A case of employers never letting a good crisis go to waste? An investigation of how work becomes even more precarious for hourly paid workers under Covid

Abstract

The fragility of employers' voluntary, business‐case‐based improvements to employment standards for front‐line hourly paid staff is revealed in two organisational case studies from the art and care sectors. For different reasons, Covid provided a catalyst for employers to enact passive and active exit strategies that made work more precarious.

Is job quality better or worse? Insights from quiz data collected before and after the pandemic

“…Second, it focuses on the United States (Rothwell & Crabtree, 2021). Herman et al (2021) argue that the UK's weakly regulated labour market and patchy collective bargaining arrangements give employers even more scope to take advantage of economic disturbances, such as those unleashed by the pandemic, to drive job quality standards down. This is backed up by case studies carried out in a number of low‐paid sectors.…”

Delivering the goods? German industrial relations institutions during the COVID‐19 crisis

“…For workers on the periphery within Germany and beyond, the pandemic could either further reinforce their precarity or prove to be a turning point toward institutional reintegration and decommodification. For example, Herman et al ( 2021 ) show that some employers in the UK will “never let a good crisis go to waste,” and will use the pandemic as a catalyst to lower the employment conditions of precarious workers. At the same time, COVID‐19 has also laid bare the essential but undervalued nature of many jobs in areas such as retail, health care, and transport (Hennekam et al, 2020 ).…”

“…The protective role of IR institutions is often conceptualized through the lens of decommodification (Bosch, 2004 ; Greer, 2016 ; Herman et al, 2021 ; Rubery et al, 2018 ). Following Esping‐Andersen's ( 1990 , 2000 , p. 353) influential use of this concept in his analysis of welfare states, decommodification “signals a citizen's relative independence from pure market forces; it captures one important dimension of freedom and constraint in the everyday life of advanced capitalism.” However, as other IR scholars have noted, Esping‐Andersen ( 1990 ) emphasizes that under capitalism, decommodification is never absolute—it always remains partial and cannot completely protect labor from commodification (Bosch, 2004 ; Herman et al, 2021 ).…”

“…The protective role of IR institutions is often conceptualized through the lens of decommodification (Bosch, 2004 ; Greer, 2016 ; Herman et al, 2021 ; Rubery et al, 2018 ). Following Esping‐Andersen's ( 1990 , 2000 , p. 353) influential use of this concept in his analysis of welfare states, decommodification “signals a citizen's relative independence from pure market forces; it captures one important dimension of freedom and constraint in the everyday life of advanced capitalism.” However, as other IR scholars have noted, Esping‐Andersen ( 1990 ) emphasizes that under capitalism, decommodification is never absolute—it always remains partial and cannot completely protect labor from commodification (Bosch, 2004 ; Herman et al, 2021 ). For example, Rubery et al ( 2018 , p.514) argue that decommodification requires that individuals have “some degree of empowerment in their engagement in market‐based work,” while Bosch ( 2004 , p.619) suggests the need for “a tolerable level of individual welfare and security” underpinned by an adequate, secure income and an ongoing, stable job with a regular work schedule.…”

“…The protective role of IR institutions is often conceptualized through the lens of decommodification (Bosch, 2004;Greer, 2016;Herman et al, 2021;. Following Esping-Andersen's (1990) influential use of this concept in his analysis of welfare states, decommodification "signals a citizen's relative independence from pure market forces; it captures one important dimension of freedom and constraint in the everyday life of advanced capitalism."…”