In the abstract I can see a huge benefit to having a sizable portion of the workforce be temporary employees. Assuming we have a reasonable guaranteed minimum income, then there is not the looming threat of unemployment that makes temporary employment so bad. However, temporary employment does provide a more mobile workforce that can much more quickly re-allocate itself to new demands, and give individuals more freedom to switch jobs.
That is idealistic yet doesn't address the needs of the workers. The reality is these jobs are terrible for the workers, gives them no stability and no benefits. The whole point of the move towards temporary workers has nothing to do with "flexibility" and everything to do with costs, it is done solely to allow the employers to skirt offering them healthcare, vacation, and retirement benefits.
Comments
In the abstract I can see a huge benefit to having a sizable portion of the workforce be temporary employees. Assuming we have a reasonable guaranteed minimum income, then there is not the looming threat of unemployment that makes temporary employment so bad. However, temporary employment does provide a more mobile workforce that can much more quickly re-allocate itself to new demands, and give individuals more freedom to switch jobs.
That is idealistic yet doesn't address the needs of the workers. The reality is these jobs are terrible for the workers, gives them no stability and no benefits. The whole point of the move towards temporary workers has nothing to do with "flexibility" and everything to do with costs, it is done solely to allow the employers to skirt offering them healthcare, vacation, and retirement benefits.
If only there was a way to provide said benefits decoupled from employment. Almost like a Utopia, I know. Too bad it's not possible.
(I'm a Euro dude, sorry, could not resist.)