Employers’ Use of Flexible Work

Much of the literature on employers and flexible work emerged from a number of founding studies. Atkinson (1984) and Atkinson and Meager (1986) introduced the term ‘flexible firm’ to the literature in Britain which discussed how firms were changing to face up to competitive pressures. Piore and Sabel (1984) were US researchers making similar points on a much broader canvas about global markets. The picture painted by these studies was of employers seeking to invest their available resources on a ‘core’ staff of permanent, full-time, largely male employees and using a ‘periphery’ group of temporary, part-time, largely female and poorly paid workforce to fill in the gaps on a short term basis, and at the lowest possible cost. The periphery group would probably be denied the conditions of employment, the fringe benefits, and other advantages of the full-time employees. This framework has been much disputed (Pollert, 1991). However, it is clear that some changes have been occurring. There have been studies in Britain to test out whether this framework accords with employers’ views of their strategies. We review these studies below, but first we consider the relative costs and benefits of flexible, non-standard forms of employment in comparison with the so-called core jobs. We consider them in theory and by measurement. The case for employers adopting strategies to increase their use of flexible jobs rests on there being clear advantages to their doing so — advantages which are not outweighed by disadvantages of pursuing such strategies.