The Relevance Of Precariousness In Employment Today: Review Of A Scholarly Article By Campbell And Burgess (2018)

The purpose of this report, after reviewing a scholarly article on precarious employment by Campbell and Burgess (2018), is to discuss the central issues highlighted and the relevance of precariousness in employment today.

The concept of precariousness in employment embodies work that is unstable and unpredictable in nature, and that is subjected to lower wages and poorer working conditions (International Labor Rights Forum 2019), in comparison to work in permanent and continuous employment positions.

A key issue that is present in employment precariousness is that of the health and well being of employees. This issue is especially emulated through the position of migrant workers. Specific attention as been drawn towards migrants in the workplace due to their substantial impact on the Australian labour market, exceeding one million persons, with estimations that they hold nine percent of the labour force (Campbell and Burgess 2018). Most migrant workers are often exposed to higher levels of exploitation, as they are condensed in lower-paid, tenuous jobs with low safety in their working environments (Campbell and Burgess 2018). Migrant workers often disregard these poor conditions, as they are especially conscious of the deficit that immigration rules impose onto their rights including their dependence on a third party for their right to residency. Furthermore, external pressures, such as housing debts and other living expenses associated with their temporary residency, “mediate experiences of precariousness” (Campbell and Burgess 2018). They are hence more impressionable to the ramifications of irregular work patterns, low pay and higher risk to harsh working conditions, which have all been factors associated with precarious work.

Unreliable hours, irregular scheduling and variable pay are also strong contributes to another issue within precarious employment, that being higher levels of financial hardships and susceptibility to job loss/job change. This can be highlighted through Burgess and Campbell’s (1998) dimensions of labour insecurity, where casual employees are often most vulnerable. They are described as being aware that they are essentially “disposal labour” with little protection to sporadic scheduling, for example, managers may encumber casual employees by using work allocation as an arbitrary device and a form of punishment. This creates an unstable living condition as workers may be exposed to unreliable and insufficient source of pay. This employment insecurity can hinder upon an employee’s sensitivity to changing jobs, leading to another central issue to the topic, which is trapping them in a cycle of casual employment with irregular work patterns, which, as studies have shown (Burgess et al. 2008), is perceived as being a “stepping-stone to permanent work” and “better than unemployment”. However, opposing studies found that this quality of work was often worse on employee’s mental health and wellbeing than being unemployed (Campbell and Burgess 2018).