prince takaindisa final dissertation

MIDLANDS STATE UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT

The impact of precarious employment in the advancement of workplace

democracy: A case of Lorimak Strategic Staffing Services (Pvt) Ltd

By

Prince F. Takaindisa (R121280Z)

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF A BSC HUMAN RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT HONOURS DEGREE

(NOVEMBER 2015)

The impact of precarious employment in the advancement of workplace democracy Page i


Human Resource Management Department

RELEASE FORM

NAME OF THE AUTHOR: PRINCE TAKAINDISA

TITLE OF THE DISSERTATION: THE IMPACT OF PRECARIOUS EMPLOYMENT IN

THE ADVANCEMENT OF WORKPLACE DEMOCRACY

DEGREE TO WHICH DISSERTATION WAS PRESENTED: Bachelor of Science

Honours Degree in Human Resource Management.

Permission is hereby granted to the Midlands State University Library to reproduce single

copies of this dissertation and to lend or to sell such copies for private scholarly or scientific

research only. The author does not reserve other publication rights and the dissertation nor

may extensive extracts from it be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author‟s

permission.

SUPERVISOR: ______________ ________________

Signed Date

STUDENT: ________________ _________________

Signed Date

The impact of precarious employment in the advancement of workplace democracy Page ii


HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

APPROVAL FORM

The undersigned certifies that he has read and recommends to the Midlands State University

for acceptance; a dissertation entitled:

THE IMPACT OF PRECARIOUS EMPLOYMENT IN THE ADVANCEMENT OF

WORKPLACE DEMOCRACY.

Submitted by: PRINCE TAKAINDISA (R121280Z) in partial fulfilment of the

requirements of the Bachelor of Science Honours Degree in Human Resource Management.

SUPERVISOR: MR. M. BHEBHE

Signed _________________________________ Date______________________________

The impact of precarious employment in the advancement of workplace democracy Page iii

ABSTRACT

Precarious employment is a form of work arrangement that does not give job security to

employees. It is characterised by temporary or non-standard contractual arrangement. The

focus of this study was therefore to ascertain how precarious employment impact on the

advancement of workplace democracy, the right for employees to take part in decisions that

affect their interest at workplace. The researcher used a case study of Lorimak Strategic

Staffing Services (Pvt) Ltd whilst also adopting mixed methods approach which was largely

qualitative. The research findings were made up mainly of responses from shop floor

employees on precarious employment, workers committee members and management giving

a sample size of 34. To obtain data from management and workers committee members, the

researcher used semi structured interviews whilst also gathering information from employees

through questionnaires method. This information was also analysed through thematic

methods of data analysis. The major findings of the research showed that LSSS has platforms

such as workers committee, works councils and invocoms to ensure all its precariously

employed workforce participates and get involved in decisions of interest in the organisation.

However their vulnerability due to the temporary nature of their employment contracts

threatens industrial democracy as witnessed by management at times not consulting them on

decisions which affect their working lives such as transfers and work patterns. The employees

in the organisation are either in casual or fixed term contractual arrangements with most

retained through contract renewal. In order to improve the advancement of industrial

democracy for precarious workers the researcher recommends that management must

genuinely engage with these employees without regard for their non-standard nature of

contacts. This is because they bring value to the organisation. Decisions should not be

unilaterally made as long as they impact the working lives of the precarious workers as these

are human assets of value for any organisation that intends to attain its bottom-line.

The impact of precarious employment in the advancement of workplace democracy Page iv

TABLE OF CONTENT ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................................... iii

DEDICATION .................................................................................................................................................. v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................... vii

DEFINITION OF TERMS ............................................................................................................................... viii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................................................. ix

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1

BACKGROUND STUDY ................................................................................................................................... 2

NATURE OF PRECARIOUS EMPLOYMENT ..................................................................................................... 2

DRIVERS OF PRECARIOUS EMPLOYMENT ..................................................................................................... 3

FORMS OF PRECARIOUS EMPLOYMENT ....................................................................................................... 4

