Page 1 of 23
474
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol.7, No.12
Publication Date: December 25, 2020
DOI:10.14738/assrj.712.9511. Papadakis, N., Drakaki, M., Saridaki, S. & Dafermos, V. (2020). Into the Vicious Cycle of Precarity: Labour Market, Precarious Work,
Social Vulnerability and Youth: The case of Greece within the EU context. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(12) 474-496.
Into the Vicious Cycle of Precarity: Labour Market, Precarious Work,
Social Vulnerability and Youth: The case of Greece within the EU
context
Nikos Papadakis
Professor and Director of the Centre for Political Research & Documentation (KEPET), Department
of Political Science, University of Crete
Deputy Director of the University of Crete Research Center for the Humanities, the Social and
Education Sciences (UCRC)
Member of the ECPR Political Culture Research Network, Rethymnon, Greece
Maria Drakaki
PhD in Political Science and Researcher at KEPET,
Department of Political Science, University of Crete, Rethymnon, Greece
Collaborating Teaching Staff at the Hellenic Open University
Sofia Saridaki
PhD Candidate and Researcher at KEPET
Department of Political Science, University of Crete, Rethymnon, Greece
Vassilis Dafermos
Professor and Director of the Laboratory of Social Statistics
Department of Political Science, University of Crete, Rethymnon, Greece
ABSTRACT
Ιn the last decade, there has been a widespread expansion of both precarious
work and precarious forms of employment (such as temporary and low- qualified jobs, seasonal and part-time jobs etc.), in which a growing share of
young people work. The impact of precarious work on young people is likely to
be permanent, while it seems to affect (even over-determine) their life courses.
Non-smooth and early transitions into labour market are very likely to worsen
progressively their long-term life chances (Lodovici & Semenza, 2012: 7).
Undoubtedly, the long-lasting global economic Crisis and the subsequent
Recession, has heavily affected the state of play in the labour market
worldwide, provoking severe modifications both in the field of employment
and countries’ social cohesion. Based on the above mentioned, the paper deals
with precarious work in general, while it emphasizes precarious work among
youth. It initially captures, briefly, the state of play in terms of the impact of the
Crisis on the widening of the phenomenon of precarious work and then it
focuses on theoretical insights and critical conceptual definitions concerning
precariousness in the labour market. Further, based on secondary quantitative
-data analysis, it analyses the key- parameters and facets of precarious work
(focusing on youth) in the European Union and, mainly, in Greece. Additionally,
it briefly presents parameters of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
Page 2 of 23
Papadakis, N., Drakaki, M., Saridaki, S. & Dafermos, V. (2020). Into the Vicious Cycle of Precarity: Labour Market, Precarious Work, Social Vulnerability
and Youth: The case of Greece within the EU context. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(12) 474-496.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.712.9511 475
precariousness in Greece. Finally, the paper explores the correlation between
precarious work and social vulnerability, especially among young people.
The present paper is based on an ongoing Research Project. More specifically, this
research is co-financed by Greece and the European Union (European Social
Fund- ESF) through the Operational Programme «Human Resources
Development, Education and Lifelong Learning 2014-2020» in the context of the
project “Precarious Work and Youth in today’s Greece: secondary quantitative
analysis, qualitative filed research and research-based policy proposals” (MIS
5048510).
Key-words: precarious work, labour market, youth, vulnerability, Greece, European
Union
1 INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, there is no doubt that during the last decade both the field of labour market and the
working conditions have greatly affected by the impact of the economic Crisis and the consequent
multi-parameter long-lasting Recession in the European Union, which have caused a variety of
changes and modifications in terms of the components of the employment field and working
conditions, -causing, among others, the gradual expansion of precarious work.
Within the above mentioned framework, it is worth mentioned that the phenomenon of precarious
work was existing before the outset of the Crisis in Europe. However, the strict fiscal measures that
taken in order to face the Crisis (e.g. the Medium-Term Fiscal Strategy Frameworks (Memoranda)
in the case of Greece) were deregulated the economy and the labour markets of the Member-States,
especially those in the European South), sharply widespreading both unemployment rates,
especially those of the workforce aged 15-24 and 55-64, and cuts in welfare provisions and
entitlements (McKay et al., 2012: 5). In fact, in several national cases, the youth constitutes the “age
group that affected more (from the Crisis) as its unemployment rate has risen dramatically and its
wages have decreased” (Green, 2017: 7).
