In this Foreword to the special issue 'In, Against and Beyond Precarity' the guest editors take stock of the existing literature on precarity, highlighting the strengths and limitations of using this concept as an analytical tool for examining the world of work. Concluding that the overstretched nature of concept has diluted its political effectiveness, the editors suggest instead a focus on precarization as a process, drawing from perspectives that focus on the objective conditions, as well as subjective and heterogeneous experiences and perceptions of insecure employment. Framed in this way, they present a summary of the contributions to the special issue spanning a range of countries and organizational contexts, identifying key drivers, patterns and forms of precarization. These are conceptualized as implicit, explicit, productive and citizenship precarization. These forms and patterns indicate the need to address precariousness in the realm of social reproduction and post-wage politics, while holding these in tension with conflicts at the point of production. Finally, the guest editors argue for a dramatic rethink of current forms of state and non-state social protections as responses to the precarization of work and employment across countries in both the Global 'North' and 'South'.

Empirical evidence regarding the link between flexible working arrangements (FWAs) and work effort is mixed, with the literature showing that some practices are linked to more while others to less work effort. In this study, we argue that this discrepancy may be due to the existence of different types of FWA bundles with potentially distinct effects on work effort. Using Understanding Society, a British national survey, and building on theories related to social exchange, the study examines the link between employee‐centered and employer‐centered FWA bundles, and work effort. This study further tests whether these relationships differ depending on employees' family responsibilities. Based on a sample of 13,834 employees, results show that both employee‐centered and employer‐centered FWA bundles are negatively associated with work effort, and findings for the latter bundle are more pronounced. These negative associations are somewhat stronger for employees with fewer family responsibilities. We infer that employees appear to use employee‐centered FWAs for their intended purpose, that is, to balance life and job demands, while they might perceive employer‐centered FWAs as unfair, resulting in less work effort in an attempt to restore fairness.

This paper presents findings from the Leeds Index of Platform Labour Protest, a database of platform worker protest events around the world which gathers data from online news media reports and other online sources. For the period January 2017 to July 2020, we identified 1,271 instances of worker protest in four platform sectors: ride-hailing, food delivery, courier services and grocery delivery. Our results show that the single most important cause of platform worker protest is pay, with other protested issues including employment status, and health and safety. In most global regions, strikes, log-offs and demonstrations predominated as a form of protest. Furthermore, platform worker protests showed a strong tendency to be driven from below by worker self-organization, although trade unions also had an important presence in some parts of the world. From the four platform sectors examined, ride-hailing and food delivery accounted for most protest events. Although the growth of platform worker organization is remarkable, formal collective bargaining is uncommon, as is formal employment, with ad hoc self-organized groups of workers dominating labour protest across the different sectors, particularly in the global South.

Flexible labour markets, flexible working arrangements (FWAs) and motivations behind their use are established and expanding strands of sociology of work and employment relations research. This article provides a review of key themes and debates connected to workplace flexibility between 2000-2015 utilizing research located in leading sociology of work, employment relations, industrial relations and HRM journals, in addition to key texts published during this time period. We establish that flexible work research is a growing area of research and focus our analysis on identifying key themes categorised as established, accelerated and emergent. We conclude with areas of contention yet to be resolved and possible avenues for future directions in flexible work research, noting a disconnection between macro analyses of flexibility at the economic level and the focus on flexible working-time arrangements (FWAs) at the workplace level. Furthermore we observed few quantitative multi-level modelling analyses or multi-methods research designs. To that end, analyses that can synthesise these literatures would enhance the field, as might innovations in methodological approaches which advance multi-level modelling and multi-method designs to give multiple and dynamic perspectives.

Although reduced working time and furlough policy initiatives are widely regarded as important for economic and business reasons, little is known about their impacts on workers’ mental health at the onset of COVID-19 pandemic. Using data from the UK Household Longitudinal Panel Study data from 2018 to February 2020 and April 2020 and change score analysis, this study aims to compare mental health changes between those who worked reduced hours, were furloughed and left/lost paid work. The results suggest that at the onset of COVID-19 reduced working time and furlough can protect workers’ mental health, but only for men not for women. The gender differences remain significant even after controlling for housework and childcare responsibilities at the onset of COVID-19. These results highlight the importance of distributing paid work more equitably and formulating gender-sensitive labour market policies in protection of workers’ mental health.