WORKPLACE DEMOCRACY AMONG PRECARIOUS WORKERS ....................................................................... 6

IMPACT OF PRECARIOUS EMPLOYMENT IN THE ADVANCEMENT OF WORKPLACE DEMOCRACY ............. 10

BACKGROUND OF COMPANY...................................................................................................................... 14

PROBLEM STATEMENT ................................................................................................................................ 14

OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................................................. 15

JUSTIFICATION OF STUDY ........................................................................................................................... 15

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ....................................................................................................................... 16

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 17

RESEARCH APPROACH ................................................................................................................................ 18

RESEARCH DESIGN ...................................................................................................................................... 18

SAMPLING ................................................................................................................................................... 19

S0URCES OF DATA ....................................................................................................................................... 20

RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS ........................................................................................................................... 20

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 22

LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 22

DELIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 23

DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS METHOD ......................................................................................... 23

DATA PRESENTATION .................................................................................................................................. 23

DATA ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................... 37

RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 44

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................... 45

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................................ 46

The impact of precarious employment in the advancement of workplace democracy Page v

LIST OF TABLES RESPONSE RATE………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………24

DEMOGRAPHIC PRESENTATION………………………………………………………………………………………………………24

EFFECTIVENESS OF WORKPLACE DEMOCRACY STRATEGIES FIG……………………………………………………..31

The impact of precarious employment in the advancement of workplace democracy Page vi

DEDICATION

This research study is a dedication to my parents, Mr and Mrs Takaindisa who have

sacrificed most of their precious assets so that I attain this higher level of education. The

sacrifice has not gone unnoticed and may God bless you. It is also a dedication to my brothers

and sisters who have served as inspiration to me as their younger brother. There are friends

who pretend to be friends, but there are friends, who stick closer than a brother, this research

study also serves as a dedication to my close friend Sir M.

The impact of precarious employment in the advancement of workplace democracy Page vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Sir Isaac Newton once said “If I have seen further it‟s because I have been standing on the

shoulders of a giant”. The completion of my research study has been made a success through

the support I got from various life time giants. I would want to thank God for helping me to

pull through all phases of this research study. I also want to make acknowledgments to my

family members for their tenacious support which gave me courage towards completing this

study. Thumps up to my academic supervisor Mr M.Bhebhe who gave me enough

supervision and guidance at every stage of this research.

Furthermore I would also like to forward my gratitude to the entire LSSS (LORIMAK

STRATEGIC STAFFING SERVICES) family and the Human Resources Officer Mr S.

Mambende for the permission to carry out my research and the encouragement he gave me.

Compliment to my love Brenda Manhungo for her unconditional support towards my

research study. Finally I would also want to acknowledge the support I got from my

colleagues and my roommate Nyasha Muregwi.

The impact of precarious employment in the advancement of workplace democracy Page viii

DEFINITION OF TERMS

Workplace democracy- Lansbury (2009:01) defines it as a workplace in which workers

have the opportunity to genuinely participate in and influence decisions concerning their lives

at work. For the purpose of this research, workplace democracy also expands to reflect the

participation and involvement of employees in decisions that affect their interests at

enterprise level/ workplace.

Precarious employment- According to Evans and Gibbs (2009:02) precarious employment

refers to forms of work characterised by non-standard employment contracts. These bring

limited or no social benefits and statutory entitlements, high degrees of job insecurity, low

job tenure, low wages and high risks of occupational injury and diseases to worker

arrangements.

Precarious worker- International Labour Organisation (2011) defines it as an employee

whose contract of employment leads to the classification of the incumbent as belonging to the

groups of casual workers, short-term workers, seasonal workers or workers whose contract of

employment will allow the employing enterprise or person to terminate the contract at short

notice and/or at will.

Non-Standard work- Tucker (2002:17) defines it as employment that is not full-time or

work includes all those jobs that fall outside the definition of standard employment, for any

of the following reasons. That is, they may be: part time, casual, irregular hours or on call

work, seasonal, temporal or fixed term contracts. Non- standard work is thus employment

that is precarious.

