitative studiesare likely to be especially valuable in studying workin the informal economy

15 See Ferman (1990) for a discussion of the infor-mal or irregular economy

16 For example the International LabourOrganization (20061) estimates that ldquoin 2005 84 per-cent of workers in South Asia 58 percent in South-East Asia 47 percent in East Asia || did not earnenough to lift themselves and their families above theUS$2 a day per person poverty linerdquo Moreover theILO estimates that informal nonagricultural workersmake up 83 percent of the labor force in India and78 percent in Indonesia (see also International LabourOrganization 2002) This scale of precarity differsdramatically from that found in the formal economyin the United States and other industrial countries

17 This does not necessarily mean that standards ofliving have declined in all countries While informaland precarious work is likely to be relatively high inChina for example it is also likely that security andprosperity have improved in China over the past sev-eral decades

18 This is similar to the distinction between ldquocog-nitiverdquo job insecurity (the perception that one is like-ly to lose onersquos job in the near feature) and ldquoaffectiverdquojob insecurity (whether one is worried about losingthe job) (Anderson and Pontusson 2007)


Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155

deal of protection and help in finding new jobs(as well as income compensation educationand job training) This famous ldquoflexicurityrdquosystem combines ldquoflexible hiring and firingrules for employers and a social security systemfor workersrdquo (Westergaard-Nielsen 200844)The example of flexicurity suggests there isgood reason to be optimistic about the effica-cy of appropriate policy interventions foraddressing problems of precarity

PRECARITY INSECURITY ANDPUBLIC POLICY

Industrial sociology was committed to studyingapplied concerns that were relevant to societysuch as worker morale managerial leadershipand productivity (Miller 1984 see also Barleyand Kunda 2001) Similarly a new sociology ofwork should focus on the challenges posed bycentral timely issues such as how and whyprecarious employment relations are createdand maintained

Economists currently dominate discussionsof public policy Labor economists for exam-ple have taken the lead in producing the detailedstudies about what is happening in the world ofwork providing policymakers with the keydescriptions and facts that need to be addressedThis contrasts with the first heyday of industrialsociology when sociologists and their closecousins the institutional economists producedthe major studies of work and were the key pol-icy advisers Because the issues of precariouswork and job insecurity are rooted in social andpolitical forcesmdashand the economy is as Polanyi(1944) and many others note embedded insocial relationsmdashsociologists today have atremendous opportunity to help shape publicpolicy by explaining how broad institutionaland cultural factors generate insecurity andinequality Such explanations are an essentialfirst step toward framing effective policies totackle the causes and consequences of precar-ity and to rebuild the social contract

The forces that led to the growth of precari-ous work are not likely to abate any time soonunder the present hegemonic model of free mar-ket globalization Therefore effective publicpolicies should seek to help people deal with theuncertainty and unpredictability of their workmdashand their resulting confusion and increasinglychaotic and insecure livesmdashwhile still preserv-

ing some of the flexibility that employers needto compete in a global marketplace Policiesshould also seek to create and stimulate thegrowth of nonprecarious jobs whenever possi-ble

As the pendulum of Polanyirsquos double move-ment swings again toward the need for socialprotections to alleviate the disruptions causedby the operation of unfettered markets we candraw lessons from the policies adopted under theNew Deal to address precarity in the 1920s and1930s

LOWERING WORKERSrsquo INSECURITY AND

RISK

One lesson is the need for social insurance tohelp individuals cope with the risks associatedwith precarious work The most pressing issueis health insurance for all citizens that is not tiedto particular employers but is portable thiswould reduce many negative consequences asso-ciated with unemployment and job changing(Krugman 2007) Portable pension coverage isalso needed to supplement social security andhelp people retire with dignity And we need bet-ter insurance to offset risks of unemploymentand income volatility (Hacker 2006) Suchforms of security should be made available toeveryone as proposed by Franklin D Rooseveltin his ldquoSecond Bill of Rightsrdquo (Sunstein 2004)

We must also make substantial new invest-ments in education and training to enable work-ers to update and maintain their skills In aprecarious world education is more essentialthan ever as workers must constantly learn newskills Yet increased tuition especially at stateuniversities is having a depressing effect onlower income studentsrsquo attendance Moreoveremployers are reluctant to provide training toworkers given the fragility of the employmentrelationship and the fear of losing their invest-ments The government should thus follow thelead of many European countries and bear moreof the cost burden of education and retraining

Family supportive policies leading to betterparental leave and child care options as well aslaws governing working-time can also offerrelief from precarity and insecurity



Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155

CREATING MORE SECURE JOBS

A second lesson from the New Deal is the useof public works programs to create jobs Publicpolicies can encourage businesses to create bet-ter and more secure jobs through reestablishinglabor market standards (eg raising the mini-mum wage) or providing tax credits to firms thatinvest in employee training and other ldquohighroadrdquo strategies Relying on the private sectorto generate good stable jobs is a limited strat-egy however since private firms are themselvesrelatively precarious

A Keynesian-type approach to creating pub-lic employment could both generate more securejobs and meet many of our pressing nationalneeds such as rebuilding our decaying infra-structure and upgrading currently low-paid andprecarious jobs in healthcare elder care andchild care Enhancing the quality of such ser-vice jobs may also underscore the fact that care-giving jobs are skilled activities that couldprovide opportunities for careers and upwardmobility

The constraint on expanding public employ-ment is political and ideological not econom-ic only about 16 percent of jobs in the UnitedStates are provided directly by federal state orlocal governments This figure is low relative toother European countries and well below thecarrying capacity of the US economy (Wright2008) The current financial crisis has openedthe door for discussions of Keynesian solutions

GENERATING THE COUNTERMOVEMENT

A final lesson from the New Deal is that a col-lective commitment is needed to achieve a dem-ocratic solution to problems related to precarityWe need to reaffirm our belief that the govern-ment is necessary to create a good society Thisidea has gotten lost in the past quarter centuryand been replaced by the ideology that individ-uals are responsible for managing their ownrisks and solving their own problems The notionthat government should be an instrument usedin the public interest has been further eroded byits recent failures to cope with natural disastersforeign policy challenges and domestic eco-nomic turmoil This has led to a diminishedbelief in the efficacy of government whatKuttner (200745) calls the ldquorevolution ofdeclining expectationsrdquo

At this critical time we need transforma-tional leadership and big ideas to address thelarge problems of precarity insecurity and othermajor challenges facing our society Bold polit-ical and economic initiatives are needed torestore our sense of security and optimism forthe future Our democracy needs to have a vig-orous debate on the form that globalizationshould take and on the policies and practices thatwill enhance both the social good and our indi-vidual well-being

Workersrsquo ability to exercise collectiveagencymdashthrough unions and other organiza-tionsmdashis essential for this debate to occur andto create a countermovement to implement thekinds of social investments and protections thatcould address the problems raised by precariouswork The success of such a countermovementdepends on political forces within the UnitedStates being reconfigured so as to give workersa real voice in decision making Moreover theglobal nature of problems related to precarityhighlights the need for local solutions to belinked to transnational unions internationallabor standards and other global efforts (Silver2003 Webster et al 2008)

There is always the danger that Americanswill not reach a ldquoboiling pointrdquo but will treat thepresent era of precarity as an aberration ratherthan a structural reality that needs urgent atten-tion (Schama 2002) Nevertheless a clear under-standing of the nature of the problem combinedwith the identification of feasible alternativesand the political will to attain themmdashbuttressedby the collective power of workersmdashoffer thepromise of generating an effective counter-movement

CONCLUSIONS

Precarious work is the dominant feature of thesocial relations between employers and work-ers in the contemporary world Studying pre-carious work is essential because it leads tosignificant work-related (eg job insecurityeconomic insecurity inequality) and nonndashwork-related (eg individual family community)consequences By investigating the changingnature of employment relations we can frameand address a very large range of social prob-lems gender and race disparities civil rights andeconomic injustice family insecurity andworkndashfamily imbalances identity politics



Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155

immigration and migration political polariza-tion and so on

The structural changes that have led to pre-carious work and employment relations are notfixed nor are they irreversible inevitable con-sequences of economic forces The degree ofprecarity varies among organizations within theUnited States depending on the relative powerof employers and employees and the nature oftheir social and psychological contractsMoreover the wide variety of solutions to thetwin goals of flexibility and security adopted bydifferent employment regimes around the worldunderscores the potential of political ideolog-ical and cultural forces to shape the organiza-tion of work and the need for global solutions

The challengesmdashand opportunitiesmdashforsociology are to explain how various kinds ofemployment relations are created and main-tained and what mechanisms (which areamenable to policy interventions in varyingdegrees) are consistent with various public poli-cies We need to understand the range of newworkplace arrangements that have been adopt-ed and their implications for both organiza-tional performance and individualsrsquowell-beingA holistic interdisciplinary social scienceapproach to studying work which elaborates onthe variability in employment relations has thepotential to address many of the significantconcerns facing our society in the coming years

