Introduction
Precarious employment is a broad, multidimensional construct, defined across dimensions of employment insecurity (i.e., temporality), vulnerability (i.e., powerlessness), lack of rights and protection (i.e., limited fringe benefits), and income insufficiency (i.e., low level of earnings) (Amable et al., 2001; Lewchuk et al., 2003; Kreshpaj et al., 2020).5 Some of the described features of precarious employment include temporary work, low wages, exposure to hazardous working conditions, insufficient or uncertain hours, lack of access to social protections and benefits, little opportunity for advancement, legal and practical barriers to joining a union or bargaining collectively, limited protection from discrimination, and exploitation (Ahonen, 2018; International Labor Organization, 2012; Vives et al., 2010). The viewpoint of the worker is also important in defining precarious employment; precarious employment has been characterized as “employment that is uncertain, unpredictable, and risky from the point of view of the worker” (Kalleberg, 2009, p. 2).
Individuals engaged in precarious employment are not homogeneous. Such employment arrangements can include, but are not limited to, involuntary reduced hours; some forms of independent contracting; and some forms of contingent, freelance, and gig work6 (Grooms, 2022). Types of workers thus employed include those in the health care, agriculture, transportation, and food service industries; some gig workers; child- and elder-care workers who could not stay at home during the pandemic; domestic and undocumented workers; and retail and hospitality employees who faced loss of work because of the COVID-19–associated economic recession, many of whom continue to experience high levels of employment precarity (Côté et al., 2021; Gaitens et al., 2021; Kantamneni, 2020).
Precarious employment7 has become more prominent in the U.S. economy in recent years, associated with far-reaching economic changes that include globalization, technological advances, and the decline of unions (Kalleberg, 2009; Oddo et al., 2021). Even before the pandemic, precarious employment had expanded to almost all sectors of the economy, including occupations that historically had been viewed as secure in such sectors as manufacturing, retail, and management consulting (Hyman, 2018; Kalleberg, 2018; Oddo et al., 2021).8 The COVID-19 pandemic exposed and intensified long-standing systemic health, social, and economic inequities, disparities, and insecurities (Grooms, 2022) shaped by class, race, gender, and age while posing novel challenges for individuals engaged in precarious employment (Cubrich et al., 2022). Because of their disproportionate employment in precarious employment, Black Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islanders were more likely than White Americans to lose or leave their jobs in the initial months of the pandemic (Anyamele et al., 2022; Geranios et al., 2022). In addition, research has
__________________
5 The definition of precarious employment is dynamic, taking on different dimensions over place and time. The pandemic has shown that what constitutes precarious employment can change. During the pandemic, some precarious employment was amplified, and jobs that were not previously precarious became so.
6 Gig work, frequently performed through such platforms as Uber, TaskRabbit, Instacart, and Rover, is often temporary and in fact may last only a few minutes. Gig workers—usually classified as independent contractors—are not covered by the social safety net of traditional workers’ benefits, such as workers’ compensation, social security, paid leave, and health insurance (Ravenelle, 2019). It is important to note that some forms of independent contracting and some forms of contingent, freelance, and gig work are secure and adequately compensated (see, e.g., Abraham and Houseman, 2020). For example, data from the six waves of the Contingent Worker Supplement to the Current Population Survey show that independent contractors earn slightly more than wage and salary workers with similar demographic characteristics. They are somewhat less likely to have health insurance, though a majority do, and the share with health insurance may have risen since the advent of the Affordable Care Act. Further, just 3 to 4 percent of independent contractors say their jobs are contingent and only a small minority of independent contractors say they would prefer a different arrangement (Abraham and Houseman, 2020).
7 Throughout this consultation, the terms “precarious employment,” “precariousness,” and “precarity” are used to describe the state of workers who receive low wages and insufficient work-provided benefits, thus having increasing reliance on government-provided benefits. The terms also encompass alternative work arrangements, including those of independent contractors, day laborers, and temporary agency or contract company workers, groups that have traditionally been difficult to measure in survey data (NASEM, 2020).