Even though youth unemployment is falling, since 2014, it still remains high, while the total
unemployment rates differ substantially across Europe, which eventually affects youth
unemployment. What is indeed alarming is the fact that “for the first time since the Second World
War, there is a real risk that today’s young adults – the most educated generation we have ever had –
may end up less well-off than their parents” (European Commission 2017a: 9).
The above mentioned in adjunction with the expansion of social inequalities, the shrinking of the
Welfare State and consequently the increase of poverty rates, -directly related to the vertical
increase of people’s unemployment rates- (see in detail Papadakis et al, 2020; Papadakis et al.,
2017a: 6-11; Papadakis et al., 2017b: 10-11; Kotroyannos et al., 2015: 269; Matsaganis, 2013: 10-
12; Matsaganis, 2011: 510), had a direct impact on the social fabric in Greece and, consequently,
resulting in its social transformation and the weakening of social cohesion (see in detail Papadakis
et al., 2017b: 6-8; Papadakis et al., 2020; Featherstone, 2011: 202; Matsaganis, 2013: 3; OECD, 2014:
1).
This unstable state of play caused a “significant growth in a wide range of non-standard forms of
employment relationship with the result that significant numbers of Europe’s workers are now
excluded from welfare benefits and/or employment protections.” (McKay et al., 2012: 5). While over
Page 3 of 23
476
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.7, Issue 12, December-2020
the years, it has strengthened the emergence and expansion of new forms of precarious work,
including part-time, undeclared or uninsured work, "temporary" employment, seasonal work etc.
(Eurofound, 2018: 1; McKay et al., 2012: 16; ILO, 2011: 5) as well as the intensity of the phenomenon
“just in time workforce” (Rifkin, 2003: 9).
In other words, a new labour market situation has emerged, in which new forms of employment
dominate, characterized by precariousness and flexibility, such as part-time employment,
undeclared work, rotating employment etc. While, at the same time, young people seem to be facing
more of these transformations in the field of employment (Green, 2017: 7).
2 PRECARIOUS WORK AND PRECARIOUS FORMS OF EMPLOYMENT: THEORETICAL AND
DEFINITIONAL ISSUES
As regards the definitional framework of “precarious work”, even though the debate on the
conceptual delimitation of the term remain an “open” issue to this day (see in detail Spyridakis,
2018: 17-53; ILO, 2011: 5-7), as the increasing intensity and extent of precarious and occasionally
employment as well as their key-characteristics differ from country to country based on the
historical development of each country’s labour market at national and local level, and the context
that surrounds it (i.e. the labour market) (ILO, 2011: 7).
Thus, precarious work can be defined as: work characterized by uncertainty, instability and
insecurity with limited social benefits and law protections, and employees bear the risks of work
(Kalleberg and Vallas 2017: 1). Precarious work “has moved to the centre of debates on the future of
employment as a spreading consensus expects globalization, new technologies, employer risk shifting
and more heterogeneous workforces to continue to promote more commodified forms of labour”
(Rubery et al., 2018: 510). In the European Union, these changes and transitions have taken place,
mainly, in the last decades (1980s onwards) of the 20th century, when the domination of precarious
forms of employment, such as part-time work, fixed-term contracts, temporary work etc.
constituted significant components-forms of employment in defining and understanding the
concept and the field of precarious work (McKay et al., 2012: 16).
In this context, a growing share of people, especially the youth ones, even having jobs, it seems that
in recent years young people are increasingly working in temporary and low-qualified jobs whose
the impact on them is likely to be permanent and difficult on their life courses (Lodovici & Semenza,
2012: 7), as non-smooth and early transitions into labour market are very likely to worsen
progressively their long-term life chances (“scaring effect” phenomenon) (Lodovici & Semenza,
2012: 7).