Arne L Kalleberg is Kenan Distinguished Professorof Sociology at the University of North Carolina atChapel Hill He has published 10 books and morethan 100 journal articles and book chapters on top-ics related to the sociology of work organizationsoccupations and industries labor markets and socialstratification His most recent books are TheMismatched Worker (2007) and Ending Poverty inAmerica How to Restore the American Dream (co-edited with John Edwards and Marion Crain 2007)He is currently finishing a book about changes in jobquality in the United States as well as examining theglobal challenges raised by the growth of precariouswork and insecurity

REFERENCES

Abbott Andrew 1993 ldquoThe Sociology of Work andOccupationsrdquo Annual Review of Sociology19187ndash209

Amenta Edwin 1998 Bold Relief InstitutionalPolitics and the Origins of Modern AmericanSocial Policy Princeton NJ Princeton UniversityPress

Anderson Christopher J and Jonas Pontusson 2007ldquoWorkers Worries and Welfare States SocialProtection and Job Insecurity in 15 OECDCountriesrdquo European Journal of Political Research46(2)211ndash35

Aoki Masahiko Bo Gustafsson and OliverWilliamson eds 1990 The Firm as a Nexus ofTreaties London UK Sage Publications

Aronowitz Stanley 2001 The Last Good Job inAmerica Work and Education in the New GlobalTechnoculture Lanham MD Rowman ampLittlefield

Arthur Michael B and Denise M Rousseau eds1996 The Boundaryless Career A NewEmployment Principle for a New OrganizationalEra New York Oxford University Press

Averitt Robert T 1968 The Dual Economy TheDynamics of American Industry Structure NewYork Norton

Barley Stephen R and Gideon Kunda 2001ldquoBringing Work Back Inrdquo Organization Science1276ndash95

mdashmdashmdash 2006 Gurus Hired Guns and WarmBodies Itinerant Experts in a KnowledgeEconomy Princeton NJ Princeton UniversityPress

Baron James N 1988 ldquoThe Employment Relationas a Social Relationrdquo Journal of the Japanese andInternational Economies 2492ndash525

Beck Ulrich 2000 The Brave New World of WorkMalden MA Blackwell

Bendix Reinhard 1956 Work and Authority inIndustry Ideologies of Management in the Courseof Industrialization New York Wiley

Berg Ivar 1979 Industrial Sociology EnglewoodCliffs NJ Prentice-Hall

Bernstein Jared 2006 All Together Now CommonSense for a New Economy San Francisco CABerrett-Koehler Publishers Inc

Bourdieu Pierre 1998 ldquoLa preacutecariteacute est aujourdrsquohuipartoutrdquo Pp 95ndash101 in Contre-feux Paris FranceLiber-Raison drsquoagir

Braverman Harry 1974 Labor and MonopolyCapital The Degradation of Work in the TwentiethCentury New York Monthly Review Press

Breen Richard 1997 ldquoRisk Recommodificationand Stratificationrdquo Sociology 31(3)473ndash89

Burawoy Michael 1979 Manufacturing ConsentChanges in the Labor Process under MonopolyCapitalism Chicago IL University of ChicagoPress

mdashmdashmdash 1983 ldquoBetween the Labor Process and theState The Changing Face of Factory Regimesunder Advanced Capitalismrdquo AmericanSociological Review 48587ndash605

Cappelli Peter 1999 The New Deal at WorkManaging the Market-Driven Workforce BostonMA Harvard Business School Press

mdashmdashmdash 2008 Talent on Demand Managing Talent



Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155

in an Age of Uncertainty Boston MA HarvardBusiness School Press

Clawson Dan 2003 The Next Upsurge Labor andthe New Social Movements Ithaca NY ILR Press

Commons John R 1934 Institutional EconomicsIts Place in Political Economy New YorkMacmillan

Coontz Stephanie 2005 Marriage a History FromObedience to Intimacy or how Love ConqueredMarriage New York Viking

Cornfield Daniel B and Bill Fletcher 2001 ldquoTheUS Labor Movement Toward a Sociology ofLabor Revitalizationrdquo Pp 61ndash82 in Sourcebook ofLabor Markets Evolving Structures and Processesedited by I Berg and A L Kalleberg New YorkKluwer AcademicPlenum Publishers

Cornfield Daniel B and Holly J McCammon eds2003 Labor Revitalization Global Perspectivesand New Initiatives Amsterdam Elsevier

Damarin Amanda Kidd 2006 ldquoRethinkingOccupational Structure The Case of Web SiteProduction Workrdquo Work and Occupations33(4)429ndash63

Davis-Blake Alison and Joseph P BroschakForthcoming ldquoOutsourcing and the ChangingNature of Workrdquo Annual Review of Sociology

Davis-Blake Alison Joseph P Broschak andElizabeth George 2003 ldquoHappy Together Howusing Nonstandard Workers Affects Exit Voiceand Loyalty among Standard EmployeesrdquoAcademy of Management Journal 46475ndash86

