Work in a vicious circle

At the moment there is an ongoing and sustained cam­paign about precarious work mainly conducted by the General Workers’ Union (GWU).

Precarious work has not only made them vulnerable but is also denying them the benefits enjoyed by the increasingly affluent

Very often precarious work is equated with abuses from the employers’ side. Indeed, the Prime Minister in his reaction to this campaign stated that the Government intends to address this issue by introducing certain measures aimed at curbing abuses by employers.

Precarious work has a much broader meaning.

From a worker’s point of view precarious work is related to uncertain, unpredictable and risky employment.

What makes it risky is the high degree of insecurity, low job tenure, low wages and high risk of occupational injury.

Workers employed in these career-less jobs very often have to contend with lack of employment security in the sense that they feel that they are not adequately protected against arbitrary dismissal.

They may report for work one morning and be abruptly told that their services are no longer required.

They are constantly thinking of leaving the job if another job or burst of activity beckons.

This is compounded by a lack of protection against illness at work, through for example safety and health regulation, limits on working time and lack of assurance of an adequate and stable income as provided by standardised regulations of work such as minimum wage.

Such a state of insecurity creates a deep sense of frustration as they feel that precarious work has not only made them vulnerable but is also denying them the benefits enjoyed by the increasingly affluent in a society characterised by higher living standards.

The munificent philanthropic gestures of generosity shown by persons in the higher echelons of organisations whenever there is a high profile public campaign of charity exasperates this frustration.

Of course this type of precarious work is not a new phenomenon as the labour market has always featured some element of precariousness. What is new about the present situation is its intensity.

The main driver for this intensity is the policy being adopted by large corporations, government agencies and public administration entities including the civil service of outsourcing work that tends to be labour intensive and less amenable to automation such as cleaning and security services.

The workers engaged in these activities might have had a feeling of being marginalised even when previously they had formed part of the core workforce of a big entity.

This sense of peripherality may have however been heightened as the outsourcing of the labour of this category of workers by the large corporate bodies to companies, very often small and medium in size, has made them look as being an expendable force and in the process making them highly vulnerable.

This outsourcing policy which has given rise to an intensity of precarious work is often part of a cost cutting exercise.

Indeed precarious work may be perceived as an automatic destabiliser in the context of the cut throat world trade competition and of the balancing acts of public accounts.

What the foregoing implies is that these workers who, in terms of employment, occupy the lowest stratum of society have no means of escape as they are unable to extricate themselves from this predicament.

Does this mean that nothing can be done to mitigate the plight of these workers?

A strict enforcement of legislation and closing down any loopholes in the provisions of the law that may be used to the detriment of the workers will go a long way in alleviating this category of workers.

The least that can be done is to ensure that they are not being denied the minimum benefits as prescribed by law.

In May 2012 the Malta Employers Association (MEA) stated that it was preparing a charter to encourage ethical employment practices in those sectors related to cleaning, security and care work services which are often accused of precarious work practices.

The MEA suggested the setting up of an independent board to administer the charter and handle any breaches of the provisions of this charter. To date no initiative has been taken to this effect.

Another recommendation made by the director of Signal 8 Security, Joseph John Grech, as reported in Malta Today, is the setting up of a regulatory body and the classification of security work.

Such a regulatory body could stipulate specific rates of payment to which bidders of tenders have to adhere.

A point raised by this director is also worth noting. He argues that if uncertainty and unpredictability are the main characteristics of precarity, the companies operating in the security services may also be in a precarious situation in the labour market as the large corporate bodies in their quest to further reduce costs may try to lower the price of the services which they are outsourcing.

It looks as if the circle has indeed become vicious. This means that government or entities may also have to do their part by ensuring that the price being paid for the services which is being outsourced allows the company to whom the tender has been awarded a margin of profit that would enable it to give its employees their due.