I. Flexibility: Concept, types and model
C. Reasons for the adoption of flexibility
It is clear that the increasing competitive pressure faced by organizations today is one factor which has led to the changing nature of the employment contract. According to Brewster et al. (1994), there are clear cost advantages to flexible working for employers, as "flexible working patterns allow managements to respond to ever greater pressures for cost effectiveness both through reducing costs and improving effectiveness". The same author goes on to say, "Since work rarely comes in neat seven and a half hour, more or less permanent packages, to employ people in that way must have built in surplus costs and inefficiencies" (Brewster et al., 1994, p. 170). Another rationale put forward for the growth in flexibility is that sectoral shifts, for example from traditional manufacturing (clothing, textiles, etc.) and agriculture, to the services and more advanced engineering, chemicals, and electronics industries, have led to a need for greater flexibility and have contributed to the increase in the growth in atypical work such as part-time, temporary, subcontracted and agency work. A significant proportion of the services industry, particularly the hotel and tourist trades, have traditionally used these forms of atypical employment due to the seasonal nature of the business. Unemployment has also been cited as a contributory factor. It has been argued that the lack of availability of permanent employment results in greater numbers of people working in an atypical capacity (Meulders et al., 1996; Dineen, 1992; Morley et al., 1995). Greater female labour force participation has also created a pool of available labour for such employment. In Europe, in 1995, 31 per cent of women were part-time employees, compared to 5 per cent of men (Employment in Europe, 1996).
In summary, atypical work may arise from demands of employers or the need of employees. It is a matter of empirical evidence which of these two factors dominates. If it is the former then atypical work is likely to represent a deterioration of the quality of work and working life. If it is the latter then atypical work may be extremely positive, allowing groups formerly excluded from the labour market to participate in the formal economy. It is likely that the reality will represent a complex interaction between the demand for and the supply of labour, with the balance being determined by the extent of legal regulation and the influence of collective bargaining in any economy. Nor are States likely to be free agents in the modern world as the possibilities of legal regulation will be constrained by macroeconomic factors, the imperatives of global competition and the operation of multinational enterprises.