8 Oddo and colleagues measured precarious, or low-quality, employment in the United States and found that precarious employment increased by 9 percent between 1988 and 2016 (Oddo et al., 2021).
shown that individuals in underpaid, low-status, and often insecure positions were highly susceptible to COVID-19 exposure because of proximate encounters with the public, an inability to work remotely, and a lack of benefits (e.g., paid sick leave) (Andrasfay and Goldman, 2021; Garcia et al., 2021).
This rapid expert consultation9 provides actionable guidance for state and local decision makers seeking to address COVID-19–related challenges facing individuals engaged in precarious employment. Drawing on research in the social, behavioral, and economic sciences, it offers actionable guidance to inform continued pandemic recovery efforts for these workers. The focus is on strategies that can provide short- and medium-term solutions in the form of investments to support workers engaged in precarious employment. Also described are support systems needed to prepare for future pandemics or other disruptive events and address long-standing structural issues.
IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON INDIVIDUALS ENGAGED IN PRECARIOUS EMPLOYMENT
The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the challenges—economic, social, and physical and mental health—facing individuals engaged in precarious employment (Donnelly, 2022; Grooms, 2022; Han and Hart, 2021; Mai et al., 2022). Many of those engaged in work that could not be performed remotely and required proximate encounters with the public (such as care work and grocery services) faced a higher risk of infection or job loss when the pandemic began (Allen et al., 2022; Andrasfay and Goldman, 2021; Garcia et al., 2021; Goldman et al., 2021; Wolfe et al., 2021). These workers also confronted exposure to stressors impacting their mental health and wellness (Allan and Blustein, 2022; Cubrich, 2020), including the fear of potential job loss, loss of working hours and income, and the risk of contracting COVID-19 at work; the need to provide additional informal care to children or other dependent individuals; and in some cases, increased subjection to abuse and harassment in the workplace (Cubrich, 2020).
In addition to the health-related impacts of COVID-19, individuals engaged in precarious employment faced additional economic risk and instability, such as sudden layoffs and benefit cuts (Mai et al., 2022). Many self-employed workers, independent contractors, gig workers, and freelancers also faced disruption of their income when their contracts were not renewed because of COVID-19–related closures and mitigation measures (Mai et al., 2022).
Individuals engaged in precarious employment also are often disconnected from traditional employment benefits and social assistance. Researchers have documented that during the pandemic, some of these workers, particularly those with schedule uncertainty, were more likely to experience challenges related to access to unemployment assistance, food insecurity, housing insecurity, health care access, and financial hardship (Andrea et al., 2022; Ravenelle et al., 2021; Schneider and Harknett, 2021). Several state and local jurisdictions implemented programs or policies to support workers facing precarity as a result of the pandemic. Box 2 summarizes policy approaches implemented during the pandemic to protect this population.
__________________
9 The statement of task for this rapid expert consultation reads as follows: “The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine is undertaking a rapid expert consultation that will discuss guidance for state and local decision makers seeking to address COVID-19-related challenges facing workers engaged in precarious employment, paying particular attention to mitigating already existing inequities and supporting the mental health of workers. The COVID-19 pandemic has accentuated the challenges for workers engaged in precarious employment—those in nonstandard, temporary, under-protected, part-time, and otherwise precarious environments—which reflects the complex dynamics in the evolution of labor markets and working conditions across the United States, particularly brought on by the pandemic. Drawing on social, behavioral, and economic sciences, the rapid expert consultation will identify actionable guidance to inform how pandemic recovery efforts can address the changing nature of work that were exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The consultation will focus on strategies and policy implications that can address short-term and medium-term solutions and lay the groundwork for future investments to support workers engaged in precarious employment.”
