Labour Law, Vulnerability and the Regulation of Precarious Work

Abstract

The shifting nature of employment practice towards the use of more precarious work forms has caused a crisis in classical labour law and engendered a new wave of regulation. This timely book deftly uses this crisis as an opportunity to explore the notion of precariousness or vulnerability in employment relationships. Its logical structure situates vulnerability in its developmental context before moving on to examine the goals of the regulation of labour law for vulnerability, its current status in the law and case studies of vulnerability such as temporary agency work and domestic work.'While vulnerability is a concept often mentioned in labour law and employment policy discourse, its precise meaning can remain elusive. This book provides rigorous theoretical analysis and contains fresh insights to aid our understanding of vulnerability. It is a stimulating contribution to the debate on how legal regulation responds to the changing characteristics of today's labour market.' -Mark Bell, The University of Dublin, Ireland 'The concept of vulnerability is crucial for understanding the characteristics of employment relationships and the purpose of labour law, but has not been deeply examined by labour lawyers so far. In this original and valuable contribution, Lisa Rodgers develops a theoretical account of vulnerability that advances our understanding of the field, exposing some shortcomings of existing theories and laws along the way.

The evolving nature of labour inspection, enforcement of employment rights and the regulatory reach of the state in Britain

“…The politics of austerity has also challenged the broader project of innovation through collaboration around worker rights and questions of enforcement. One way of engaging with a much more fragmented and increasingly segmented workforce was to have agencies of the state working alongside organisations like trade unions, NGOs and legal centres in various forms (James et al, 2015;Rogers, 2016). Such collaboration was significant within the strategic enforcement rhetoric of the previous Labour governments, under-resourced as this was (Mart ınez Lucio, 2011;Mustchin, 2014).…”

“…Enforcing regulations covering health and safety, minimum wages and labour subcontracting has also been undermined by a politics of austerity and the restructuring of regulatory agencies, and not just the proliferation of precarious work (e.g. James et al, 2015;Rogers, 2016). Cases of employers using non-payment of wages as a deliberate cost-reduction strategy have become an increasingly widespread problem, facilitated by the weak nature of the enforcement system and the barriers faced by workers seeking redress (Clark and Herman, 2017).…”

Measuring precarious employment in Sweden: translation, adaptation and psychometric properties of the Employment Precariousness Scale (EPRES)

“…Non-standard work can also include holding multiple jobs 16. A comprehensive term used to describe forms of non-standard employment is ‘PE’ 17. PE does not, however, solely refer to the type of employment, but also to unfavourable employment conditions, such as vulnerability, low pay, low levels of social security and rights 3 4 14 17–21.…”

“…A comprehensive term used to describe forms of non-standard employment is ‘PE’ 17. PE does not, however, solely refer to the type of employment, but also to unfavourable employment conditions, such as vulnerability, low pay, low levels of social security and rights 3 4 14 17–21. As these elements are not exclusively found in non-standard employments per se, employees in a standard employment are also at risk of experiencing precariousness 14 22 23.…”

“…Several definitions and attempts to create multidimensional constructs capturing PE already exist. In terms of the previous, Rodgers and Rodgers include employment instability, employment insecurity, lack of protection and economic/social vulnerability as components in their definition of PE17; and the International Labour Organization include low wage, poor protection from termination of employment, lack of access to social protection/benefits (usually associated with full-time standard employment) and lack of/limited access to exercise rights at work 21. To our knowledge, two validated questionnaires have been developed for the purpose of measuring PE: The Employment Precarity Index, identifying employment precarity by 10 questions and dividing scores in four groups: secure, stable, vulnerable and precarious23; and the EPRES with its six dimensions: ‘temporariness’, ‘wages’, ‘disempowerment’, ‘vulnerability’, ‘rights’ and ‘exercise rights’, where precarity ranges from low to high 10.…”