Typically Atypical - Changing Patterns of Employment - The Implications of Gender Equality

Author(s): Orla Muldoon, Jacqueline Reilly, John Kremer, Fiona Mulhern
Commissioned by: Equality Commission for Northern Ireland
Document Type: Report
Year: 2001
Publisher: Equality Commission for Northern Ireland and Queen's University Belfast
Place of Publication: Belfast
ISBN: 0 90664 99 5
Subject Area(s): Employment, Labour Force Market, Gender, Equality Issues
Client Group(s) : Employers, Employees

Abbreviations: NI - Northern Ireland

Background to the Research

  • Atypical employment deviates from traditional, standard forms of work, is generally part-time, insecure, temporary or intermittent, and is sometimes carried out at home. The United Kingdom has one of the highest proportions of workers in atypical employment in Europe.
  • This research grew from concerns of the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland that less favourable statutory and contractual terms and protections had been afforded to part-time workers. Whilst the Government amended employment protection laws, the protection afforded to atypical workers was minimal, and the high degree of overlap between gender and atypical employment raises the issue of possible sex discrimination. This research was commissioned to explore such issues further.

Research Approach

  • The prevalence and patterns of atypical work in NI were examined using secondary analysis of an existing database and through an organisational survey. Interviews were used to elicit employers' (50) and trade union officials' (21) perspectives of atypical work practices. Focus groups interviews with workers currently employed on atypical work contracts provided the employee perspective on atypical work.

Main Findings

  • The prevalence of atypical work practices in NI is very high and as commonplace as traditional 9-5 permanent employment. The proportion of women in all forms of atypical employment exceeds that of men across occupations, industrial sector and company size. Trade union representatives believed the atypical work sector had grown significantly during the last decade, and the proportion of males, while still small, was perceived to have grown in the past 2-3 years.
  • Employers' and atypical workers' understanding of the term and knowledge of related legislation were very poor, and the majority of trade union representatives had problems defining the 'atypical worker'. Employers in organisations where atypical work practices were the norm did not see these atypical. Atypical workers were very uncertain of their legal rights, and some believed that they had no such rights; a primary equality concern was equality with typical workers.
  • The majority of organisations had no atypical work policy. Atypical workers received less favourable employment terms and conditions and opportunities for promotion and training than typical workers. The majority of employers had little or no understanding of the potential inequalities that could arise as a result of atypical work practice; rather they saw these practices as a way of promoting greater female participation in the labour force. Increased participation by women and atypical workers was taken as evidence of equality of opportunity, regardless of the associated terms and conditions.
  • Employers believed there was a range of organisational benefits to be accrued from the use of atypical work practices, which generally outweighed any associated costs. Atypical work is therefore likely to remain a consistent feature of employment practice in NI.
  • The consensus view of employers was that atypical work offered benefits and drawbacks to employees. Those engaged in the work practices perceived them as insecure in a variety of ways, and the atypical workers' perspective was largely negative; the work was perceived as leading to financial disadvantage, including being paid less than other staff for the same work and being unable to obtain mortgages and loans. Atypical work was also perceived as having diverse benefits for workers, ranging from flexibility, which facilitated caring responsibilities, to relatively attractive rates of pay.
  • Employers and atypical workers generally did not believe that trade unions actively negotiated on behalf of atypical workers. Union representatives did believe that the trade unions had played a major role at national and international level in effecting changes in employment legislation. New legislation was seen to have brought equality benefits, with the most significant improvements being the result of negotiations at an organisational level. About 20-30% of union officials thought unions had been slow to react to the shift away from typical work patterns. Most unions had recently introduced recruitment campaigns aimed at atypical workers which, together with negotiation successes and reduced or zero membership fees, had significantly increased levels of recruitment.

Conclusions

  • Atypical work practices, now a common employment practice in NI, are more likely to involve women than men. Also, employers in the public and private sectors do not offer the same terms and conditions to some atypical workers as to their full-time, permanent workers. Temporary, part-time and casual workers appear to be particularly disadvantaged.
  • However, it is important to note that atypical work practices bring both benefits and costs to the worker and employer.
  • A series of recommendations are made, beginning with a consideration of the term 'atypical work'. Atypical workers ought to be regarded as integral, rather than peripheral, to the workforce.
  • The disproportionate number of women engaged in atypical work practices raises the possibility of gender discrimination, and employers should regularly monitor the composition of their atypical workforce.
  • Employers' understanding of equal opportunities issues needs to be developed. The Equality Commission, employers and trade unions should address the frequent absence of atypical work policies.
  • Employers must recognize their responsibilities to all atypical workers and should aim to maximise the success of atypical work schemes.
  • The high degree of insecurity, vulnerability and perceived disadvantage should be addressed by government and trade unions.
  • Employers and trade unions should take a partnership approach to the development of satisfactory terms and conditions for atypical workers.
  • There is a need for a concerted and co-ordinated initiative to educate atypical workers as to their rights under European and national law.
  • Trade unions need to recruit extensively among those involved in atypical work.
  • Unions have a key role to play in negotiations to ensure that temporary contracts are not used where permanent ones are appropriate.

 

Home | About ORB | Contact


Disclaimer: © ORB 2001Tuesday, 10-Jul-2007 8:38