Employment status and job insecurity: On the subjective appraisal of an objective status

Abstract

The article argues that job insecurity has subjective aspects that are not determined by the objective levels of security of someone's employment status. These subjective aspects can be divided into two elements: the perceived probability and the perceived severity of job loss. The psychological consequences of job insecurity supposedly vary as a function of the objective status and the two constituting elements of subjective job insecurity. Results are reported from a study in the Netherlands among 1706 workers in five employment statuses that differ in degree of security. The perceived probability and severity of job loss were assessed, as were five possible consequences of subjective insecurity. The article shows that (1) job insecurity reflects the 'objective' conditions people are in; (2) the appraisal of job insecurity results from the functioning of the probability and severity of job loss; and (3) probability and severity have different consequences depending on employment status.

Felt Job Insecurity and Union Membership: The Case of Temporary Workers

“…Accordingly, temporary workers may not feel the need to turn to the union in the face of job insecurity. In line with this reasoning, previous studies have demonstrated that felt job insecurity does not relate (as strongly) to strain among temporary workers (compared with permanent workers) (Bernhard-Oettel, Sverke, & De Witte, 2005;De Cuyper & De Witte, 2006Klandermans et al, 2010;Mauno, Kinnunen, Mäkikangas, & Nätti, 2005). Hence, frustration with job insecurity may not be the driving force for unionization among temporary workers, while it is among permanent workers.…”

“…Another reason is that temporary workers, unlike permanent workers, may not see job insecurity as a breach of the psychological contract they have with the employer. Instead, they see job insecurity as part of the deal (De Cuyper & De Witte, 2006Klandermans, Klein Hesselink, & Van Vuuren, 2010). Accordingly, temporary workers may not feel the need to turn to the union in the face of job insecurity.…”

Dualization and subjective employment insecurity: Explaining the subjective employment insecurity divide between permanent and temporary workers across 23 European countries

“…However, this divide may also vary depending on the occupational and sectoral contexts (Lautsch, 2002;Klandermans, et al, 2010;Håkansson and Isidorsson, 2012). This study was not able to examine this issue in much detail, and future studies should examine the organisational and sectoral contexts in which such blurring may occur.…”

“…This reaction can be affected by personal, organisational and institutional contexts (Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt, 1984;Chung and Mau, 2014). In other words, subjective feelings of insecurity are not solely determined by objective statuses (Klandermans, et al, 2010) nor will the same objective insecurity status result in the same feelings of insecurity. Although there are issues with comparing subjective indicators of job quality across time and individuals (Osterman, 2013), increasingly studies have shown the importance of examining subjective rather than objective insecurity.…”

“…Workers on temporary contracts are in general more likely to feel subjectively insecure about their job or employment perspectives compared to those with permanent contracts (Näswall and De Witte, 2003;Clark and Postel-Vinay, 2009;Chung and van Oorschot, 2010;Klandermans, et al, 2010;see also, Chung and Mau, 2014;Ellonen and Nätti, 2015). This is because their contracts are of limited durations -i.e., they can be viewed as objectively insecure, and are more at risk of losing their jobs during reorganisation.…”