Flexibility and security: an asymmetrical relationship?
tion, extensive use of precarious workers or outsourcing, result into a lower investment of the com-
pany in human capital and, hence, in lower productivity. Workers that are under-paid have reduced
motivation and attachment to their workplace. Increased labour mobility also weakens loyalty to the
company/organization. By contrast, job stability, access to training, job enrichment, career opportu-
nities and work-life balance improve the commitment of the workforce and its performance, to the
benefit of the employer.
Diagram 3: Implications of various forms of flexibility for companies and workers
|
form of flexibility |
implications for companies |
implications for workers |
|
temporary (fixed-term) |
• higher quality matches, • lower incentive to invest in • opportunity to assess the |
• job instability leading to job • shorter duration of • “port of entry” or trap to • vulnerability to new social • few (if any) training • low job satisfaction • lower work attachment • less combination security |
|
involuntary part-time work voluntary part-time work |
• higher numerical flexibility • more committed employees |
as above • possibility to combine work |
|
low EPL-index |
• easy firing & hiring • disincentive to invest in |
• job insecurity • income instability • uncertainty for the future |
|
working time flexibility |
• better response to • better use of equipment and |
• difficulties in achieving a work-life balance • possibility to adjust start and |
|
individualized working time |
• mutual benefits for companies and workers |
• greater working time • possibility to accumulate |
|
functional flexibility |
• improved performance of |
• access to training, • increased employability • job satisfaction |
|
wage flexibility |
• rationalization of wage costs |
• increased income for some, |
Page • 19