The impact of precarious employment in the advancement of workplace democracy Page ix

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

LSSS- Lorimak Strategic Staffing Services Private Limited

ILO- International Labour Organisation

HR- Human Resource

KPMG- Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler

The impact of precarious employment in the advancement of workplace democracy Page 1

INTRODUCTION

The workplace in the 21st century has been characterised by employees who want to be

engaged with organisations that ardently involve and genuinely allow their participation and

influence in decisions that affect them at workplace. This involves allowing employees to

take part in organisational decisions collectively with the management in all issues that affect

them directly or indirectly. These issues include health and safety concerns, organisational

restructuring and collective bargaining among other issues that affect employees as key

stakeholders. Organisations nowadays are increasingly abandoning their traditional ways of

managing human capital that solely depended on managerial prerogative in order to maintain

a harmonious work environment and productive workplace which is facilitated by involving

employees in organisational decisions. This therefore calls upon the espousal of workplace

democracy which is argued to be a corner stone for ensuring a strategic and coherent

management of human resource. Lewis, Thornhill and Saunders (2003) view democratising

the workplace as promoting participation that is open to all and giving a greater say in the

process of decision making to those whom the decisions relate and this is facilitated through

representative and participative democracy at enterprise level. Advancing workplace

democracy allows the voice and interest of employees in different work arrangements to be

recognised.

Precarious employment is a continually growing global phenomenon that has several

characteristics associated with non-standard jobs which include non-continuity of

employment, lack of employment protection and exclusion of standard employment benefits.

Its growth in the world of work has been as a result of uncertain changes in the business

environment which poses risks and lack of stability. These risks are in turn shifted to

employees by employers through provision of precarious work. Precarious employment is

likely to bear different effects in the way such employees (precarious workers) take part or

are involved in in workplace decisions. This therefore laid roots for this research which

focused on how non-standard forms of precarious employment which include fixed short

term contracts, casual work and seasonal work impact on the advancement of workplace

democracy.


BACKGROUND STUDY

NATURE OF PRECARIOUS EMPLOYMENT

According to ILO (2011) precarious employment is increasingly the defining feature in the

global economy. Evans and Gibbs (2009) argue that the phenomenon is not new but rather

has different expressions where in some context it is categorised in terms of contractual

arrangements specifically as non-standard work. In as much as there are widely varying

country definitions of precarious employment, they share common characteristics with

reference to precarious employment. An example of this is ILO (2011)‟s view of precarious

employment as work that is characterised with uncertain continuity to employment, lack of

employment benefits and protection, multiple employer organisations and constrains to

freedom of association (workplace democracy and collective bargaining). Burgess and

Campbell (1998) also viewed precarious employment as involving workers whose contract of

employment leads them to be classified as casual, short workers or seasonal workers or

allows the employing person to terminate the contract on notice or at will.

Burgess and Campbell (1998) further identify precarious work as unstable employment

where employees have limited working conditions and wages, lack union protection or clear

regulation governing their work place. From the mentioned characteristics and various other

definitions of precarious employment, there is a clear consensus that precarious work is

greatly associated with non-standard work. These mainly include temporary contractual work

arrangements such as fixed term contracts, casual and seasonal contracts. Evans and Gibbs

(2009) vouch to support that precarious employment is not merely a short term reaction to the

current global business environment but rather have become the defining feature of many

organisations‟ human resource management and they constitute various vulnerability

characteristics of work precarity such as uncertainty and instability.

Moreover Rodgers and Rodgers (1989) view precarious jobs as temporal and subject to lack

of continuity and high risk of termination. This is usually the case for casual work and short

term contracts. This may limit their participation and involvement in workplace decisions as

management may view them as passer-byes since they are not engaged with the organisation

for long. Hence workplace democracy becomes difficult if not impossible to be realised. As

argued by Rodgers and Rodgers (1989) under precarious employment employees have


limited individual and collective control over working conditions and thus it may not be easy

for them to be genuinely involved and participate in workplace decisions in advancing their

interests.