De Witte Hans 1999 ldquoJob Insecurity andPsychological Well-Being Review of theLiterature and Exploration of Some UnresolvedIssuesrdquo European Journal of Work andOrganizational Psychology 8(2)155ndash77

DiTomaso Nancy 2001 ldquoThe Loose Coupling ofJobs The Subcontracting of Everyonerdquo Pp247ndash70 in Sourcebook of Labor Markets EvolvingStructures and Processes edited by I Berg and AL Kalleberg New York Kluwer AcademicPlenumPublishers

Dore Ronald 1973 British FactoryndashJapaneseFactory The Origins of National Diversity inIndustrial Relations London UK Allen andUnwin

Edwards Richard 1979 Contested Terrain TheTransformation of the Workplace in the TwentiethCentury New York Basic Books

Epstein Cynthia Fuchs 1970 Womanrsquos PlaceOptions and Limits in Professional CareersBerkeley CA University of California Press

Farber Henry S 2008 ldquoShort(er) Shrift The Declinein Worker-Firm Attachment in the United StatesrdquoPp 10ndash37 in Laid Off Laid Low Political andEconomic Consequences of EmploymentInsecurity edited by K S Newman New YorkColumbia University Press

Ferman Louis A 1990 ldquoParticipation in the Irregular

Economyrdquo Pp 119ndash40 in The Nature of WorkSociological Perspectives edited by K Erikson andS P Vallas New Haven CT Yale University Press

Fligstein Neil and Haldor Byrkjeflot 1996 ldquoTheLogic of Employment Systemsrdquo Pp 11ndash35 inSocial Differentiation and Stratification editedby J Baron D Grusky and D Treiman BoulderCO Westview Press

Form William H and Delbert C Miller 1960Industry Labor and Community New York Harperand Row

Freeman Richard B 2007 ldquoThe Great Doubling TheChallenge of the New Global Labor Marketrdquo Pp55ndash65 in Ending Poverty in America How toRestore the American Dream edited by J EdwardsM Crain and A L Kalleberg New York TheNew Press

Fullerton Andrew S and Michael Wallace 2005ldquoTraversing the Flexible Turn US WorkersrsquoPerceptions of Job Security 1977ndash2002rdquo SocialScience Research 36201ndash21

Gallie Duncan ed 2007 Employment Regimes andthe Quality of Work Oxford UK OxfordUniversity Press

Goldin Claudia and Lawrence F Katz 2008 TheRace between Education and TechnologyCambridge MA Harvard University Press

Goldin Claudia and Robert A Margo 1992 ldquoTheGreat Compression The Wage Structure in theUnited States at Mid-Centuryrdquo Quarterly Journalof Economics cvii1ndash34

Goldthorpe John 2000 On Sociology NumbersNarratives and the Integration of Research andTheory Oxford UK Oxford University Press

Gonos George 1997 ldquoThe Contest over lsquoEmployerrsquoStatus in the Postwar United States The Case ofTemporary Help Firmsrdquo Law amp Society Review3181ndash110

Goodman Peter S 2008 ldquoA Hidden Toll onEmployment Cut to Part Timerdquo New York TimesJuly 31 pp C1 C12

Gouldner Alvin W 1959 ldquoOrganizational AnalysisrdquoPp 400ndash28 in Sociology Today edited by R KMerton L Broom and L S Cottrell New YorkBasic Books

Greenhalgh Leonard and Zehava Rosenblatt 1984ldquoJob Insecurity Toward Conceptual Clarityrdquo TheAcademy of Management Review 9(3)438ndash48

Grusky David B and Jesper B Soslashrensen 1998ldquoCan Class Analysis Be Salvagedrdquo AmericanJournal of Sociology 1031187ndash1234

Hacker Jacob 2006 The Great Risk Shift New YorkOxford University Press

Harrison Ann E and Margaret S McMillan 2006ldquoDispelling Some Myths about OffshoringrdquoAcademy of Management Perspectives 20(4)6ndash22

Hochschild Arlie 1983 The Managed Heart TheCommercialization of Human Feeling BerkeleyCA University of California Press



Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155

Hodson Randy 2001 Dignity at Work CambridgeUK Cambridge University Press

Hughes Everett C 1958 Men and their WorkGlencoe IL Free Press

International Labour Organization 2002 Womenand Men in the Informal Economy A StatisticalPicture Geneva International Labour Office

mdashmdashmdash 2006 Realizing Decent Work in AsiaFourteenth Asian Regional Meeting Busan KoreaAugust to September Geneva InternationalLabour Off ice (wwwiloorgpublicenglishstandardsrelmrgmeetasiahtm)