Moreover, precarious work is associated with skills mismatch (as in the case of Italy), deconstructed
labour markets (as in the case of Greece), random transitions (such as in Spain), where the
“employment trajectories do not seem to lead anywhere, and the sensation of being trapped is
profoundly embedded” (Lodovici & Semenza, 2012: 13-14).
Within this unstable context nowadays, precarious forms of employment can be classified based on
two major categories of employment in terms of contractual arrangements, namely (ILO, 2011:
7):
Page 4 of 23
Papadakis, N., Drakaki, M., Saridaki, S. & Dafermos, V. (2020). Into the Vicious Cycle of Precarity: Labour Market, Precarious Work, Social Vulnerability
and Youth: The case of Greece within the EU context. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(12) 474-496.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.712.9511 477
i.The limited duration of the contract, including forms of employment contracts such as fixed- term, short-term, temporary, seasonal, day-labour and casual labour (ILO, 2011: 7).
ii. The type/form of the employment relationship, including types/forms of employment
relationships such as: triangular and disguised employment relationships, bogus self-employment,
sub-contracting contracts and agency contracts (ILO, 2011: 7). In particular, regarding triangular
and disguised employment relationships as well as bogus self-employment are related, many times,
with decreased employment terms and conditions and they often constitute a way of shifting the
burden of the responsibility and the risks associated with employment from the employer to the
employee/worker, -risks related with such employment relations, e.g. dismissals (McKay et al.,
2012: 6).
The above mentioned precarious forms of employment are characterized by four main working
conditions: i. low wages, ii. inadequate and insufficient protection from termination of employment,
iii. lack of access to social structures but also to the privileges (benefits) that are mostly related to
permanent and full employment, iv. absence or limited access of employees to exercise their labour
rights (ILO, 2011: 7).
According to ILO (2011: 5), both precarious forms of employment and their characteristics tend to
be expanded and “normalized” in the labour market due to “employers’ ingenuity” inventing new
ways in order to circumvent legislative framework or/and find loopholes in laws to increase the
profitability of their business/enterprise and maintain their sustainability.
3 EUROPEAN KEY-CHALLENGES AND INITIATIVES TO COMBAT PRECARIOUS WORK
Unemployment, youth unemployment, poverty and their persisting correlation constitute probably
the major challenges in the EU, at the moment. According to the Euro-barometer, more than 8 out
of 10 Europeans consider unemployment, social inequalities and migration the top challenges, that
the EU is facing, while more than the half of the Europeans consider that not everyone has chances
to succeed and life chances would be more limited for the young- next generation (see
Eurobarometer 2017, as cited in European Commission 2017a: 20). According to the European
Commission, unemployment rates “are falling (constantly since 2014) but differ substantially across
Europe....(while) the crisis has affected parts of Europe in different ways, but across the Union, it is
younger generations that have been hit particularly hard” (European Commission, 2017a: 9).
Further, it seems, that precarious work gradually becomes “the new norm to which employment and
social protection systems must adjust but the motivators for, and likely consequences of, legitimising
and normalising these employment forms are complex and potentially contradictory. Precarious work
is best defined as the absence of those aspects of the Standard Employment Relationship (SER) that
support the decommodification of labour” (Rubery et al., 2018: 511).
In the last decade (2010-2020), there has been an increasing intensification of political
interventions, at the European level, aiming at reducing precarious work and protecting and further
improving working conditions (Eurofound, 2020a: 3-4).
The above mentioned intensification is due on the one hand to the impact of the multidimensional
economic Recession on employment and labour market, and on the other hand due to Mega-Trends
that are taking place and seem to gradually prevail (e.g. globalization, digital economy,
Page 5 of 23
478
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.7, Issue 12, December-2020
digitalization, demographic and social changes, climate change, etc.) (Eurofound, 2020a: 3-4). These
Mega-Trends had a clear impact on the structure of economy and labor market, industrial relations
systems, and business models, having, in turn, direct impact on work relations, forms of
employment and contracts types and, consequently, on social welfare systems in Europe
(Eurofound, 2020a: 3-4) (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: Relationship between megatrends, effects and impacts on the labour market, and policy
interventions
Source: Eurofound, 2020a: 4.
