Introduction

The key question of this volume is whether flexibility (of labour) leads to insecurity (of workers). We already argued in Chapter 2 that this is an empirical matter that cannot be solved a priori.

Identifying – as is often the case in the debate – one or more specific contract types with precariousness implies, indeed, the following assumption: all and only the workers that are employed with those contracts are precarious. We strongly dislike this assumption. On the one hand, it seems to suggest that, in order to eradicate precariousness, it would be sufficient to eliminate the opportunity to use these types of contract, or at least eliminate some of their specific features. This would be in evident contrast with the purposes for which non-standard contracts were introduced in many advanced countries: making it easier to access the labour market and to resume working after a period of unemployment, speeding up the transition to more stable work positions, and increasing the employability of those individuals most at risk of being excluded from the labour market. On the other hand, as illustrated in the previous chapters, at least in Italy, even open-ended contracts do not automatically entail job security, nor do they ensure the enjoyment of adequate social protection in case of job loss per se. Last, but not least, identifying a certain contract type with the state of precariousness makes it impossible to address our main concern: the empirical relationship between flexibility and worker security. In order to investigate this matter – as we have argued throughout this volume – it is necessary to analyse not only the contract type, but also the career, wage and social protection that a worker might access. While the previous chapters addressed each of these issues separately, here we provide a single summary measure of precariousness. This allows us to quantify the number of precarious workers, characterise them and analyse why they are precarious. It also indicates a potentially fruitful direction for comparative analysis in the field of labour market disadvantage and segmentation, providing the necessary analytical tools for cross-country comparisons in terms of worker (in)security.

Our measure of worker (in)security evaluates all the elements described earlier (wage, career, social protection) through a single monetary metric, attributing to each worker an income made up of the received wage as well as any benefits provided – in the reference period – by the social protection system.