ABSTRACT
Debates on precarious employment in the UK have followed two key concepts: flexibility and vulnerability. During the 1980s, in the context of high unemployment, homelessness and industrial restructuring, debate focused on the growth of numerical flexibility (part-time work, temporary work and subcontracting) (Atkinson and Meager 1986; Pollert 1991). Did these ‘new’ jobs represent ‘atypical’, ‘precarious’ or ‘insecure’ employment? Research gathered the characteristics of these workers and their employment conditions. Subsequently, questions arose as to whether workers in these new categories could make transitions into permanent full-time employment (O’Reilly and Bothfeld 2002). Since the late 1980s there has been a wealth of cross-national comparative research on ‘atypical’ employment, as well as a number of government and company initiatives to remove regulatory anomalies around flexible work and encourage better ‘work-life balance’ (O’Reilly 2003). For example, legislation in the UK in May 2008 granted temporary agency workers the same rights as permanent workers after 12 weeks employment (BBC 2008). A key component of this debate has focused on gender differentials and the different ways households combine care and work.
