Many employers prefer alternative forms of employment when engaging labor force in the workplace. Houseman (2001) indicates that despite such hiring changes, many employees still prefer traditional employment (p. 150). Erin (2013) adds that managers have developed strategies that jeopardize the interests of the employees, which were initially promoted through labor unions. Even though organizations have continued to pay more attention to the flexible staffing arrangements, Houseman (2001) maintains that the main drive is propelled by the technological makeup of the current workplace and the need to reduce overheads. Besides the benefit attached to full-time workers in organizations, including motivation and sense of belonging, employers still engage temporary staff in saving on the cost of retirement packages and health insurance attached to permanent employment engagements.
Temporary jobs have become widespread in the United States job market. Due to the opportunities created by the macroeconomic forces like technological advancement, globalization, and the aspects of deindustrialization, employers have developed progressive approaches to influence levels of employment, which limits the duration of labor commitments. Erin (2013) asserts that employers have established newer preferences for alternative forms of work for their operations since such models come with cost-cutting measures. Firstly, organizations can save on operational costs, including payroll taxes, compensation costs, worker benefits, and other legal liabilities paid when engaging permanent workers. Secondly, employers are influenced by the drive to attain efficiency and growth from cheaper labor and simpler material acquisition through global outsourcing systems (Dave, 2015). Therefore, most of the alternative models of employment are meant to serve the employer focus on profitability and growth prospects, leading to exploitation and frustrations in the workplace.
Given the issues witnessed, it is evident that alternative staffing arrangement in the workforce is a strategy used by employers to pay relatively low wages. When a company allows staff to work on short-term contracts, the bargaining power of such employees is reduced (Houseman, 2001, p. 155). Thus, employers gain control over workers’ benefits, which assist in reducing the cost of running the organization. Among the incentives that redirect the focus of employers to alternative employment contracts may include the absence of a progressive legislative framework that obligates employers to observe the practices of the traditional employment systems that require effective agreement arrangements, leave allowances, and other employees’ benefits.
As employers continue to prefer dealing with new labor systems, alternative-working requirements provide flexible hours of engagements, which restrict the personnel in performing assignments stipulated in the contract. Employee satisfaction is an important phenomenon in managing the quality of products in the market. According to Houseman (2001), employees in flexible working relationships are dissatisfied compared to full-time workers (p. 150). It implies that many prospective employees still prefer jobs on a permanent plan with regular or predictable hours of service. The current job arrangement with employers has a negative contribution to the welfare of employees. Houseman (2001) asserts that staff in alternative job arrangements has no sense of belonging in the places they work. For example, workers employed to manage cleaning services, courier service, or packaging on behalf of another company may not connect with the main operations given the difference in objective and projected deliverables of their actions. Majority of such employees tend to focus on their obligation and may not provide support to activities that would require urgent redress. Hence, cohesion in the workplace is not cultivated, leading to several compromises to quality of products. According to Houseman (2001), the effort to adjust the employer commitment in the workplace, which would increase the benefits of employees have the potential to reduce employment opportunities in the market since not many managers are willing to take that obligation (p. 168). Therefore, employees will continue to be victims of alternative employment engagement.
Furthermore, since employees are targets of alternative labor, the use of flexible employee arrangement is common in the workplace. Employers are developing systems to pay for core activities while outsourcing for other non-essential services to a third party (Dave, 2015). Likewise, other employers are keen to manage their operational costs by building a partnership in countries with relatively cheap labor, including China and Taiwan. The overemphasis on cost-cutting measures in the workplace affects how workers relate with their employers. Organizations continue to develop preferences to third-party engagement to avoid taking responsibility for the employee, including paying of retirement benefits, medical allowances, and compassionate benefits.
As it is evident from the discussion, the workplace is no longer a social bonding setup between the employer and the employees as would be experienced in traditional employment systems. The paradox of the temporary employment terms views employees as another form of capital. The primary focus of the managers is more on the value of products and how commodities will be marketed. However, employment prospects have increased due to alternative employment opportunities. Although people can easily secure jobs, the quality of labor engagement continues to deteriorate because of the preference of employers when it comes to hiring new workers.
References
Dave, J. (2015). The Life and death of an amazon warehouse Temp. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/life-anddeath-amazon-temp/
Erin, H. (2013, January 26). The rise of the permanent temp economy. The New York times. Retrieved from https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/the-rise-ofthe-permanent-temp-economy/
Houseman, S. N. (2001). Why employers use flexible staffing arrangements: Evidence from an establishment survey. ILR Review, 55(1), 149-170.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
