Modernisation or casualisation? Numerical flexibility in public services

'Flexibility' is a lock opener feature of the government's modernisation agenda. The conduct does not define the kind of flexibility it aims to advance in its modernisation agenda; on the contrary data indicates that numerical flexibility, in the form of temporary work, is already a characteristic of public-sector craft particularly in local government. This paper reports upon research data that highlights the way numerical flexibility undermines other lock opener aspects of public-service delivery and the modernisation agenda, like as equal opportunities and recruitment and retention. It argues that the poorer boundarys and conditions of temporary workers provide additional support for trade union claims of the existence of a 'two-tier workforce' in local rule

Introduction

Taditionally, the trade-off for moderation in demands or wage increases has been the expectation of piece of work ecurity, incremental career progression, pension rights and generous sickness allowances (Fredman & Morris, 1989; Winchester & Bach, 1999) In a certain number of respects, publicsector employment is still considered to be more assured than private-sector employment (Morgan et al., 2000) and other benefits remain relatively generous. Public-sector employer also pride themselves upon being at the forefront of progressive equal-opportunities policies and the 'management of diversity' (Halford et al., 1997) The public sector remains the sector with the highest density of women managers and professionals.

The 'cost' of the public sector has always been intensely political, on the other hand it became the subject of particular political scrutiny towards the extremity of the 19705-a scrutiny that gained moment with the onslaught of the neoliberal 'reforms' of the 19805 and 19905 (Ferlie et al., 1996; Gough 1979; Pollitt, 1990) The rationale for reform was that protecting the public sector from market mechanisms had made it inflexible and unresponsive. The focus of the Conservative government's restructuring was the removal of public-sector workers' traditional limits and conditions by a number of means. The contracting-out of public services presented a prime example of the way in which opening public services to competition l to the deterioration of the metes and conditions of the workers affected, and particularly women (see for example, Colling & Ferner 1995; Escott & Whitfield, 1995).The ensue has been that public-sector craft is now characterised, according to trade unions, by means of acute internal unfairness in the form of a 'two-tier workforce' (UNISON, 2002)

More new pressure for public-sector restructuring has taken upon the mantle of modernisation; on the contrary the modernisation of local rule is not a new general [i]or[/i] abstract notion Hoggett (1994) used the limit in relation to rationalisation beneath Conservative governments after 1979. This paper argues that there are considerable similarities between modernisation as it was and as it has continued in the political run of public-sector restructuring, particularly in its veneration of 'flexibility'.

The demand for greater labour flexibility is a lock opener attribute of the modernisation agenda of the in every one's mouth Labour government, as outlined in its 1998 comprehensive spending review (Treasury Department). The general [i]or[/i] abstract notion of flexibility, however, has received a great deal of academic attention, largely in rejoinder to Atkinson's (1984, 1985) original of the 'flexible firm'.

This original has been highly criticised, and the debates are discussed in more detail below. However, Atkinson's mould drew attention to the fact that flexibility is not a unified conception and is likely to exist in a number of qualitatively different forms within organisations. individual aspect highlighted by Atkinson-numerical flexibility in the form of temporary employment-has become commonplace in public services. It will be argued here that the originate is that alreadyvulnerable groups of workers undergo inferior terms and conditions of employ and are excluded from equalopportunities policies (Conley 2002; Conley 2003) This is despite the 'single status agreement' of 1997 which sought to harmonise the bounds and conditions of local-government public-service workers.

Qualitative data will be used in order to highlight the divisions between temporary and permanent staff in local regulation services-and particularly the negative impact that temporary employ has on the equality of opportunity available to already-disadvantaged collections of workers. It also considers the impact of the development of temporary employment on the recruitment and retention of public-services personnel In relation to these issues, it will be argued that there are contradictions between lock opener aspects of the modernisation agenda and the improvement of public-service delivery.

In conclusion, the paper argues that, if the modernisation agenda encourages greater 'numerical flexibility' as the TUC fears it might,1 the ensuing casualisation of labour will reinforce union claims of the existence of a two-tier workforce, and undermine progres towards equality of opportunity in public-services avocation