ILPC 2027

The analysis finds that the “successful” (for example, in terms of relative earnings) had time to develop extensive networks of social contacts. They developed closer relationships with more (potential) clients and, as a result, they could accessed more skilled and valuable projects. They could also close ‘structural holes’ between workers and work, and demand “a slice of the action”. It was normal to take fees for placing workers in work, and those who did argued that such payments “oiled the wheels” of the market. This normative order worked to the advantage of the “time rich” rather than the “time poor”. This second (typically female) group found it difficult to develop the network ties needed to independently access regular employment. Sometimes just one or two contacts could supply a freelancer with all their work. They also relied on less lucrative but more reliable forms of contracting, either giving a percentage of their fee to the agent/agency that connected them with work or by undercutting the market. In these circumstances it is unsurprising that cries of “fowl play” and moral disorder came from those who wished to maintain existing fee norms. For those at the edges, duties were typically more routine and were less likely to reflect actual skill levels or past experiences, suggesting underutilisation and skills-mismatches. These created further sources of existential tension and moral dilemmas around work choices. Male participants’ complains about time constraints were fewer, but pressures to be “the breadwinner” led some to accept less lucrative but more reliable work, which constituted a similar trade-off between income stability and time for networking or business development. One prolific networker somewhat derisively described this group as “a bit stuck in the mud”.

 

It seems work-life boundaries concepts are of central importance when explaining outcomes within more networked employment systems. In this regard, the data were also interesting in terms of absences or what was not apparent. Participants were often (but not always) conscious that their disadvantaged resulted from a combination of work-life choices and the constellation of interlocking market and network structures that distributed opportunities, but there was little in the way of proactive promotion of an alternative agenda. This is also unsurprising, to the extent that these freelancers were often comparatively well paid, they also had little time for such activities and had to confirm to the existing “rules of engagement” for their economic means. Indeed, agents tended to avoid reflecting on the equities of “the system” and often preferred to explain away their own disadvantages in terms of “personal choices”. The professional body also did little to interfere with the “natural” operation of the market, outside of creating opportunities for networking, despite the apparent underutilisation of talent and skills mismatches. This is again perhaps unsurprising, given that the organisation is largely populated by successful networkers who enjoy the advantages they offer.