American Sociological Review
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
American Sociological Review http://asr.sagepub.com/ Precarious Work, Insecure Workers: Employment Relations in Transition Arne L. Kalleberg American Sociological Review 2009 74: 1 DOI: 10.1177/000312240907400101 The online version of this article can be found at: http://asr.sagepub.com/content/74/1/1 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: American Sociological Association Additional services and information for American Sociological Review can be found at: Email Alerts: http://asr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://asr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://asr.sagepub.com/content/74/1/1.refs.html Downloaded from asr.sagepub.com at INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFC on October 28, 2010 2008 PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS Precarious Work, Insecure Workers: Employment Relations in Transition Arne L. Kalleberg University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill The growth of precarious work since the 1970s has emerged as a core contemporary concern within politics, in the media, and among researchers. Uncertain and unpredictable work contrasts with the relative security that characterized the three decades following World War II. Precarious work constitutes a global challenge that has a wide range of consequences cutting across many areas of concern to sociologists. Hence, it is increasingly important to understand the new workplace arrangements that generate precarious work and worker insecurity. A focus on employment relations forms the foundation of theories of the institutions and structures that generate precarious work and the cultural and individual factors that influence people’s responses to uncertainty. Sociologists are well-positioned to explain, offer insight, and provide input into public policy about such changes and the state of contemporary employment relations. ork is a core activity in society. It is cen- tionships are as influential in people’s everyday Wtral to individual identity, links individu- lives. Work also reveals much about the social als to each other, and locates people within the order, how it is changing, and the kinds of prob- stratification system. Perhaps only kin rela- lems and issues that people (and their govern- Direct correspondence to Arne L. Kalleberg, Duncan Gallie, Kevin Hewison, Randy Hodson, Department of Sociology, CB # 3210 Hamilton Hall, Sandy Jacoby, Rob Lambert, Kevin Leicht, Peter University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Marsden, Ted Mouw, Frances Fox Piven, Barbara Carolina 27599-3210 ([email protected]). Reskin, Vinnie Roscigno, and especially Don Revision of 2008 Presidential Address to the Tomaskovic-Devey, Steve Vallas, and Mike American Sociological Association, delivered on Wallace, for their useful comments on earlier ver- August 2, 2008 in Boston, MA. I thank Ivar Berg, sions, and Anne-Kathrin Kronberg for her help Peter Cappelli, Dalton Conley, Dan Cornfield, with the graphics. Downloaded from asr.sagepub.com at INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFC on October 28, 2010 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, 2009, VOL. 74 (February:1–22) 2—–AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW ments) must address. Accordingly, the study of for the nature of work, workplaces, and people’s work has long been a central field in sociolo- work experiences, but also for many nonwork gy, beginning with classical sociologists such as individual (e.g., stress, education), social (e.g., Durkheim (in his Division of Labor), Marx (in family, community), and political (e.g., stabil- his theories of the labor process and alienation), ity, democratization) outcomes. It is thus impor- and Weber (in his conceptualizations of bureau- tant that we understand the new workplace cracy and social closure). arrangements that generate precarious work and For several decades, both in the United States insecurity. and worldwide, social, economic, and political I concentrate in this address on employment, forces have aligned to make work more pre- which is work that produces earnings (or prof- carious. By “precarious work,” I mean employ- it, if one is self-employed). Equating work with ment that is uncertain, unpredictable, and risky pay or profit is of course a limited view, as from the point of view of the worker. Resulting there are many activities that create value but are distress, obvious in a variety of forms, reminds unpaid, such as those that take place in the us daily of such precarity. The Bureau of Labor household. Given my focus largely on industrial Statistics (BLS) estimates (and likely underes- countries, particularly the United States, I timates) that more than 30 million full-time emphasize precarious employment in the formal workers lost their jobs involuntarily between the economy.2 early 1980s and 2004 (Uchitelle 2006). Job loss often triggers many unpleasant events, such as loss of health insurance and enhanced REASONS FOR THE GROWTH OF debt. Mortgage foreclosure rates have increased PRECARIOUS WORK IN THE UNITED fivefold since the early 1970s (Hacker 2006). STATES U.S. personal bankruptcy filings are at record It is generally agreed that the most recent era of highs (Leicht and Fitzgerald 2007), and near- precarious work in the United States began in ly two-thirds of bankruptcy filers reported a job the mid- to late-1970s. The years 1974 to 1975 problem (Sullivan, Warren, and Westbrook marked the start of macro-economic changes 2001). (such as the oil shock) that helped lead to an Precarious work, of course, is not necessar- increase in global price competition. U.S. man- ily new or novel to the current era; it has exist- ufacturers were challenged initially by compa- ed since the launch of paid employment as a nies from Japan and South Korea in the primary source of sustenance.1 Nevertheless, the automobile and steel industries, respectively. growth and obviousness of precarious work The process that came to be known as neolib- since the 1970s has crystallized an important eral globalization intensified economic inte- concern. Bourdieu (1998) saw précarité as the root of problematic social issues in the twenty- gration, increased the amount of competition first century. Beck (2000) describes the cre- faced by companies, provided greater opportu- ation of a “risk society” and a “new political nities to outsource work to lower-wage coun- economy of insecurity.” Others have called the tries, and opened up new labor pools through events of the past quarter-century the second immigration. Technological advances both Great Transformation (Webster, Lambert, and forced companies to become more competitive Bezuidenhout 2008). globally and made it possible for them to do so. Precarious work has far-reaching conse- quences that cut across many areas of concern to sociologists. Creating insecurity for many 2 Employment precarity results when people lose people, it has pervasive consequences not only their jobs or fear losing their jobs, when they lack alternative employment opportunities in the labor market, and when workers experience diminished opportunities to obtain and maintain particular skills. 1 Classical social thinkers such as Marx, Weber, Other aspects of employment precarity are either and Durkheim sought to explain the consequences of determinants or consequences of these basic forms the precarity created by the rapid social change asso- of uncertainty, including income precarity, work inse- ciated with the emergence of the market economy in curity (unsafe work), and representation precarity the nineteenth century (see Webster et al. 2008:2–3). (unavailability of collective voice) (Standing 1999). Downloaded from asr.sagepub.com at INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFC on October 28, 2010 PRECARIOUS WORK, INSECURE WORKERS—–3 Changes in legal and other institutions medi- were assumed to work full-time for a particu- ated the effects of globalization and technolo- lar employer at the employer’s place of work, gy on work and employment relations (Gonos often progressing upward on job ladders with- 1997). Unions continued to decline, weakening in internal labor markets, was eroding (Cappelli a traditional source of institutional protections 1999). Management’s attempts to achieve flex- for workers and severing the postwar busi- ibility led to various types of corporate restruc- ness–labor social contract. Government regu- turing, which in turn led to a growth in lations that set minimum acceptable standards precarious work and transformations in the in the labor market eroded, as did rules that nature of the employment relationship governed competition in product markets. Union (Osterman 1999). This had, and continues to decline and deregulation reduced the counter- have, far-reaching effects on all of society. vailing forces that enabled workers to share in In addition to the changes discussed above, the productivity gains that were made, and the the labor force became more diverse, with balance of power shifted all the more heavily marked increases in the number of women, non- away from workers and toward employers. white and immigrant workers, and older work- The pervasive political changes associated ers. The increase in immigration due to with Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980 accel- globalization and the reduction of barriers to the erated business ascendancy and labor decline movement of people across national borders and unleashed the freedom of firms and capi- has produced a greater surplus of labor today. talists to pursue their unbridled interest. There are also growing gaps in earnings