Onderzoeksartikel
Authors: Jessie Gevaert , Karen Van Aerden , Deborah De Moortel , Christophe Vanroelen
At the beginning of the 21st century, the standard employment relationship (SER) is no longer the only dominant form of organizing labour. Instead, a variety of employment arrangements have appeared, both for the waged and self-employed. It is, however, unclear how this relates to health consequences. This is why, we introduce a multidimensional account of employment quality as a health determinant. We ran two latent class cluster analyses to construct typologies of employment quality (using the European Working Conditions Survey); one for the waged employed and one for the self-employed. These typologies were then merged into one composite indicator. Ten types of employment quality were revealed: SER-like, instrumental, precarious unsustainable, precarious intensive and portfolio jobs – among the waged employed; and dependent, insecure and intensive self-employment, small to medium sized employers, and stable own account work – among the self-employed. By applying a multidimensional account and considering the employment quality of both the waged and self-employed, we have moved beyond simple distinctions of waged versus self-employment. Using logistic regression analysis, we furthermore found strong associations between the typology of employment quality and health outcomes. The worst health and well-being were found among insecure, dependent, and intensive self-employment, and among precarious intensive and precarious unsustainable jobs. We found worse health outcomes for the self-employed with poor employment quality compared to the waged employed with poor employment quality. The study shows that employment quality should be taken seriously as a health determinant and is equally applicable to the waged and the self-employed.
Keywords:
How to Cite: Gevaert, J. , Van Aerden, K. , De Moortel, D. & Vanroelen, C. (2019) “Tewerkstellingskwaliteit, gezondheid en welzijn voor werknemers en zelfstandigen”, Sociologos. 40(2-3&4). doi: https://doi.org/10.21825/sociologos.87007