At this point, it is worth mentioning that based on the recent findings of Eurofound (2020a), 8 key
challenges are recorded in the field of employment for the EU, which are directly related to the
intensity of precarious work at the European level (Eurofound, 2020a: 2). More specifically:
1. Flexibilisation: Although, the total share of non-standard employment has remained stable, in
general, the share of compound non-standard employment has been increased, for instance
marginal part-time work, very short temporary contracts, undeclared work and casual work
(Eurofound, 2020a: 2).
Page 6 of 23
Papadakis, N., Drakaki, M., Saridaki, S. & Dafermos, V. (2020). Into the Vicious Cycle of Precarity: Labour Market, Precarious Work, Social Vulnerability
and Youth: The case of Greece within the EU context. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(12) 474-496.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.712.9511 479
2. Part-time work: “Low-hours part-time work is often linked to difficulty making ends meet, and
low-hours part-time workers are over-represented among multiple job holders. One-quarter of part- time work is involuntary” (Eurofound, 2020a: 2).
3. Temporary contracts: According to the Eurofound (2020a), even though there is no change
(almost stagnated in 14%) in overall percentage of temporary contract workers during the period
from 2008 to 2018, it has been recorded an expansion in the use of temporary contracts mainly for
new labour market entrants. In this new employment context, the share of involuntary temporary
work stands at 60% (Eurofound, 2020a: 2).
4. Self-Employment: Regarding self-employment, there are a number of changes at both sectoral
and structural level, with upward trends in the rates of self-employed without employees
(Eurofound, 2020a: 2). Although in most cases self-employment is voluntary, a quarter of the self- employed can be described as precarious (Eurofound, 2020: 2). It is worth noting that in 2018, 17%
of the self-employed showed vulnerability and precariousness (Eurofound/Wilkens, 2018).
5. Polarisation: During the period 2008-2018, it is observed, throughout the EU, an increasing
polarization, as there is an increase in employment rates in jobs that are high-paid but also low- paid. In contrast, employment growth in mid-level earnings was lower (Eurofound, 2020a: 2).
6. Rising insecurity: “Individuals on non-standard contracts are less likely to have access to full
employment rights, social protection and representation. A high share of temporary and part-time
workers do not have access to a range of social benefits. Over the observed period, there has been an
increase in the share of workers at risk of poverty”(Eurofound, 2020a: 2). Clearly, there is an alarming
correlation between precarious work and risk-of –poverty. Young people, women, low-skilled
people, migrants and disabled people have higher levels of insecurity in terms of their employment,
as they are more likely to work in precarious jobs. In particular, a key factor of youth employment
in precarious jobs is the difficulty of transition from education and training systems to stable
employment (standard employment) (Duell, 2004: 93).
7. New business models: The rise and establishment of new business models of teleworking, e.g.
platform work, are correlated and linked to other trends observed within the EU (Eurofound,
2020a: 2) and, at the same time, are a key parameter in increasing the precariousness of employees
in Europe.
8. COVID-19 pandemic: Last but not least, although in several EU Member States (including in
Greece), measures have already been taken to reduce the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic crisis
on the economy, employment and the welfare state, it seems that its impact will be particularly
significant in employment (Eurofound, 2020a: 2) and will lead to further transformations in the
labour market.
Especially, for the workforce, that work in precarious forms of employment (seasonal employment,
temporary and short-term employment, part-time work etc.), such as in the sectors of tourism,
transport/transfer, catering and accommodation (see in detail CCSA, 2020: 20; INSETE/Ikkos &
Koutsos, 2019: 3) (see Table 1).
Page 7 of 23
480
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol.7, Issue 12, December-2020
Table 1: Current impact (impact degree) of the COVID-19 Pandemic by sector of economic activity
Source: ILO, 2020: 4-5.
Within this context, the European Union, recently, in order to tackle the phenomenon of precarious
work (including undeclared work and bogus self-employment) and the fragmentation of the labour
market and working inequalities, has proceeded to the establishment of a set of initiatives and
measures towards the decrease of their impact (i.e. precarious work and labour market
fragmentation) on both workers, labour market and society (see in detail European Parliament,
2017: 8-34).