Jacobs Jerry A 1989 Revolving Doors SexSegregation and Womenrsquos Careers Stanford CAStanford University Press

Jacobs Jerry A and Kathleen Gerson 2004 TheTime Divide Work Family and Gender InequalityCambridge MA Harvard University Press

Jacoby Sanford M 1985 Employing BureaucracyManagers Unions and the Transformation of Workin the 20th Century New York ColumbiaUniversity Press

mdashmdashmdash 2001 ldquoRisk and the Labor Market SocietalPast as Economic Prologuerdquo Pp 31ndash60 inSourcebook of Labor Markets Evolving Structuresand Processes edited by I Berg and A LKalleberg New York Kluwer AcademicPlenumPublishers

Kalleberg Arne L 1989 ldquoLinking Macro and MicroLevels Bringing the Workers Back into theSociology of Workrdquo Social Forces 67582ndash92

mdashmdashmdash 2000 ldquoNonstandard EmploymentRelations Part-Time Temporary and ContractWorkrdquo Annual Review of Sociology 26341ndash65

mdashmdashmdash 2001 ldquoOrganizing Flexibility The FlexibleFirm in a New Centuryrdquo British Journal ofIndustrial Relations 39479ndash504

Kalleberg Arne L and Peter V Marsden 2005ldquoExternalizing Organizational Activities Whereand How US Establishments Use EmploymentIntermediariesrdquo Socio-Economic Review3389ndash416

Kalleberg Arne L and Aage B Soslashrensen 1979ldquoSociology of Labor Marketsrdquo Annual Review ofSociology 5351ndash79

Kanter Rosabeth Moss 1977 Men and Women of theCorporation New York Basic Books

Krugman Paul 2007 The Conscience of a LiberalNew York WW Norton

mdashmdashmdash 2008 ldquoCrisis of Confidencerdquo New YorkTimes April 14 p A27

Kuttner Robert 2007 The Squandering of AmericaHow the Failure of our Politics Undermines ourProsperity New York Alfred A Knopf

Laubach Marty 2005 ldquoConsent InformalOrganization and Job Rewards A Mixed MethodAnalysisrdquo Social Forces 83(4)1535ndash66

Leicht Kevin T and Scott T Fitzgerald 2007

Postindustrial Peasants The Illusion of Middle-Class Prosperity New York Worth Publishers

Lipset Seymour Martin Martin Trow and James SColeman 1956 Union Democracy New YorkFree Press

MacNeil Ian R 1980 The New Social Contract AnInquiry into Modern Contractual Relations NewHaven CT Yale University Press

Mandel Michael J 1996 The High-Risk SocietyPeril and Promise in the New Economy New YorkRandom House

Maurin Eric and Fabien Postel-Vinay 2005 ldquoTheEuropean Job Security Gaprdquo Work andOccupations 32229ndash52

McCall Leslie 2001 Complex Inequality GenderClass and Race in the New Economy New YorkRoutledge

McGovern Patrick Stephen Hill Colin Mills andMichael White 2008 Market Class andEmployment Oxford UK Oxford UniversityPress

Miller Delbert C 1984 ldquoWhatever Will Happen toIndustrial Sociologyrdquo The Sociological Quarterly25251ndash56

Mishel Lawrence Jared Bernstein and SylviaAllegretto 2007 The State of Working America20062007 Ithaca NY ILRCornell UniversityPress

Mishel Lawrence Jared Bernstein and HeidiShierholz 2009 The State of Working America20082009 Ithaca NY ILRCornell UniversityPress

Mouw Ted and Arne L Kalleberg 2008ldquoOccupations and the Structure of Wage Inequalityin the United States 1980sndash2000srdquo Unpublishedpaper Department of Sociology University ofNorth Carolina at Chapel Hill

New York Times 1996 The Downsizing of AmericaNew York Times Books

Noble David F 1977 America by Design ScienceTechnology and the Rise of Corporate CapitalismNew York Knopf

Osnowitz Debra 2006 ldquoOccupational Networkingas Normative Control Collegial Exchange amongContract Professionalsrdquo Work and Occupations33(1)12ndash41

Osterman Paul 1999 Securing Prosperity How theAmerican Labor Market Has Changed and WhatTo Do about It Princeton NJ Princeton UniversityPress

Padavic Irene 2005 ldquoLaboring under UncertaintyIdentity Renegotiation among ContingentWorkersrdquo Symbolic Interaction 28(1)111ndash34

Peck Jamie 1996 Work-Place The SocialRegulation of Labor Markets New York TheGuilford Press

Pfeffer Jeffrey and James N Baron 1988 ldquoTakingthe Workers Back Out Recent Trends in the



Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155

Structuring of Employmentrdquo Research inOrganizational Behavior 10257ndash303

Piore Michael J 2008 ldquoSecond Thoughts OnEconomics Sociology Neoliberalism PolanyirsquosDouble Movement and Intellectual VacuumsrdquoPresidential Address Society for the Advancementof Socio-Economics San Juan Costa Rica July22

Piore Michael J and Charles Sabel 1984 TheSecond Industrial Divide Possibilities forProsperity New York Basic Books

Piven Frances Fox 2008 ldquoCan Power from BelowChange the Worldrdquo American Sociological Review731ndash14

Polanyi Karl 1944 The Great Transformation NewYork Farrar and Rinehart Inc

Putnam Robert 2000 Bowling Alone The Collapseand Revival of American Community New YorkSimon and Schuster

Reskin Barbara F 2003 ldquoIncluding Mechanisms inour Models of Ascriptive Inequalityrdquo AmericanSociological Review 681ndash21

Reskin Barbara F and Patricia A Roos 1990 JobQueues Gender Queues Explaining WomenrsquosInroads into Male Occupations Philadelphia PATemple University Press

Rousseau Denise M and Judi McLean Parks 1992ldquoThe Contracts of Individuals and OrganizationsrdquoResearch in Organizational Behavior 151ndash43

Roy Donald 1952 ldquoQuota Restriction andGoldbricking in a Machine Shoprdquo AmericanSociological Review 57(5)427ndash42

Ruggie John Gerard 1982 ldquoInternational RegimesTransactions and Change Embedded Liberalismin the Postwar Economic Orderrdquo InternationalOrganization 36(2)379ndash415

Schama Simon 2002 ldquoThe Nation Mourning inAmerica a Whiff of Dread for the Land of HoperdquoNew York Times September 15

Schmidt Stefanie R 1999 ldquoLong-Run Trends inWorkersrsquo Beliefs about Their Own Job SecurityEvidence from the General Social Surveyrdquo Journalof Labor Economics 17s127ndashs141

Sennett Richard 1998 The Corrosion of CharacterThe Personal Consequences of Work in the NewCapitalism New York WW Norton

Silver Beverly J 2003 Forces of Labor WorkersrsquoMovements and Globalization since 1870Cambridge UK Cambridge University Press

Simpson Ida Harper 1989 ldquoThe Sociology of WorkWhere Have the Workers Gonerdquo Social Forces67563ndash81

Smith Vicki 1990 Managing in the CorporateInterest Control and Resistance in an AmericanBank Berkeley CA University of California Press

mdashmdashmdash 1997 ldquoNew Forms of Work OrganizationrdquoAnnual Review of Sociology 23315ndash39

mdashmdashmdash 2001 Crossing the Great Divide Worker

Risk and Opportunity in the New Economy IthacaNY Cornell University Press

Soslashrensen Aage B 2000 ldquoToward a Sounder Basisfor Class Analysisrdquo American Journal of Sociology1051523ndash58

Standing Guy 1999 Global Labour FlexibilitySeeking Distributive Justice New York StMartinrsquos Press

Sullivan Teresa A Elizabeth Warren and JayLawrence Westbrook 2001 The Fragile MiddleClass Americans in Debt New Haven CT YaleUniversity Press

Sunstein Cass R 2004 The Second Bill of RightsFDRrsquos Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need itMore than Ever New York Basic Books

Tomaskovic-Devey Donald 1993 Gender andRacial Inequality at Work The Sources andConsequences of Job Segregation Ithaca NYILR Press

Turner Lowell and Daniel B Cornfield eds 2007Labor in the New Urban Battlegrounds LocalSolidarity in a Global Economy Ithaca NY ILRPress

Uchitelle Louis 2006 The Disposable AmericanLayoffs and their Consequences New York AlfredA Knopf

United States Department of Education IPEDS FallStaff Survey compiled by the AmericanAssociation of University Professors(httpwwwaauporgNRrdonlyres9218E731-A 6 8 E - 4 E 9 8 - A 3 7 8 - 1 2 2 5 1 F F D 3 8 0 2 0 Facstatustrend7505pdf)

Valetta Robert G 1999 ldquoDeclining Job SecurityrdquoJournal of Labor Economics 17s170ndashs197

Vallas Steven Peter 1999 ldquoRethinking Post-FordismThe Meaning of Workplace FlexibilityrdquoSociological Theory 1768ndash101

mdashmdashmdash 2006 ldquoEmpowerment Redux StructureAgency and the Remaking of ManagerialAuthorityrdquo American Journal of Sociology111(6)1677ndash1717

