Flexibility and security: an asymmetrical relationship?
Diagram 2: Matrix: possible configurations of flexibility and security 4
|
Job security |
Employment |
Income security |
Combination | |
|
External |
- EPL - early retirement |
- active labour |
- unemployment - social benefits - minimum wage |
- protection |
|
Internal |
- part-time - shorter |
- EPL - LLL |
- part-time - supplementary - sickness - study grants |
- leave schemes - part-time |
|
Functional |
- job enrich- - training - labour - outsourcing |
- training - job rotation - team work - multiskilling |
- performance- |
- voluntary |
|
Wage |
- local - scaling or |
- changes in SS - employment - in-work |
- collective wage - adjusted |
- voluntary |
However, as the above matrix illustrates, in practice, one combination is not possible — that of
external numerical flexibility and job security- whilst another two are to a greater or lesser degree
mutually exclusive: external numerical flexibility is quite incompatible with work-life balance (com-
bination security), whilst the same is true, though to a smaller degree, regarding internal numerical
/working time flexibility. Employees with family responsibilities need to have predictable (and not
long) working hours’ schedules and job stability. All other combinations are possible. Depending on
the particular national labour market regime, the emphasis on either the flexibility or security compo-
nent will vary, producing a different outcome.
The Wilthagen & Tros typology presented above has aroused some controversy as regards its
interpretation as a list of different trade-offs between forms of flexibility and security. Leschke et al.
(2006) from the transitional labour markets school focus their critique on the limitations of this matrix to
4 Wilthagen, mentioned in Eurofound, 2008a
Page • 13