Specifically in 2017, the European Pillar of Social Rights came into force, after a long consultation
process, starting in 2016 (European Commission, 2016a: 2-11; European Commission, 2016b: 1-
18). This initiative aims to address the state of play, in short- and long-term, which has developed
in the E.U., mainly due to the impact of the Crisis on the employment field and society, namely long- term and youth unemployment, increase in poverty rates, changes in working conditions (European
Commission, 2017b: 3). In particular, the European Pillar of Social Rights is based on 20 key- principles, which are structured in the following axes (European Commission, 2017b: 4): “i. Equal
opportunities and access to the labour market, ii. Fair working conditions, iii. Social protection and
inclusion” (European Parliament, Council of the European Union, European Commission, 2017) in
order to protect and ensure, effectively, current and, mainly, new rights for the European citizens
(European Commission, 2017b: 4).
Page 12 of 23
Papadakis, N., Drakaki, M., Saridaki, S. & Dafermos, V. (2020). Into the Vicious Cycle of Precarity: Labour Market, Precarious Work, Social Vulnerability
and Youth: The case of Greece within the EU context. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(12) 474-496.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.712.9511 485
4.2. Temporary employment
The rate of temporarily employed persons aged 15-24 in the EU28 Member States (Eurostat,
2020g), increased gradually from 2012 onwards. In 2019, the proportion of employees in
temporary employment was much higher for young people in all EU28 countries (Eurostat, 2020g).
More specifically, in the second quarter of 2019, almost half (42.8%) of employees aged 15-24 were
employed under a temporary contract (Eurostat, 2020q), a percentage which was more than three
times higher than the one of the 20-64 age group. In 2019, in all EU28 countries (Eurostat, 2020g)
the percentages recorded for young employees in temporary employment were much higher than
those for employees aged 25-64. As reported by Eurostat (2020q), in the second quarter of 2019,
approximately 8 million young people (42.8%) were employed under a temporary contract. The
share of temporary contracts for employees aged 15-24 was more than three times higher than that
for employees aged 20-64 (12.6%). In 9 EU countries more than half of young people aged 15-24
worked on a temporary basis: Spain (69.5%), Italy (63.3%), Portugal (62.2%), Slovenia (61.2%),
Poland (59.1%), France (56.1%), Sweden (53.7%), the Netherlands (51.8%) and Germany (50.6%).
During the period 2010-2019 as regards the 15-24 age group, the rate of temporarily employed
women aged 15-24 was slightly higher than that of men (by 1.7 percentage points).
In the EU28 countries, although in recent years the rates of involuntary temporary employment
have shown a slight decrease (EU28, 2014: 56% - EU28, 2019: 51.1%), continue to remain high. In
2019 (Eurostat, 2020l), in many countries more than two thirds of the temporary employees were
working involuntarily. Most young people aged 15-29 (35.7% for men and 38.9% for women)
reported that they were working on a temporary basis because they could not find a permanent job
(Eurostat, 2020l). The countries with the highest percentages regarding involuntary temporary
employment in 2019 were Cyprus (91.3% for men and 94.6% for women) and Croatia (85.1% for
men and 84.2% for women), while the lowest rates were observed in Austria (7.5% for men and
10.8% for women) and in Germany (11.6% for men and 13.1% for women) (Eurostat, 2020l).
Figure 5 illustrates that there is a fairly large difference in terms of involuntary temporary
employment between the 15-29 and the 25-64 age groups (on average 22.9 percentage points in
the EU28 countries). This, to some extent, can be attributed to the fact that many young people work
under temporary employment status voluntarily because they are in education or training.
However, as data suggest (Eurostat, 2020l), it shouldn’t be ignored that a great deal of young
workers are led into temporary employment, in the absence of an option for a permanent job. The
only EU28 countries in which the percentage of the 15-29 age group slightly exceeded that of the
25-64 age group were Romania (0.8 percentage points) and Slovakia (0.7 percentage points). In the
rest of the countries, the percentages of the 25-64 age group were higher, with differences ranging
from 3.6 to 26.6 percentage points (Eurostat, 2020l).