STRATEGIES FOR ADDRESSING THE IMPACTS OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON INDIVIDUALS ENGAGED IN PRECARIOUS EMPLOYMENT
Strategies for addressing the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on individuals engaged in precarious employment need to address historical inequities, disparities, and structural factors that disproportionately affect Black, Latino, and Native American individuals; people with disabilities; young people; migrants; and women (Benach et al., 2014; DeSalvo et al., 2017). Recovery plans targeting individuals engaged in precarious employment can be leveraged to support progress in three pillars of job quality―earnings, labor market security, and the quality of the working environment.
Several strategies decision makers can use to address both the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on individuals engaged in precarious employment and preexisting factors that were exacerbated by the pandemic are summarized in Box 3 and detailed below.
Expand access to benefits and labor protections
State and local decision makers can implement policies to support individuals engaged in precarious employment who often have limited access to benefits, such as unemployment insurance (Allegretto et al., 2013; Friedman, 2014; Jacobs et al., 2022). Eligibility requirements for unemployment benefits typically mean that workers with certain employment arrangements (e.g., some gig workers who obtain work through online platforms or mobile apps and informal workers who typically perform services for households, such as maintenance, child- and elder-care, and cleaning) do not qualify for these benefits. Jurisdictions can provide partial unemployment benefits for workers whose pay has been decreased or whose work schedules have been reduced; examples include New York,10 Montana,11 and Vermont.12
Gig workers13 present a special case. Because of their status as independent contractors, some of these workers may not be covered by traditional unemployment insurance, minimum wage requirements, overtime protections, and antidiscrimination and other workplace protections and benefits. Some are at particular risk of engaging in precarious employment because of their classification as independent contractors rather than regular employees (Dubal, 2017; Watson et al., 2021), which there have been some efforts to challenge (Dubal, 2017; Pinsof, 2015). Some jurisdictions (e.g., Seattle, New York City) have instituted municipal-level minimum wages, paid sick days, and other protections whose coverage extends to affected gig workers. Other gig workers might have other jobs that provide these protections.
Other exemplar policies predate the COVID-19 pandemic. Some of these policies are aimed at protecting workers by addressing wage theft. For example, some programs disqualify contractors that have a history of wage theft and other violations of labor standards from winning city contracts; examples of jurisdictions with such programs include Cincinnati and Columbus, Ohio (City of Cincinnati, 2014; Columbus, n.d.).
Still other jurisdictions have improved paid sick leave protections through enforcement. The New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection, for example, has enforced paid sick leave laws in multiple industries, with noteworthy cases involving fast food, home care, and airline industry workers.14 Such programs need to be accompanied by efforts to increase awareness of them among affected workers. A study of restaurant workers in New York, for example, found that 38 percent were not aware of the city’s paid sick leave benefits (Tsui et al., 2017).
Update and enforce occupational health and safety regulations
The pandemic has highlighted the importance of occupational health and safety regulations and compliance with their requirements (Dennerlein et al., 2020). Policies in this domain can include conducting outreach to increase filing of workers’ compensation claims, rates of which have been found to be very low for individuals infected with COVID-19 (Laskaris and Markowitz, 2023). Workers across all employment categories have faced exposure to COVID-19 in the workplace, but as noted earlier, the risk has been especially high among workers engaged in precarious employment, including younger workers and those in low-wage occupations (Côté et al., 2021; Gaitens et al., 2021).
__________________
10 See https://www.ny.gov/services/get-unemployment-assistance.
11 See https://uid.dli.mt.gov/claimants/partial-benefit-calculator.
12 See https://labor.vermont.gov/unemployment-insurance.
13 Gig work is not homogeneous—some gig workers appear to take these jobs to supplement their income; others engage in gig work for flexibility and schedule control; others may be engaged in this work either because their main job was affected by the pandemic, or they have no other opportunities for employment.
