Alternative Work Arrangements and Job Satisfaction
- 80 Downloads
The pressures of traditional jobs on working families, along with an aging population facing financial need, have contributed to heightened interest in the percentage of workers participating in alternative work arrangements. These include working as an independent contractor or self-employed, and those employed by others on-call, through temp agency, or as contractors. Examining job satisfaction across work arrangements by occupation and gender is one way to investigate a potential increase in the supply of such workers. Higher job satisfaction may indicate that more workers will select into these work arrangements and away from traditional jobs in the future. If this is particularly true for women, it has important implications for firms that would like to retain more women. Moreover, changes in how individuals earn a living may impact the social safety nets of such workers and their families given the nature of how such benefits are provided in the U.S. economy. This study utilizes recent waves of the General Social Survey to explore job satisfaction for workers in disaggregated alternative work arrangements, while controlling for both occupation and gender. The study finds that female workers who are independent contractors and self-employed are more satisfied with their jobs than those in regular salaried jobs, even those in nonprofessional occupations. Job satisfaction for those who work in temp agencies, do on-call work or work for contractors is no different than for those in regular jobs, regardless of occupation and gender.
KeywordsJob satisfaction Alternative work arrangements Well-being Quality of work life
JELJ28 J16 J48
We thank Kathryn Asher for her assistance in organizing the data and participants at the International Atlantic Economic Conference in Boston, 8-11 October 2015, and Eastern Economic Association conference for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
- Buddelmeyer, H., McVicar, D., & Wooden, M. (2015). Non-standard ‘contingent’ employment and job satisfaction: a panel data analysis. Industrial Relations, 54(2), 256–275.Google Scholar
- Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. (2017). Contingent and alternative employment arrangements summary. Resource document. Economic News Release, June 7, 2018. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/conemp.nr0.htm. Accessed 23 Nov 2018.
- Chadi, A, & Hetschko, C. (2013). Flexibilisation without Hesitation? Temporary Contracts and Job Satisfaction. IAAEU Discussion Paper Series, no. 04/2013. Available at: https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-social-sciences/business/events/beyondwages/stansiebert/16ChadiHetschko-tempsatisfaction.pdf
- Green, C., Kler, P., & Leeves, G. (2010). Flexible contract workers in inferior jobs: reappraising the evidence. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 48(3), 605–629.Google Scholar
- Hamermesh, D. S. (2001). The changing distribution of job satisfaction. Journal of Human Resources, 36(1), 1–30.Google Scholar
- Manyika, J., Lund, S., Bughin, J., Robinson, K., Mischke, J., & Mahajan, D. (2016). Independent work: choice, necessity and the gig economy. Resource Document. McKinsey Global Institute. https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Featured%20Insights/Employment%20and%20Growth/Independent%20work%20Choice%20necessity%20and%20the%20gig%20economy/Independent-Work-Choice-necessity-and-the-gig-economy-Full-report.ashx. Accessed 12 Nov 2018.
- Pinsof, J. (2016). A new take on an old problem: employee misclassification in the modern gig-economy. Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, 22(2), 341–373.Google Scholar
- Polivka, A. E. (1996). Into contingent and alternative employment: by choice? Monthly Labor Review, 119(10), 55–74.Google Scholar
- Smith, T. W., Marsden, P. V., & Hout, M. (2015). General Social Surveys, 1972–2014, [machine-readable data file] /Principal Investigator, Smith, Tom W.; Co-Principal Investigators, Peter V. Marsden and Michael Hout; Sponsored by National Science Foundation. --NORC ed.--Chicago: National Opinion Research Center. 1 data file (59,599logical records) + 1 codebook (3,505pp.). --(National Data Program for the Social Sciences, no. 23). Available at: http://www.gss.norc.org/).