DRIVERS OF PRECARIOUS EMPLOYMENT

The growth of precarious employment has been subject to various factors most of which have

been argued by Evans and Gibbs (2009) to be related to the economic crisis that plunged the

global economy. Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler (2014) viewed these as factors driving

stances of precarious employment and also the ideal that each unique circumstance requires

different response by the employer in terms of the type of precarious employment to engage.

ILO (2012) also labelled the growth of precarious employment as a result of financial

pressures in the modern economy. These financial pressures take the form of economic

uncertainties such as unpredictable economic meltdown which may at times lower an

organisation‟s scope of production, thus also making an effect on the organisations‟ financial

position. To respond to these financial pressures, organisations are forced to flexibly manage

their resources including the human resources by engaging them in non-standard work

arrangements. These precarious workers can be easily laid off as their job continuity is not

guaranteed even by law in Zimbabwe. KPMG (2014) view these forms of precarious

employment as a way to increase short-term flexibility, and reduce long-term liabilities

associated with labour (pensions and benefits), which the organisations may fail to sustain

during periods of financial pressures such as Zimbabwe‟s hyper-inflation era in 2008.

However engaging employees with less training and experience may affect their level of

participation and influence in workplace decisions as they might not have implicit and tacit

knowledge on such issues, hence limiting their involvement and participation in workplace

decisions.

A change in business needs and demand is also a driver in the growth of precarious work. In

Zimbabwe Muchichwa and Matombo (2006) argue that the coming in of Structural

Adjustment Programmes (SAPS) initiated by IMF and World Bank Financial Institutions to

deal with economic stagnation around 1990s coupled with the sudden flooding of the local

market by cheap imported goods has had an impact on business operations in Zimbabwe. It

has resulted in reduced demand for local products and productivity challenges for many


organisations forcing them to scale down their operations and staffing levels have been the

primary victims. Organisations thus have opted for cheap and easy ways of managing the

labour costs and engaging precarious workers provides a flexible way of doing so. According

to Atkinson (1987)‟s flexible firm model, this fluctuation in business needs requires the

employer to be numerically and operationally flexible in order to vary labour supply in

relation to business needs.

Tucker (2002) also referred legislation specific to employment laws as a driver to precarious

employment. In Zimbabwe the labour laws have been perceived by employers as being out of

touch with the economic realities of the day. This makes labour expensive as retrenchment

laws and termination regulations have been cited as contributing factors to employers

engaging employees on precarious employment. Machaka (2013) stated that Zimbabwean

laws overly protect employees (permanent) even at the expense of production and company‟s

survival, therefore forcing businesses to hire temporary personnel whose contracts can easily

be managed and terminated. Machaka (2013) also argued that employers‟ escape plan is

through engaging employees in precarious employment such as rampant short term contracts

so that no one becomes permanent, as giving employees permanent citizenships to the

organisation leads to a pseudo marriage whereby it will be hard to dismiss that same

employee without following various channels stipulated by the law.

FORMS OF PRECARIOUS EMPLOYMENT

Casual contracts are one form of precarious employment in Zimbabwe. Casual work is

defined by Labour Act (Chapter 28:01) as work for which an employee is engaged by an

employer for not more than a total of six weeks in any four consecutive months. These

employees are hired on a periodic basis as needs arise for instance when there is a breakdown

in machinery at a manufacturing firm or in order to maintain constant production. Burgess

and Campbell (1998) stressed out that casual workers are vulnerable to the highest degree of

work precarity which constitute of low pay, high job insecurity, unstable working hours

wages and lack of representation at the workplace. Tucker (2002) argued that casual workers

are vulnerable to variable working hours, low pay and numerous levels of labour insecurity

such as income, working time and representation. KPMG (2014) further argue that precarious

workers tend to be vulnerable to lack of involvement in decision making as they are engaged

only on emergency when the organisation requires their services, thus there would not be any


time for them to take part in workers committees or other workplace democracy initiatives as

this may jeopardise the work that they are expected to be doing at that point of time. This

vulnerability to representation may limit these precarious workers‟ influence in decision

making.

