بيانات النشر: Karlstads universitet, Handelshögskolan (from 2013)
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium
City University of New York Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy, USA
Universidad de Valparaiso, Chile
Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Spain; Hospital Del Mar Medical Research Institute, Spain
University of Utah School of Medicine, USA
Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Spain; Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain
Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Spain
Karolinska Institutet, Sweden
Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, Canada
Karolinska Institutet, Sweden; Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, Canada; Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, Canada
Universidad Austral, Chile
University of New York, USA
MA Department of Public Health, USA
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile
Karolinska Institutet, Sweden; Unity Health Toronto, Canada; Cape Breton University, Canada
McMaster University, Canada
Lund University, Sweden
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile; Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile
Karolinska Institutet, Sweden; Region Stockholm, Sweden
City University of New York, USA
نبذة مختصرة : In recent decades, economic crises and political reforms focused on employment flexibilization have increased the use of non-standard employment (NSE). National political and economic contexts determine how employers interact with labour and how the state interacts with labour markets and manages social welfare policies. These factors influence the prevalence of NSE and the level of employment insecurity it creates, but the extent to which a country’s policy context mitigates the health influences of NSE is unclear. This study describes how workers experience insecurities created by NSE, and how this influences their health and well-being, in countries with different welfare states: Belgium, Canada, Chile, Spain, Sweden, and the United States. Interviews with 250 workers in NSE were analysed using a multiple-case study approach. Workers in all countries experienced multiple insecurities (e.g., income and employment insecurity) and relational tension with employers/clients, with negative health and well-being influences, in ways that were shaped by social inequalities (e.g., related to family support or immigration status). Welfare state differences were reflected in the level of workers’ exclusion from social protections, the time scale of their insecurity (threatening daily survival or longer-term life planning), and their ability to derive a sense of control from NSE. Workers in Belgium, Sweden, and Spain, countries with more generous welfare states, navigated these insecurities with greater success and with less influence on health and well-being. Findings contribute to our understanding of the health and well-being influences of NSE across different welfare regimes and suggest the need in all six countries for stronger state responses to NSE. Increased investment in universal and more equal rights and benefits in NSE could reduce the widening gap between standard and NSE.
No Comments.