Casual, dynamic and crap: a tale of modern employment

Other countries are finally talking about it. Some have started to grasp that, especially in a recession, job insecurity is a liability and not an asset.

Tim started a job. An ordinary job like many others. Nothing fancy, some kind of admin position that pays about a grand a month, maybe a little less. He was told he'd start as a casual, today's best way "to get a foot in the door", while enjoying the benefits of a dynamic, modernised and flexible market.

It soon dawned on Tim that his working conditions weren't the same as his "permanent" colleagues. For instance, with no sick pay for casuals like him, that nasty ear infection that had him bed-ridden for a few days meant less money at the end of the month. Dynamism, basically.

Not only that. Being off sick again carried the modernised risk of his employers no longer calling him. Like it happened to that gangly bloke across the office floor. He missed a few too many days and they simply told him to get his coat. They can do that. There is no contractual obligation, nor are there any notice rights.

Of course, when they asked Tim to work ten days in a row, it was within his rights to say no but, again, he may have done so at his peril. When it comes down to it, who are his managers going to pick: the chap who's just doing his regular hours or the billy-no-mates with no life who's saying yes to each and every overtime request?

Tim remained a casual for 15 months. Fifteen months of dynamic, modernised insecurity playing on his mind, knowing that he was disposable at any moment.

And yet he was doing exactly the same job as those colleagues on a permanent contract. There was no 'casuality' in his job. It was no short-term stop-gap, no fixed-term project or maternity leave cover.

Being a 'casual' meant that his pay started basic and remained basic, that he was cheaper to hire, that he was sackable on a whim and enjoyed no sickpay entitlement, no holiday rights, no pension rights and no redundancy rights whatsoever. As older colleagues left or retired, they were gradually being replaced one by one by dynamic staff like Tim.

And this is what's happening all the time - and increasingly so. The calls for flexibility and modernisation of the labour market turned into a device to push down wages, erode rights and transfer 100 per cent of risks on the (casual) employee.

As previous recessions had been partly blamed on too much employment regulation, the dogma became that "employment-flexibility-will-benefit-society".

Sure, some benefited no doubt. Cutting costs on employment meant more profits and bonuses at the top. On the other side, however, vasts numbers of people remain precarious for years, unable to afford things and relying on credit for the most basic stuff. Chances are labour market flexibility and dynamism became some of the factors contributing to the country's widening income gap.

It's also interesting that the biggest recession in 60 years has taken place within the framework of the most flexible employment system since the 1930s - meaning that an unregulated labour market is no guarantee of business stability whatsoever. Not only that. In a downturn, think of the social impact of having millions of people losing their job with the shock absorber of a redundancy package as opposed to walking home completely empty-handed.

This is why other countries have finally started to grasp that, especially in a recession, job insecurity is a liability and not an asset. In Spain, the government and unions both publicly slammed CEOE, the CBI's Spanish equivalent, for using the recession as an excuse for more flexibility. "What we need is an entrepreneurial reform", said union leader Candido Méndez, adding that a culture of low salaries, cheaper redundancies and low investment "is not the solution".

Most surprisingly, similar words were uttered in Italy by conservative Chancellor Giulio Tremonti. Two days ago, he called for "an end to [labour] casualisation", adding that "permanent jobs should be the foundations of social stability". Mr Tremonti went further: "In the US, your pension funds depend upon Wall Street and, if the tide turns, you end up eating kitkats [living] in trailers and [will have to] deprive your children of an education".

In the UK, however, that's a non-debater. The one attempt to introduce guarantees for 'agency workers' after 12 weeks on a given job went up in smoke last week and, for all the renewed Tory talks of "social stability" and community cohesion (and with people like Iain Duncan Smith allegedly singling out patterns of "family breakdown"), the notion of reforming the labour market towards more job security is not even remotely on the agenda.

And yet, with more and more people either starting a family on shaky financial grounds or being put off altogether, increased employment protection would certainly help to revert the trend.