14 See https://www.nyc.gov/site/dca/media/pr090518-DCA-Announces-Findings-of-Investigations-42-Home-Care-Agencies.page.
State and local decision makers can issue employment guidelines, conduct inspections, and assess fines for defaulters to support safe working conditions (Michaels and Wagner, 2020). In addition, these decisions makers can promote and widely enforce the requirements that workplaces have safety committees to involve workers in identifying and preventing COVID-19 risk factors and other health and safety concerns. Nebraska, for example, requires all employers to have such a committee,15 and Montana requires one for employers with more than five employees.16 At the federal level, statutes such as the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the National Labor Relations Act, and the Families First Coronavirus Response Act are focused on promoting safe working conditions. However, a lack of resources and problems with the standards-setting process have impeded their enforcement (Fairfax, 2020; Michaels and Barab, 2020; NASEM, 2022b).
Engage community partners and worker-centered organizations
Augmenting efforts of labor standards enforcement agencies by giving community partners and worker centers a formal role in enforcement has been found to lead to improved compliance with standards and to facilitate worker organizing by providing institutional support for worker and community organizations (Amengual and Fine, 2017; Fine, 2017; Fine and Gordon, 2010; Fine and Lyon, 2017). An example is a community-based education and outreach program focused on workers in particular industries in San Francisco. This program led to better compliance with and enforcement of labor laws; improved the professional development and commitment of enforcement officials; and provided modest revenue increases, greater legitimacy, and a stronger institutional framework for workers with low earnings (Patel and Fisk, 2017). Another example of engaging community organizations is the partnering of state attorneys general and worker centers in efforts to enforce and improve workplace rights (Flanagan, 2020).
Another successful collaboration is the Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership,17 which has brought together union leaders; employers; and their partners in education, government, and the community to create career opportunities in the manufacturing industries for low-income and minority residents who are more likely to be engaged in precarious employment. The program has been credited with increasing both earnings and long-term employment for participants (Maguire et al., 2010). Other efforts have seen local decision makers allocating funding to community organizations to tackle issues that may relate to precarious employment. For example, in trying to assist in addressing rising wage theft in Iowa, the Johnson County Board of Supervisors provided funds for the Center for Worker Justice of Eastern Iowa to have a full-time bilingual wage theft organizer to assist workers bringing cases of wage theft (Halawith, 2022).
Collaborations have also been forged between academic institutions and local decision makers. An example is the Healthy Work Collaborative, run by the University of Illinois Chicago’s Center for Healthy Work. This collaborative has promoted partnership between the public health and labor sectors aimed at building the capacity to implement initiatives addressing precarious employment, with a focus on policy, systems, and environmental change (e.g., workforce development plans; community health improvement; education on precarious employment and ways to address it, such as paid sick leave) (Bonney et al., 2019, 2020). An evaluation showed that participants improved their knowledge and skills in addressing precarious employment. The collaborative’s efforts strengthened
__________________
public health–labor partnerships, and in some cases, promoted policy changes within participating work organizations, including increasing paid internships and changing their workforce development plans to address concepts learned in the Healthy Work Collaborative (Welter et al., 2021).
Support health and well-being
Research has shown that individuals engaged versus those not engaged in highly precarious employment report more unhealthy days (0.4 days more within a 30-day period) (Bhattacharya and Ray, 2021). Moreover, individuals engaged in precarious employment are less likely to have access to health insurance through an employer (Gutierrez, 2018; Hoffman and Paradise, 2008). Efforts to improve conditions for individuals engaged in precarious employment therefore need to address physical and mental health–related challenges related to this type of work (Blustein, 2019; Kalleberg, 2018; Paul and Moser, 2009).
Programs and policies that can meet these needs target expanding access to physical and mental health care services by, for example, increasing the role of managed care organizations, improving community health services, continuing access to telehealth, and broadening Medicaid eligibility. Some states have decoupled health insurance from employment (Ollove, 2021); they include Washington, Nevada, and Colorado, which have taken steps towards creating public health insurance options (Gooptu et al., 2016).
