Since the late 1970s, significant changes have been recorded internationally in the world of work, with the main characteristics being flexible forms of salaried employment, the deregulation of labour relations and the phasing out of safeguards that had been established during the post-war years in Global North countries. In Greece, the deregulation of labour relations and the expansion of flexible and precarious work intensified after 2010, when, on the one hand, a large number of enterprises responded to the economic crisis by taking measures that reduced the cost of labour, thus degrading labour terms, and, on the other hand, we saw implementation of the “new economic governance” that was imposed by the Troika (namely the European Union, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund) when the country joined the “Financial Support Mechanism”.
Specifically, flexible forms of employment, such as part-time work, shiftwork and temporary work, have increased significantly in the past fifteen years (1.). By way of institutional and legislative regulations, collective bargaining agreements were weakened, dismissals were made easier, the right to strike was restricted, greater flexibility was given in determining working hours, and the minimum wage was reduced. In addition, the deregulation of labour relations and the ensuing weakening of the employees’ institutional safeguards, in combination with the creation of a large “reserve army” of unemployed and precarious workers in the aftermath of the economic crisis, resulted in the reduction of the workers’ bargaining power relative to employers and in the weakening of trade unions. This gave rise to an increase in and intensification of employer authoritarianism and arbitrariness. Cases in which employees are asked to work beyond their working hours without being paid overtime, as well as cases of delayed payment of accrued wages or refusal to grant annual leave, have been recorded across the entire work force. Such employer arbitrariness also encompasses verbal – even physical – violence, sexual harassment and threats, with the most common being the threat of blacklisting insubordinate employees, resulting in their inability to find work with another employer.
In this text, I will focus on the ways employees – who are employed in flexible and precarious work – interpret the world of work and how they experience their participation in the latter. The positions that I will present are drawn from findings of qualitative social research that I conducted on behalf of the Institute of Labour of the GSEE from 2019 to 2022 and were set out in my book entitled “Precarious biographies. Career Pathways and Identities in the Transforming World of Work” (Gutenberg, 2023).
The inclusion of employees in flexible occupations within an increasing deregulated labour market is experienced in a variety of ways by workers themselves and leads to different representations of the world of work. In cases – and this the norm – where placement in a flexible and precarious job is accompanied by employee exploitation, oppression and insecurity, the world of work is primarily represented as a field of competitive and power relations. This is dominated by experiences of intense physical and mental stress, control and supervision, alienation and low wages. Precariousness penetrates into other spheres of life. Precarious workers feel that they are unable to articulate and implement an independent life plan; they remain stuck in their parental home; they find it difficult to cultivate interpersonal and social relationships; they borrow against their future prospects, accumulating debt, and cannot make future plans, since their biographical prospects are limited to managing the present crisis.
Within the world of work, when this is represented as a field of competitive and power relations, employees are primarily subordinates who are subject to the oppressive and authoritarian behaviour of their employers or supervisors. However, they are not passive, merely enduring this behaviour. On the contrary, they initiate various versions of resistance within the workplace and strategies for managing precariousness in all aspects of their lives. In the workplace, efforts focus on adherence to agreed terms and ensuring contractual rights. Confronted with oppressive working conditions, they respond by leaving, resigning or searching for another position on better terms. They try to manage the economic repercussions of precarious work by working multiple jobs, overworking, gathering small incomes from various alternative sources, and limiting their expenses. These are mainly individual strategies that do not take the form of collective organisation or mobilisation. In fact, precarious workers show strong mistrust of both organised trade unions and government-run prevention and inspection agencies (e.g. the Labour Inspectorate).