Wallace Michael and David Brady 2001 ldquoThe NextLong Swing Spatialization Technocratic Controland the Restructuring of Work at the Turn of theCenturyrdquo Pp 101ndash33 in Sourcebook of LaborMarkets Evolving Structures and Processes edit-ed by I Berg and A L Kalleberg New YorkKluwer AcademicPlenum Publishers

Webster Edward Rob Lambert and AndriesBezuidenhout 2008 Grounding GlobalizationLabour in the Age of Insecurity Oxford UKBlackwell

Weeden Kim A 2002 ldquoWhy Do Some OccupationsPay More than Others Social Closure andEarnings Inequality in the United StatesrdquoAmerican Journal of Sociology 10855ndash101

Westergaard-Nielsen Niels ed 2008 Low-WageWork in Denmark New York Russell SageFoundation



Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155

Whyte William H 1956 The Organization ManNew York Simon and Schuster

Williamson Oliver 1985 The Economic Institutionsof Capitalism New York The Free Press

Wilson William J 1978 The Declining Significanceof Race Blacks and Changing AmericanInstitutions Chicago IL University of ChicagoPress

Wright Erik Olin 2008 ldquoThree Logics of Job

Creation in Capitalist Economiesrdquo Presentation atthe 103rd Annual Meetings of the AmericanSociological Association panel on ldquoGlobalizationand Work Challenges and ResponsibilitiesrdquoBoston MA August

Zuboff Shoshana 1988 In the Age of the SmartMachine The Future of Work and Power NewYork Basic Books



Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155

ments) must address Accordingly the study ofwork has long been a central field in sociolo-gy beginning with classical sociologists such asDurkheim (in his Division of Labor) Marx (inhis theories of the labor process and alienation)and Weber (in his conceptualizations of bureau-cracy and social closure)

For several decades both in the United Statesand worldwide social economic and politicalforces have aligned to make work more pre-carious By ldquoprecarious workrdquo I mean employ-ment that is uncertain unpredictable and riskyfrom the point of view of the worker Resultingdistress obvious in a variety of forms remindsus daily of such precarity The Bureau of LaborStatistics (BLS) estimates (and likely underes-timates) that more than 30 million full-timeworkers lost their jobs involuntarily between theearly 1980s and 2004 (Uchitelle 2006) Jobloss often triggers many unpleasant eventssuch as loss of health insurance and enhanceddebt Mortgage foreclosure rates have increasedfivefold since the early 1970s (Hacker 2006)US personal bankruptcy filings are at recordhighs (Leicht and Fitzgerald 2007) and near-ly two-thirds of bankruptcy filers reported a jobproblem (Sullivan Warren and Westbrook2001)

Precarious work of course is not necessar-ily new or novel to the current era it has exist-ed since the launch of paid employment as aprimary source of sustenance1 Nevertheless thegrowth and obviousness of precarious worksince the 1970s has crystallized an importantconcern Bourdieu (1998) saw preacutecariteacute as theroot of problematic social issues in the twenty-first century Beck (2000) describes the cre-ation of a ldquorisk societyrdquo and a ldquonew politicaleconomy of insecurityrdquo Others have called theevents of the past quarter-century the secondGreat Transformation (Webster Lambert andBezuidenhout 2008)

Precarious work has far-reaching conse-quences that cut across many areas of concernto sociologists Creating insecurity for manypeople it has pervasive consequences not only

for the nature of work workplaces and peoplersquoswork experiences but also for many nonworkindividual (eg stress education) social (egfamily community) and political (eg stabil-ity democratization) outcomes It is thus impor-tant that we understand the new workplacearrangements that generate precarious work andinsecurity

I concentrate in this address on employmentwhich is work that produces earnings (or prof-it if one is self-employed) Equating work withpay or profit is of course a limited view asthere are many activities that create value but areunpaid such as those that take place in thehousehold Given my focus largely on industrialcountries particularly the United States Iemphasize precarious employment in the formaleconomy2

REASONS FOR THE GROWTH OFPRECARIOUS WORK IN THE UNITEDSTATES

It is generally agreed that the most recent era ofprecarious work in the United States began inthe mid- to late-1970s The years 1974 to 1975marked the start of macro-economic changes(such as the oil shock) that helped lead to anincrease in global price competition US man-ufacturers were challenged initially by compa-nies from Japan and South Korea in theautomobile and steel industries respectivelyThe process that came to be known as neolib-eral globalization intensified economic inte-gration increased the amount of competitionfaced by companies provided greater opportu-nities to outsource work to lower-wage coun-tries and opened up new labor pools throughimmigration Technological advances bothforced companies to become more competitiveglobally and made it possible for them to do so