Fixed term contracts also qualify as a form of precarious employment. These constitute of

workers that are employed on a relatively short and specified period. Armstrong (2006)

argued that these can be used to cushion fluctuations in demand for labour. These fixed term

contract workers normally receive fewer benefits and labour protections as compared

permanent workers who are in standard work arrangements. Fixed term contracts allow the

employer to terminate the contract at short notice for example within the Zimbabwean

context, the employer is obliged to give only 24 hours contract termination on a temporary

contract which is of a period less than 3months (Labour Act, S12 and S4e). However,

workers on fixed term contracts may be re engaged or their contracts may be extended as a

result of high performance. According to Tucker (2002) fixed contract workers may also

experience precariousness due to the unavailability of explicit or implicit contract for on-

going employment which therefore means that there is no guarantee or certainty of contract

renewal.

Lack of continuity may limit temporary fixed term contract workers participation in decision

making as they may be viewed as passer byes who are engaged with the organisation in the

short run, thus management may tend to be less motivated to involve such employees on

workplace decisions. However, KPMG (2014) argues that some organisations engage

employees on non-permanent basis as a way to identify talent before engaging them in

permanent. Thus this precarious status of fixed term contract workers may motivate them to

participate and initiate innovative ideas in workplace democracy forums such as suggestion

schemes and quality circles as this may increase their chances of being recognised by the

management and engage them on more decent jobs (permanent jobs) as a reward for the

value they bring in decision making. This therefore increases the degree of workplace

democracy for fixed term workers.

Seasonal work is the other form of precarious employment that is largely experienced in

Zimbabwe especially in the agricultural sector. According to Labour Act (Chapter 28:01) it is

work that is owing to the nature of the industry, performed only at certain times of the year.

Seasonal workers usually come as a result of fluctuating seasonal demands which can force


the need for additional or reduction in labour depending on the time of the season. In seasonal

work, employees‟ contracts are also subject to termination within a short term notice which is

specifically 24 hour notice according to the Zimbabwean labour laws, hence showing

indicators of precariousness since the job has no guaranteed continuity. The involvement of

seasonal workers in workplace decisions may be limited due to the ideal that they are only

engaged with the organisation for short period in the course of the year.

Tucker (2002) identified various characteristics that can be used to identify forms of

precarious employment and these include termination of the contract with no little short

notice, unstable work hours, an uncertain wage, continuous change in job functions at

employer‟s will and lack of advancement of career growth by the employer. In the

Zimbabwean context these forms of precarious employment are attributed to the above

mentioned non-standard arrangements. Given the nature and characteristics of precarious

employment as stated by Tucker (2002), the question that arises is the extent to which it

impacts on advancement of workplace democracy.

WORKPLACE DEMOCRACY AMONG PRECARIOUS WORKERS

Workplace democracy is a broad phenomenon towards ensuring the involvement and

participation of workers in workplace decision making at all organisational levels. Davis and

Lansbury (1999) cited in Gollan and Patmore (2002) describe workplace democracy as a

continuum from workers having virtually no influence to workers having control equivalent

to management through various means such as representative democracy and participative

democracy. Van de Vliet (2012) argues that workplace democracy comprises of various

concepts that ensure democratization of the workplace and these include participative

management, employee involvement and employee empowerment. A combination of these

concepts to workplace democracy ensures that the input of employees is valued by

management. According to Richer (1999) the involvement participation of employees in

decision making should not be limited to permanent employees only but all employees

regardless of the nature of their contracts. This therefore means that workers in precarious

work arrangement are given the platform to take part in decision making in various activities

such as goal setting, discussing working conditions and making suggestions. According to

Davis and Lansbury (1999) cited in Gollan and Patmore (2002), the term workplace

democracy was originally less recognised by management as it posed a challenge to


managerial prerogative. This has since been eradicated through a number of justifications

offered for all employees regardless of their employment status to take part in workplace

decisions.

