Characteristics of and preference for alternative work arrangements, 1999

Monthly Labor Review

Volumn 124, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 28-49

  DiNatale, Marisa ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0003050966     PISSN: 00981818     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. The Current Population Survey (CPS) is a monthly survey of 50,000 households in the U.S. The first supplement to the CPS on contingent and alternative work arrangements was conducted in February 1995. Subsequent surveys were done in February 1997 and February 1999.
2. The issue of "good jobs - bad jobs" is discussed in Neal H. Rosenthal, "More than wages at issue in job quality debate," Monthly Labor Review, December 1989, pp. 4-8. See also Joseph R. Meisenheimer II, "Services industry in the 'good' versus 'bad' jobs debate," Monthly Labor Review, February 1998, pp. 22-47.
3. The issue of "good jobs - bad jobs" is discussed in Neal H. Rosenthal, "More than wages at issue in job quality debate," Monthly Labor Review, December 1989, pp. 4-8. See also Joseph R. Meisenheimer II, "Services industry in the 'good' versus 'bad' jobs debate," Monthly Labor Review, February 1998, pp. 22-47.
4. See, for example, Helene J. Jorgensen, When Good Jobs Go Bad (Washington, DC, 2030 Center, 1999).
5. See, for example, Katharine G. Abraham and Susan K. Taylor, "Firms' Use of Outside Contractors: Theory and Evidence," Journal of Labor Economics, July 1996.
6. See, for example, Anne E. Polivka, "Into contingent and alternative employment: by choice?" Monthly Labor Review, October 1996, pp. 55-74.
7. See "Contingent Workers & Alternate Work Arrangements" articles in the Monthly Labor Review, October 1996.
8. It should be noted that the classification of workers in alternative employment arrangements was made separately from their contingent work status, that is, whether the job was temporary or not expected to continue. Individuals employed in alternative arrangements were classified as contingent only if they met the requisite criteria.
9. See, for example, Arne L. Kalleberg and others, Nonstandard Work, Substandard Jobs (Washington, DC, Economic Policy Institute and Women's Research and Education Institute, 1997).
10. See Anne E. Polivka, Sharon R. Cohany, and Steven Hippie, "Definition, Composition, and Economic Consequences of the Nonstandard Workforce" in Nonstandard Work: The Nature and Challenges of Changing Employment Arrangements (Chicago, Industrial Relations Research Association, 2000).
11. For an example of this type of analysis, see Marianne A. Ferber and Jane Waldfogel, "The long-term consequences of nontraditional employment," Monthly Labor Review, May 1998, pp. 3-12; see also, Lewis M. Segal and Daniel G. Sullivan, "The Nature of Temporary Services Employment: Evidence from State UI Data," Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1997.
12. For an example of this type of analysis, see Marianne A. Ferber and Jane Waldfogel, "The long-term consequences of nontraditional employment," Monthly Labor Review, May 1998, pp. 3-12; see also, Lewis M. Segal and Daniel G. Sullivan, "The Nature of Temporary Services Employment: Evidence from State UI Data," Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1997.
13. This analysis for those with 3 or fewer years of tenure was not done for the 1997 Contingent and Alternative Work Supplement; however, basic data on preference and reasons for being in the arrangements were collected that year.
14. Nearly 18 percent of workers in the on-call arrangement who were surveyed did not provide a reason for being in the arrangement.