Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 22:08:22 GMT
From: davebackwith-AT-gn.apc.org (Dave Backwith)
Subject: Re: Casualisation



A few comments on Steve's points.  Some of this is probably stating the
obvious but I'm not sure how far the UK (which  my comments are based on) is
typical.


>* casualisation can entail not only the growth of precarious jobs, but the
>spread of precarious working conditions to so-called permanent or
>guaranteed jobs (a point of particular relevance in Australia);

Isn't this the point of dual labour markets: that different forms of
'flexible' work can be imposed in both core and periphery; the threat of
casualised, insecure employment being a powerful inducement for core workers
to accept flexibility ('multi-skilling', etc.) but at least retaining some
security of employment.

In this sense rather than focusing on casualisation, flexibility might be a
better term because it is more general to changes in all parts of the labour
market: i.e. it's common to (virtually) all workers, even those with
permanent contracts.  Altho', I suppose, flexibility might dieologically
loaded too far to the right?


>* categories such as 'contingent' or 'atypical' work may be so
>all-encompassing as to be of little explanatory value in understanding
>either capital's designs or workers' initiatives;

I've always thought of 'atypical' as an ideological euphemism: the
implication being that there's nothing wrong with the work, its just
different.  In this sense, at least,  precarious is more accurate.


>* certain industries outside manufacturing (building and construction, the
>docks, certain forms of agricultural production) have long been
>characterised by casualised working conditions [Is there any connection
>here with the gender segregation of many such industries]?

The labour market in UK, has been very rigidly segregated, vertically and
horizontally, more I suspect than is usual (?) and this has served to
maintain a very strong association between some characteristics of
casualisation (low pay, part-time work, etc.) and women workers.  Recently
(last 10-15 years) the growth of women's  employment has been a major part
of the restructuring of work.  Aimd continued mass unemployment, male
employment has been declining while female employment is growing.   The
government always respond to criticism of high unemployment by quoting
figures about how many new jobs they've created.  What they're more shy
about is that, in aggregate, virtually all the news jobs are for women and
most of them are part-time.

This relates to the previous point.  Last year a sociologist (Catherine
Hakim) sparked an academic debate here (which got media coverage) by
claiming to have disproved 'feminist myths' about women's employment.  The
gist of her argument was that contrary to what feminists claimed, most women
were in part-time work because that's the sort of work they wanted - not
because they were being used as cheap labour, etc.   Employers (kind hearted
folk that they are) were only providing part-time jobs for women because it
was to mutual benefit.   While, of course, there's some truth in the claim
that SOME women do only want part-time work, my point is that (besides being
another foray in the 'backlash' against feminism) Hakim's claims were a
legitimation for state employment policy, the whole thrust of which is to
create a flexible/casualised labour market, not least thru the increased
exploitation of women workers.


>* there may be interesting lessons concerning workers' self-organisation to
>be learned from the history of what Cosimo Scarinzi and others have called
>'direct action unionism' (an umbrella term intended to encompass both
>syndicalism and IWW-style industrial unionism).

The IWW have had recently some success, not sure how much, in organising
motor-cycle dispatch riders in London - which is VERY precarious work.


>"No-One Is Completely Worthless-They Can Always Serve As A Bad Example!"
This can't apply to anyone on this list, can it?


Cheers,

Dave



     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---