This section deals with the question whether non-standard employment is connected to specific benefits and strains – beyond income and job security – which might in turn affect workers’ part- nership and family lives. In this context, Table 3.2 presents the usual weekly working hours of em- ployees in different forms of employment. As a consequence of the income limit, minijobbers on average have the lowest number of working hours (around 11 hours per week), followed by fixed- term and permanent part-time workers (23 and 24 hours). Standard employees and fixed-term full- time workers, in contrast, exhibit long average working hours (44 and 43 hours). Temporary agency workers also work full-time on average; however, the average of 40 hours is slightly lower than for standard employees.56
Table 3.2: Usual weekly working hours by form of employment (means, 2012)
Form of employment Men Women All Employees n
Standard 44.4 42.1 43.6 5,460 Fixed-term full-time 44.6 41.4 43.2 558 Permanent part-time 24.9 24.5 24.5 1,256 Fixed-term part-time 18.8 24.6 23.4 230 Minijob 11.5 11.1 11.2 811 Temporary Agency 42.1 35.6 39.7 239 Total (mean) 42.1 31.9 37.0 Total (n) 4,294 4,260 8,554
Source: Author’s calculations based on SOEP (v.30).
Note: Question: And how many hours do you generally work, including any overtime?
Looking at gender differences, it becomes clear that women on average work about ten hours less than men. Comparing men and women within the same form of employment, the difference in working hours is usually small. A notable exception is the substantial difference between male and female temporary agency workers: While male agency workers work only two hours less than male
56 This is due to the fact that in this study the category of temporary agency workers comprises part-time as well as full- time workers (see Chapter 4).
61 standard workers, female agency workers work more than six hours less than women in standard employment. This demonstrates that temporary agency work for men is predominantly full-time, while many female agency workers work part-time.
Part-time work and minijobs are therefore beneficial for workers in the sense that they provide an increased time budget for private activities. As mentioned (Section 3.2), the combination of work and private obligations is the most important motive for taking up part-time employment. How- ever, part-time work is still not always a deliberate choice for workers as it often does not match the working hours preference: A considerable share (13% of women and 20% of men) only work part-time because they were not able to find a full-time position (author’s calculations based on StBA 2015e), and this share is much higher in East Germany (Rengers 2015).57 On average, part-
time workers and even more so minijobbers would like to extend their working time by a few hours (Wanger 2011). One quarter of minijobbers work in this form of employment involuntarily in the hope of finding employment outside minijobs (Rudolph 2006). Furthermore, the time budget for private activities can be negatively affected by the unpredictability of working times: Many (fixed- term) part-time workers and minijobbers work on an on-call basis (Fischer et al. 2015). Sometimes, minijobbers receive their rosters only at short notice, sometimes they are called into work outside their scheduled times or they are scheduled only for very few hours at a time (Benkoff and Hermet 2008). Regarding the working time of agency workers, it has been shown that they more often have to work in shifts (Jahn and Rudolph 2002b). This can be difficult to adapt to physically if shifts also change from one host company to the next (Rigotti and Galais 2011).
The long working hours of agency workers and fixed-term contract workers might partly be explained by high commitment at work: As mentioned, agency work is often taken over involuntar- ily in the hope of getting a direct contract from a host company. To this aim, agency workers often put particularly high effort into their work (Galais et al. 2014). They might also perceive themselves in a competitive situation with other agency workers to be taken over by their host company (Galais et al. 2014). A similar result has been found for fixed-term contract workers: In the hope of getting a permanent contract, fixed-term workers feel under pressure to demonstrate their motivation and ability, e.g. by working overtime and avoiding absence from work even when they are sick. Moreo- ver, some perceive themselves in a competitive situation for permanent jobs with their fixed-term colleagues whose contracts end at the same time (Linne and Voswinkel 1989).
Other strains can result from the work itself, particularly for agency workers and minijobbers: The specific tasks agency workers fulfil are often undemanding, repetitive and monotonous, and
57 Furthermore, even if part-time work is chosen for family reasons, this cannot be considered a free choice due to the fact that alternative options for childcare are often lacking (Wanger 2011).
62 workers have less autonomy and less influence on the work routine (Grobe and Dörning 2009; Jahn and Rudolph 2002b; Wieland and Krajewski 2002). Often, the jobs do not match the agency work- ers’ qualifications but are slightly below their qualification level (Galais et al. 2014; Grobe and Dö- rning 2009). For minijobs it has also been emphasised that tasks are often monotonous and highly specialised (Benkoff and Hermet 2008) and that minijobbers are often overqualified for these sim- ple tasks (Rudolph 2006). Besides psychological strains, agency workers were also found to experi- ence more physical strains than direct-hire workers through their work: Agency workers are more often subject to negative environmental influences at work, are less often informed about health and safety risks at the workplace, more often have to work in tiring or painful postures, and have a higher risk of occupational accidents (Jahn and Rudolph 2002b; Kvasnicka and Werwatz 2003).
