The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether permanent workers with standard employment that is protected, and casual workers with long‐term employment that is not protected but performing the same core jobs, along with permanent workers side‐by‐side in the same work setting, exhibit different work‐related outcomes.
Permanent workers and casual workers holding core jobs with long‐term employment responded to the survey questionnaire. Logistic regression was used for the data analysis.
Job satisfaction, procedural justice and work performance were found to be important work‐related outcomes that discriminate between permanent and casual workers.
Although consequences of different employment arrangements would be of interest to many organisations world wide, on the one hand, little empirical research has compared work‐related outcomes of permanent workers with casuals (holding the same core functions with long‐term employment) or permanent workers with workers in any form of nonstandard employment arrangement. On the other hand, the literature on the use of labour flexibility strategies is mainly concentrated on developed market economies. If organisations use casual workers alongside permanent workers in core jobs, there is a need for examining implications of such practices. The findings of this study establish baseline data that would be a source of general guidance in stimulating future research in this area.
Wickramasinghe, V. and Chandrasekara, R. (2011), "Differential effects of employment status on work‐related outcomes: A pilot study of permanent and casual workers in Sri Lanka", Employee Relations, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 532-550. https://doi.org/10.1108/01425451111153899Download as .RIS
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2011, Emerald Group Publishing Limited