ABSTRACT
The work-life balance (WLB) literature shows that WLB is an important factor for many employees. It is linked with better workplace and wellbeing outcomes, and it also mediates many antecedents. However, there is an inherent bias in the WLB literature in its study of professions (e.g., skilled workers) and worker pay (salaried, higher paid). This bias leads to the question: Does WLB function similarly for low-paid, precariat workers? Are the antecedents and consequences of WLB replicable and robust? With precarious work now endemic across the working world (see, Carr, Hodgetts et al., Chapter 1), this chapter provides an overview of the WLB literature and then proceeds to argue the case not only for less WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) but also less POSH (Professional, Official, Safe, Higher income) representation, within the WLB field. The chapter provides examples of how researchers, even those researching within WEIRD but not POSH populations (many of whom are experience precarious work), might examine WLB to aid understanding, policy, and practice. It offers an integrated, inclusive model of WLB by suggesting how selected factors might be especially pertinent to acknowledge when exploring how to tackle precarious work. The aim of this chapter is to encourage WLB researchers to move their focus to more diverse samples and test WLB with populations that are largely missing in the field, thereby contributing to tackling precarious work by advancing WLB for all.
