7.2 Health and Employment Status

White hard hat
Photo by Ümit YıldırımUnsplash License

Work in the 21st century is becoming increasingly insecure. While the standard employment relationship (SER), the term for permanent, full-time, secure employment with a single employer, is still the most common form of job, its proport the term for permanent, full-time, secure employment with a single employer, is still the most common form of job, its proportions are dropping. Fewer than two thirds of jobs in Canada fit the definition of SER. The fastest-growing segment of non-SER jobs is precarious employment, which now comprises 20% of jobs in the country.[1] Precarious workers earn less and are less likely to have benefits (or may have fewer benefits) than other workers. Women, immigrants, and young workers are more likely to hold precarious jobs than other Canadians.[2] For employers, precarious work lowers labour costs and increases flexibility, both of which lead to higher profits. While not as prevalent as in the private sector, precarious work is also present in the public and non-profit sector as these employers feel the pressure to reduce costs and emulate private sector practices.

The rise of precarious employment is concerning for a number of economic and political reasons. It reflects growing inequality in Canada and contributes to racial and gender divisions in society. Most worker advocates talk about the economic unfairness of precarious employment and the problems it creates in the labour market and in communities. Precarious employment is also a health and safety issue. The status of being a precarious worker leads to worsened health and safety outcomes.

Repeated studies with different types of precarious workers have shown that they are more likely to get injured at work and their injuries tend to be more severe.[3] Precarious work is associated with deteriorating health and safety conditions in the workplace,[4] and precarious workers are found to be less aware of their safety rights and have more difficulty exercising those rights.[5] Precarious employment has direct effects on workers’ health. Precarious workers report worse mental health, including increased stress-related illness, depression, and anxiety. Evidence for decreased physical health is more mixed, but precarious work is associated with higher levels of mortality among workers.[6]

There are two explanations for precarious work being associated with decreased health and safety outcomes. Michael Quinlan and Philip Bohle developed the Pressures, Disorganization and Regulatory Failure (PDR) model to explain how precarious work leads to poor health and safety outcomes. Their model looks at three groups of factors that shape practices at precarious workplaces. First, precarious workers experience economic pressures because of income insecurity and competition for work which lead them to accept work intensification and dangerous work while making them reluctant to report injury and ill health. Second, the contingent nature of the work relationship breaks down structures that facilitate workplace safety, such as safety procedures, training, and communication. Third, the effectiveness of government safety regulations is reduced because enforcement is more difficult, some forms of work are not protected by regulation, and some workers lack knowledge of their health and safety rights. The result of these factors is workplaces that are less safe.[7]

The PDR model attempts to explain the increased health and safety risks through precarity’s effects on the workplace structure and practice. While this model does help us understand the workplace dynamics of precarious work, it provides an incomplete understanding of the broader effect of precarity on health. The consequences of precarious work do not restrict themselves to the workplace but spill over into the workers’ private lives, as they take stress, anxiety, and insecurity home with them.

In an attempt to build a more holistic analysis of precariousness and work, Wayne Lewchuk and his colleagues have developed the Employment Strain Model (ESM)  . ESM looks at the employment relationship in its entirety to understand how workers’ health is affected by engaging in precarious work. The model suggests that the strain of being uncertain about employment combined with the stress of having to make extra effort to maintain and attain work are the cause of the worsened health outcomes. Box 7.2 provides a more complete explanation of the model.

Precarity and the employment strain model[8]

Wayne Lewchuk, Marlea Clarke, and Alice de Wolff have developed a new approach to understanding the health effects of precarious work. They began with the assertion that the reasons for the worse health experienced by precarious workers go beyond the workplace.

While it is sometimes argued that workers in less permanent relationships may be forced into accepting more physically hazardous work, or increased exposure to toxins, this is not the core of our argument. Rather, we argue that there is a limit to how much employment uncertainty and risk can be downloaded to individuals—at some point workers become stressed, and the employment relationship itself becomes toxic.[9]

They argue what takes place inside the workplace is only part of the picture. “Health effects are embedded in the social structuring of labour markets, and therefore begin well before workers cross the factory gates, enter their offices or begin their work tasks.”[10]

Their model is influenced by Karasek’s job strain model (introduced in Chapter 6). They define employment strain as the interaction of employment relationship uncertainty (i.e., the degree to which a worker is uncertain about his employment future) and employment relationship effort (i.e., how hard a worker works to keep a job or find new ones). This interaction creates four categories of job strain, which can be displayed as quadrants in a matrix.

.

Figure in Box 7.2

The model includes a third dimension, employment relationship support, which is the degree to which the worker receives support at work from a union, co-workers, family members, or others. Support acts as a buffer to reduce the employment strain experienced by the worker. Precarious workers reported lower levels of support than SER workers.

This research reveals that workers who have high uncertainty, high effort, and low support were two to three times more likely to report poor health than those reporting low uncertainty, strain, and high support. Those experiencing only high uncertainty or high effort but low support also display worse outcomes. The model more accurately explains the complex interaction between ill health and precarious work.

No work has been done to determine how to reduce the ill effects of precarious work, in large part because precarity is not yet widely recognized as a health and safety hazard. Since the origins of its effect begin before work begins, it is a challenge to identify work-related solutions. The only effective method for reducing the health effects of precarity is to create jobs that are more secure and support workers more fully. This solution requires broad-scale social, political, and economic change.

Despite its seeming intractability, it is important to understand the health and safety implications of precarious work. The discussion demonstrates that workplace health extends beyond the workplace. The significance of precarious work is that it is not only the work itself that affects safety; the employment status also plays a large role in determining worker health. 


  1. Lewchuk, W., et al. (2015). The precarity penalty: The impact of employment precarity on individuals, households and communities—and what to do about it. Toronto: McMaster University & United Way Toronto.
  2. Vosko (2006).
  3. Underhill, E., & Quinlan, M. (2011). How precarious employment affects health and safety at work: The case of temporary agency workers. Relations Industrielle/Industrial Relations, 66(3), 397–421.
  4. Quinlan, M., Mayhew, C., & Bohle, P. (2001). The global expansion of precarious employment, work disorganization and consequences for occupational health: A review of recent literature. International Journal of Health Services, 31(2), 335–414.
  5. Lewchuk, W., Clarke, M., & de Wolff, A. (2008). Working without commitments: Precarious employment and health. Work, Employment & Society, 22, 387–406.
  6. Lewchuk, W., Clarke, M., & de Wolff, A. (2011). Working without commitments: The health effects of precarious employment. Montréal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
  7. Quinlan, M., & Bohle, P. (2004). Contingent work and occupational safety. In J. Barling & M. Frone (Eds.), The psychology of workplace safety (pp. 81–106). Washington: American Psychological Association.
  8. Lewchuk et al. (2011).
  9. Ibid., p. 10.
  10. Ibid., p. 137.
definition

License

Icon for the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Canadian Health and Safety Workplace Fundamentals Copyright © 2022 by Connie Palmer is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book