Employees often initiate practices of solidarity and mutual assistance within the workplace. Through these practices, they support each other in coping with the exploitative and oppressive working conditions, while they fight, on their behalf, for another type of moral stance, which is contrary to the employer’s authoritarianism. In doing so, they show that they refuse to adopt the extreme competitiveness that is skilfully being cultivated within the workplace. Individuals also seek solidarity and care, which offset the oppressive and alienating elements of subsistence work, in alternative forms of socialising which they develop within groups and collectives. Activities outside the workplace, such as participating in educational programmes (tertiary studies), self-regulating personal development frameworks or organised collective events become pertinent both as pillars of meaningful life and as reference points for personal and social self-determination. They also provide coherence and cohesion in a biography that, in terms of career path, is marked by discontinuity and instability.
But there is also a second form of representation that has emerged in the world of flexible work among those employed by businesses in the “creative economy”. In these cases, flexible and non-standard work is considered to be a favourable framework for the employee to function as their own boss and develop their personal capital. Different experiences, new duties and demands, even tests in the field of work are treated as learning challenges that lead to professional growth and are instrumental in the gradual shaping of a unique professional profile that ensures employability. The world of work is therefore understood as a field in which one is tested and evaluated. The subject derives satisfaction when they successfully pass these tests and appears to grow.
Employees functioning as their own bosses have come to terms with the fact that generalised competition is a given. They do not seek stability by acquiring a permanent position, as this would mean becoming stagnant in an ever-changing field. They seek to achieve a sense of security through constant movement and activation – through the ability to remain eligible at all times – maintaining an appealing and marketable professional profile in the labour market. However, such a “unique” profile is not built solely in the workplace. It includes elements from overall subjectivity and from the private sphere (feelings, personal style, lifestyle, sexuality). The employee/entrepreneur of their work force is not bound by relationships, collectivities, locations or professional roles. They connect with others online for the purpose of carrying out a project. As soon as the project is completed, they disconnect and make new connections for the next project.
The study of cases that view the world of work as a framework for professional growth revealed sides of exploitation and precariousness that differ from those of the first standard case I mentioned above. A common version is self-exploitation – that is, subjecting oneself to a state of dependency and acceptance of exploitative conditions in order to enhance one’s curriculum vitae or to receive a promise of future employment in a desired role. Creative economy employees also have to deal with the fear of a failure that could harm their good reputation and tarnish their professional profile, as well as the insecurity caused by the constant turnover in industries such as advertising and communication. Lastly, we ascertained that, more often than not, teamwork does not function as a framework for initiatives and self-motivation, but rather as a control and disciplinary mechanism.
In conclusion, it can be argued that flexible employment and the modern transformations of work are experienced in different ways. The various and multiple experiences of precariousness in combination with the collapse of the shared time-space frameworks of activity in many flexible occupations weakens the prospect of a common experience that could function as a basis for the formation of a collective identity. On the other hand, a critical analysis may reveal that the common characteristics of precarious employment are oppression, exploitation, the violence of having the activity determined by others, leading to restriction of the potential for individuals to lead worthwhile lives. Thus, it becomes extremely important for precarious workers to be heard, to voice their opinions in public discourse and to be given the opportunity to exchange their experiences and to process them as common experiences of oppression and exploitation. By analysing their own experiences of exploitation – possibly with the intervention of critical counselling – precarious workers can realise that the deterioration of working conditions and institutional safeguards is not the result of an inexorable ‘natural’ evolution of things. It is the result of political will, which aims to reduce the cost of labour and improve business profitability. The emergence of the structural and political conditions of precariousness may also contribute to the deconstruction of the dominant discourse, which shifts individual responsibility onto precarious workers (or onto the unemployed) for their professional situation. It could, finally, constitute the basis for voicing an alternative discourse that would push for collective political activation.
- GSEE Labour Institute, The Greek economy and employment. Annual Report 2022. Reports 24.
- The research was mainly based on biographical narratives, which were produced in the context of biographical narrative interviews and conducted under my supervision by Nora Rallis. Throughout the research, Christos Goulas, Dimitra Kofti and Despina Babanelou contributed decisively with fruitful ideas, criticism and observations.