Some states, including Colorado,18 Montana (Gianforte, 2021), and Washington,19 expanded behavioral health initiatives during the COVID-19 pandemic. Given research showing that the mental health harms of the pandemic affected Black and Hispanic workers disproportionately, mental health services need to be culturally sensitive (Grooms et al., 2022). Thus, therapists and community-based sites that can provide services in multiple languages and use culturally responsive approaches that pay attention to and respect clients’ individual experiences, their cultural backgrounds, and how these shape their experiences are needed (Asnaani et al., 2022).
Improve data collection and data sharing
Work arrangements, including job characteristics, employment relationships, business models, and impacts on workers, have evolved over the past several decades (NASEM, 2020), and a better understanding of precarious employment requires robust measures of “precariousness” rather than ad hoc indicators and varying definitions.20 The adoption of common measures could be helpful in gaining a clear picture of precarious employment, developing information systems necessary for its surveillance and cross-national comparisons, and targeting effective interventions that can reduce its prevalence (Bhattacharya and Ray, 2021).
A lack of accurate data hinders efforts to understand the experiences of individuals engaged in precarious employment. During the pandemic, for example, the lack of accurate and timely data hindered knowing who was contracting the disease, what their potential sources of exposure might be, and what economic impacts the disease was having (Khalatbari-Soltani et al., 2020).
__________________
18 See https://hcpf.colorado.gov/behavioral-health-services.
19 See https://www.hca.wa.gov/about-hca/programs-and-initiatives/behavioral-health-and-recovery.
20 Measuring precarious employment and operationalizing the concept is difficult because “(1) precarious work is not a precise statistical category, as it includes a variety of different aspects of employment relations and characteristics of jobs and working conditions; (2) existing statistical categories (e.g., of part-time work, temporary work, fixed-term contracts, self-employment) are related to precarious work but cannot be simply equated with it (e.g., since some part-time work may be stable and certain and hence not precarious); (3) much precarious work is not counted in current statistics and is difficult to measure in surveys (e.g., undeclared work, own-account workers, irregular schedules); and (4) it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish who is an employer vs. an employee vs. self-employed)” (Kalleberg, 2014, p. 2).
Rigorous data collection processes also can capture longitudinal and region-specific statistics on numbers of workers engaged in precarious employment. Importantly, combining multiple data sources, including national, local, public, and private, can provide insights into employment and work arrangement trends (NASEM, 2020). To this end, decision makers can encourage data sharing by the private sector and foster the sharing of public and private labor market information, including who is employed and in what type of employment arrangements on a statewide basis. An example is Virginia’s Open Data, Open Jobs Initiative, which provides data on a range of employment metrics, including unemployment statistics; employment status by sex, race, and age; and the number of people living under the federal poverty line, improving the state’s ability to understand various employment arrangements, including the prevalence of precarity.21
Investments in data systems by state and local decision makers likewise can improve the collection of workforce data related to precarious employment. For example, Florida used $3 million from its Governor’s Emergency Education Relief Fund to upgrade its data system to capture the outcomes of non-degree-granting programs, including apprenticeships and certificate programs, and to create a Pathway to Job Market dashboard (Florida Department of Education, n.d.). Tracking such programs can assist in understanding programs outside of the formal education system that have the potential to provide opportunities for individuals engaged in precarious employment.
Some states, such as Georgia and Florida, have used statewide longitudinal data systems to link information from early learning, grades K–12, postsecondary education, and the workforce as a way to understand learning across the individual continuum.22 Although these programs are targeted at students, similar efforts focused on workers engaged in precarious employment might be helpful.
CONCLUSION
The COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately affected individuals engaged in precarious employment. State and local governments have an opportunity to mitigate the damage to these workers caused by the pandemic. Since racial and ethnic subgroups tend to engage in precarious employment relative to majority groups, they endured the exacerbating COVID-19 efforts most. State and local officials throughout the country have identified actions that can lead to solutions to the problems COVID-19 produced for these populations.
SEAN is interested in your feedback. Was this rapid expert consultation useful? Send comments to sean@nas.edu or (202) 334-3440.
__________________
