No abstract

Micro-enterprises and self-employed individuals have been hit particularly hard by the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, but few studies have tackled the issue. This paper is based on four in-depth case studies of self-employed people from different sectors who have been greatly affected by measures taken to control the pandemic. By capturing shifts in the perception of institutional and economic pressures, as well as precarity after the outbreak of COVID-19, we gained profound insight into crisis management among entrepreneurs working in niche or marginalized fields of business. We found parallels in their biographies and attitudes, but their perceptions of the COVID-19 pandemic differ. We observed paradoxes and hybrid logic, as well as different ways of coping with the crisis. Having a “plan B” helped in some cases, while all of them benefitted from the solidarity of networks and communities.

Research on temporary agency work emphasizes that temporary agency workers (TAWs), particularly those in low-skilled jobs associated with precariousness and low social prestige, are likely to be exposed to poor treatment, as well as stigmatization. On the contrary, stigmatization of TAWs in high-skilled jobs has not been treated in much detail in previous studies. Literature provides an incomplete picture of stigmatization within the broader field of temporary employment regarding the focus on low-skilled jobs. Hence, the present qualitative study is based on data from interviews of a heterogeneous sample of TAWs employed in low- and high-skilled jobs in Germany. By using and modifying Boyce and colleagues’ (2007) model of stigmatization, the study shows that stigmatizing treatment towards TAWs occurs across all skill levels, although the intensity and form of those experiences, as well as coping strategies, differ. Thereby, this study contributes to a more differentiated and skill level-specific understanding of how TAWs perceive and cope with stigmatization linked to their employment status. It also provides an important opportunity to advance Boyce and colleagues’ (2007) complex model of TAW stigmatization with empirical underpinnings.

No abstract