Another strain can arise from a job’s mobility requirements: Figure 3.4 demonstrates differ- ences between the forms of employment regarding the commute to work. Among the fixed-term full-time workers and the temporary agency workers, we find a relatively high share of long-dis- tance commuters (22 and 23%).58 Moreover, agency work has the highest share of employees with
changing workplaces (6%). Yet high mobility requirements also apply to a comparatively high share of standard workers with 18% long-distance commuters and 4% with changing workplaces. In con- trast, all types of part-time positions are connected to low regional mobility.
Figure 3.4: Commuting to work by form of employment (2012)
Source: Author’s calculations based on SOEP (v.30); n (men) = 4,127; n (women) = 4,411.
Note: Question: How far (in kilometres) is your job from your place of residence? Answer categories: _ km; Difficult to say, location of workplace varies; Workplace and home are in the same building.
58 Previous studies (Kvasnicka and Werwatz 2003; Wieland and Krajewski 2002) also found that agency workers often have to commute long distances to work.
1 0 1 0 3 0 76 75 87 91 90 71 18 22 9 8 4 23 4 3 2 0 3 6 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Standard Fixed-term, FT Permanent, PT Fixed-term, PT Minijob Temporary Agency
Work from home Short-distance (<30 km) Long-distance (>=30 km) Changing workplace
63 Looking at gender differences regarding commuting (see Appendix Table A 4), it becomes clear that male employees are more often subject to long-distance commuting and changing workplaces than female employees. Moreover, there seems to be a difference in the job characteristics between male and female temporary agency workers: The share of long-distance commuters is especially high among male agency workers, while female agency workers are not more subject to this type of mobility than average.
The longer commute of agency workers is connected to the frequent changes of host compa- nies and working sites. Generally, the working life of agency workers is marked by the repeated change of a range of conditions, such as workplace, sector, social environment, working hours and tasks (Rigotti and Galais 2011; Wieland 2000; Wieland and Krajewski 2002). This entails that agency workers also have to deal with strains in the area of social integration and recognition at the work- place: Due to their low status in the social hierarchy of the host company and their marginal position as “outsiders” or “newcomers”, they often experience a lack of social recognition (Dörre, Kraemer and Speidel 2004; Wieland 2000; Wieland and Krajewski 2002). Agency workers also often report a negative working atmosphere (Wieland and Krajewski 2002). However, Dütsch (2011) finds in mul- tivariate analyses that the lack of recognition is mainly due to the lower qualification and the type of tasks that temporary agency workers fulfil rather than their form of employment.
The specific benefits and strains arising from the different forms of employment culminate in workers’ overall job satisfaction (Figure 3.5). Job satisfaction is particularly high among fixed-term workers (full-time and part-time). Furthermore, women in permanent part-time work or in minijobs are comparatively satisfied with their jobs, while men in these forms of employment are rather dissatisfied. Among both genders, temporary agency workers show the lowest job satisfaction.
The result of reduced job satisfaction among agency workers is backed by previous studies coming to the same conclusion (Dütsch 2011; Jahn 2013; Schlese et al. 2005). According to Jahn (2013), this negative effect is largely due to the low job security of agency workers. For fixed-term contract workers, Chadi and Hetschko (2013) do not find a significant difference in job satisfaction from permanent workers in bivariate analyses. However, the job satisfaction of fixed-term workers is significantly lower once job characteristics and length of tenure is taken into account. This is due to the fact that many fixed-term workers have a short tenure, meaning they are still in the happy period (“honeymoon period”) directly after a job change.
64
Figure 3.5: Job satisfaction by form of employment (2012)
Source: Author’s calculations based on SOEP (v.30); n (men) = 3,963; n (women) = 3,952.
Note: Question: How satisfied are you today with the following areas of your life? – Your job (if employed) Scale from 0 (completely dissatisfied) to 10 (completely satisfied).
Job satisfaction of non-standard workers has also been the focus of many studies in Australia. In this context, casual workers (Buddelmeyer, McVicar and Wooden 2015; Green et al. 2010; Wooden and Warren 2004) as well as temporary agency workers (Aletraris 2010; Buddelmeyer et al. 2015; Green et al. 2010; Wooden and Warren 2004) were found to have lower job satisfaction, while the effect is stronger for men than for women. However, regarding the effect of fixed-term contracts on job satisfaction, the existing studies (Buddelmeyer et al. 2015; Green et al. 2010; Wooden and Warren 2004) arrive at different conclusions, in part finding no effect, in part a positive effect on job satisfaction. Furthermore, no differences in job satisfaction were found between part-time and full-time employees, as long as the working hours match workers’ preferences, while under- and overemployment negatively affect job satisfaction (Wooden, Warren and Drago 2009).