Flexible Work and Organisational Arrangements - Regulatory Problems and Responses

The past 25 years have witnessed substantial changes in work organisation in Australia and most if not all other industrialised countries. Notable amongst these changes has been an expansion in parttime and fixed term or temporary employment (and a corresponding decline in permanent full-time jobs especially for males) a growth in home-based and telework as well as multiple jobholding. The proportion of workforce employed in small business has risen and there have changes in the industry and occupation distribution of self-employed workers. The growth of flexible work arrangements is a consequence of organisational changes including increased use of outsourcing/elaborate supply chains, repeated rounds of downsizing/restructuring by large public and private sector employers, privatization and management techniques such as labour leasing, franchising, lean production or business process re-engineering. There is now a substantial body of international research indicating that in many instances flexible work arrangements such as temporary and home-based work, the use of subcontractors/outsourcing and increased job insecurity resulting from downsizing are associated with inferior outcomes in terms of worker safety, health and well-being. It is also becoming increasingly clear that a number of the work arrangements and organisational changes just described pose a significant problems for OHS regulators and those administering workers compensation/rehabilitation regimes. Government agencies in Australia and overseas are beginning to respond to these problems (in some cases with the active co-operation of industry bodies, employers and unions). This paper is concerned to identify the nature of the problems that flexible work and the organisational changes referred to can pose for OHS regulation as well as assessing the responses being implemented to address them. It will also try to indicate where more strategic responses can be developed in the future. INTRODUCTION: THE GROWTH OF FLEXIBLE WORK ARRANGEMENTS AND MOUNTING EVIDENCE ON THEIR OHS EFFECTS One of the most significant changes affecting work globally over the past 20 years has been the growth (both in absolute and relative terms) of more flexible or less secure forms of work arrangements, now typically labeled precarious employment (a French-derived term) or contingent work (which originated in the USA). While, there is ongoing debate about what constitutes contingent work or precarious employment – or rather definitional boundaries for inclusion or exclusion (for a discussion see Quinlan and Bohle, forthcoming) – there is wide consensus about the inclusion of some categories of work. These include self-employed subcontractors (including many mobile or home-based workers), temporary (including on-call), leased (or labour hire) or short-term fixed contract workers. More problematic inclusions are micro-small business workers (though many of these are subcontractors) and part-time workers (at least those with permanent positions). While the terms precarious employment and contingent work are often used interchangeably (and indeed there is considerable overlap) the former term has a somewhat wider coverage. However, even precarious employment fails to take full account of the changes that are occurring. The changes in work organisation and labour markets are not confined to the growth of jobs that are formally short-term or insecure. The growth has seen a commensurate decline in the proportion of workers holding permanent/tenured full-time positions (Ferrie, 1999:59) while repeated rounds of downsizing by large public and private workers (and associated changes in industrial relations