The question of how important flexible forms of employment are in fighting unemployment has been subject to many controversies. Various issues have been raised such as bad treatment, the lack of social security, uncertainty of employment and many other negative characteristics. Many of these voices are parts of myths and stereotypes but unfortunately, they often cause people to refrain from taking opportunities which flexible forms provide.

Regardless of how flexible forms of employment are perceived, one thing is certain: they have become a regular part of the employment politics of organisations of all sectors, private, public and social, and their importance in the labour market has changed. A full-time job for an unspecified period of time in one work-place and on one shift used to be a traditional form of employment but is gradually being phased out, while the forms of employment earlier considered as unusual are now becoming typical.

However, many problems arise. On the one hand, many stigmatise flexible forms of employment, on the other hand, people over 50 to whom the forms are addressed are threatened by social exclusion due to many stereotypes. These stereotypes are connected with images concerning their worse psycho-social and intellectual functioning and, although not proven, they discourage people over 50 from benefiting from flexible forms of employment and prevent labour market institutions from initiating socio-professional activation. This obviously is not conducive to creating new adapting programmes for employment in flexible forms.