1 Classical social thinkers such as Marx Weberand Durkheim sought to explain the consequences ofthe precarity created by the rapid social change asso-ciated with the emergence of the market economy inthe nineteenth century (see Webster et al 20082ndash3)

2 Employment precarity results when people losetheir jobs or fear losing their jobs when they lackalternative employment opportunities in the labormarket and when workers experience diminishedopportunities to obtain and maintain particular skillsOther aspects of employment precarity are eitherdeterminants or consequences of these basic formsof uncertainty including income precarity work inse-curity (unsafe work) and representation precarity(unavailability of collective voice) (Standing 1999)


Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155












Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155



1970S)








Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155




OF PRECARITY TODAY










Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155










EMPLOYERS



UNEMPLOYMENT






Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155













Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155

















Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155




WORK









Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155



PRECARIOUS WORK













Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155












Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155















Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155








AGENCY






Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155










CHALLENGES





Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155















Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155









RISK






Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155










CONCLUSIONS




Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155





REFERENCES
























Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155




































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155








































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155






































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155









Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155












Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155



1970S)








Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155




OF PRECARITY TODAY










Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155










EMPLOYERS



UNEMPLOYMENT






Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155













Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155

















Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155




WORK









Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155



PRECARIOUS WORK













Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155












Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155















Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155








AGENCY






Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155










CHALLENGES





Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155















Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155









RISK






Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155










CONCLUSIONS




Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155





REFERENCES
























Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155




































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155








































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155






































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155









Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155



1970S)








Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155




OF PRECARITY TODAY










Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155










EMPLOYERS



UNEMPLOYMENT






Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155













Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155

















Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155




WORK









Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155



PRECARIOUS WORK













Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155












Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155















Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155








AGENCY






Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155










CHALLENGES





Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155















Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155









RISK






Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155










CONCLUSIONS




Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155





REFERENCES
























Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155




































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155








































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155






































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155









Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155




OF PRECARITY TODAY










Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155










EMPLOYERS



UNEMPLOYMENT






Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155













Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155

















Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155




WORK









Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155



PRECARIOUS WORK













Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155












Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155















Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155








AGENCY






Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155










CHALLENGES





Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155















Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155









RISK






Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155










CONCLUSIONS




Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155





REFERENCES
























Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155




































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155








































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155






































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155









Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155










EMPLOYERS



UNEMPLOYMENT






Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155













Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155

















Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155




WORK









Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155



PRECARIOUS WORK













Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155












Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155















Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155








AGENCY






Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155










CHALLENGES





Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155















Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155









RISK






Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155










CONCLUSIONS




Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155





REFERENCES
























Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155




































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155








































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155






































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155









Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155













Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155

















Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155




WORK









Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155



PRECARIOUS WORK













Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155












Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155















Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155








AGENCY






Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155










CHALLENGES





Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155















Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155









RISK






Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155










CONCLUSIONS




Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155





REFERENCES
























Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155




































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155








































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155






































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155









Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155

















Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155




WORK









Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155



PRECARIOUS WORK













Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155












Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155















Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155








AGENCY






Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155










CHALLENGES





Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155















Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155









RISK






Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155










CONCLUSIONS




Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155





REFERENCES
























Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155




































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155








































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155






































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155









Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155




WORK









Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155



PRECARIOUS WORK













Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155












Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155















Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155








AGENCY






Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155










CHALLENGES





Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155















Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155









RISK






Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155










CONCLUSIONS




Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155





REFERENCES
























Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155




































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155








































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155






































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155









Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155



PRECARIOUS WORK













Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155












Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155















Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155








AGENCY






Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155










CHALLENGES





Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155















Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155









RISK






Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155










CONCLUSIONS




Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155





REFERENCES
























Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155




































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155








































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155






































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155









Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155












Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155















Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155








AGENCY






Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155










CHALLENGES





Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155















Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155









RISK






Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155










CONCLUSIONS




Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155





REFERENCES
























Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155




































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155








































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155






































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155









Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155















Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155








AGENCY






Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155










CHALLENGES





Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155















Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155









RISK






Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155










CONCLUSIONS




Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155





REFERENCES
























Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155




































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155








































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155






































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155









Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155








AGENCY






Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155










CHALLENGES





Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155















Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155









RISK






Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155










CONCLUSIONS




Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155





REFERENCES
























Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155




































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155








































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155






































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155









Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155










CHALLENGES





Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155















Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155









RISK






Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155










CONCLUSIONS




Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155





REFERENCES
























Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155




































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155








































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155






































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155









Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155















Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155









RISK






Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155










CONCLUSIONS




Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155





REFERENCES
























Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155




































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155








































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155






































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155









Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155









RISK






Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155










CONCLUSIONS




Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155





REFERENCES
























Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155




































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155








































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155






































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155









Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155










CONCLUSIONS




Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155





REFERENCES
























Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155




































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155








































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155






































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155









Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155





REFERENCES
























Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155




































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155








































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155






































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155









Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155




































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155








































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155






































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155









Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155








































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155






































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155









Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155






































Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155









Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155









Sun 14 Jun 2009 170155

documentp1

Documents