The rationale of workplace democracy for workers in precarious work arrangement is

established from Mitchel (1998) cited in Gollan and Patmore (2002)‟s argument of power

rationale of workplace democracy which viewed it as a way to remedy imbalance of power

between precarious workers and the employer. This imbalance of power is traced back from

the employment relationship where the employer is viewed as the bearer of power and the

employee as a subordinate. Therefore workplace democracy seeks to address such imbalance

through various state initiatives such as workers committees and works councils. In

Zimbabwe Labour Act (Chapter 28:01) gives all employees the right to form workers

committees and take part in works councils in advancing their interests, therefore precarious

workers are accrued by law with the same right to workplace democracy as workers in

standard work arrangements. According to Summer and Hyman (2005) this shift from the

Neo liberal master servant employment relationship enhances co-operation between

management and employees including those in non-standard work arrangements they are

given room to advance their interest in decision making. Therefore this also gives birth to

greater job satisfaction, employee motivation and a harmonious workplace.

Gollan and Patmore (2002) advance a more pragmatic rationale for workplace democracy for

workers in precarious employment stressing on its economic rationale. They argue that in this

global and competitive business world, it is important to provide for the involvement and

participation of workers in workplace decision making process not just as factors of

production but as partners as this improves organisational performance. According to Richer

(1999), nowadays management is realizing that greater employee involvement in the

production process could result in the improvements in productivity and quality needed to be

able to compete on an international level. Summers and Hyman (2005) therefore argue that

company performance is enhanced through workplace democracy initiatives such as quality

circles and team works as these associations positively alter employee attitudes towards work

and management. Involvement of precarious workers in such workplace democracy strategies

gives them a sense of belonging and motivation as they feel recognised for the short period

they are engaged with the organisation. According to Wilson and Peel (1990) once employees

feel recognised and empowered through participating and initiating workplace decisions,

their level of motivation is boosted towards staying engaged with organisation and achieving


organisational goals which in turn boost company performance. This may be the case with

precarious workers as they would be motivated to contribute towards the attainment of the

organisational goals during the period to which they are engaged with the organisation

regardless of its short term stay.

As with standard workers, the provision of workplace democracy for workers in precarious

employment can also be done in various scope whereby precarious workers take part in

various nature of decisions such as working conditions, work schedules and work patterns.

Kochan, Katz and Mower (1986) cited in Richer (1999) further explain three different scopes

in which workplace democracy takes place at enterprise level. These include strategic

decision making which is usually done by management and selected employee

representatives which can be precarious worker representatives in platforms such as works

councils. Secondly is the collective bargaining or personnel decision making which involves

the allocation of resources, work arrangements, hiring, firing, and promotions through

workers committee and management. Lastly day-to-day decision-making which concerns

work patterns, health and safety issues, work processes and procedures, cost management,

and training (participative management). These issues are usually discussed through

initiatives such as quality circles, suggestion boxes, morning briefings and total quality

management. Gollan and Partmore (2002) further stated that the idea of decisions available

for employee participation lies with management as they are the ones who choose to or not to

take employee‟s contributions. This therefore means that if the management have a negative

attitude towards the involvement of precarious workers in decision making, their level of

participation and influence to workplace decisions may be overshadowed. Advancing

workplace democracy for workers in precarious work arrangements can be initiated through

various representatives and direct participatory strategies.

Workers committee is a representative participation strategy used in the advancement of

worker democracy for workers in precarious employment and in Zimbabwe it is provided for

in the sections 23 and 24 of the Labour Act (Chapter 28:01). This is a committee formed by

employees at shop floor level only provided no managerial employee takes part in workers

committee activities nor will the workers committee advance the interests or represent

management as prescribed by Labour Act (Chapter 28:0) section 23 subsection 1. In

advancing workplace democracy, workers committee give employees full control in

administering their committee as also stipulated in the labour Act (Chapter 28:01) section 23

that the composition and procedure of workers committee shall be determined by employees


at workplace. This gives employees power to influence decisions by airing their voices on

work matters. According to Labour Act (Chapter 28:01) these matters include collective

bargaining concerning the terms and conditions of employment of the concerned employees.

According to Maphosa (1991) workers committee comprise of other functions which include

acting as a passage of communication between the employer and the low level employees,

negotiating with the employer on working conditions, collective bargaining agreements and

other employee interests.

In addition works council is another representative strategy to workplace democracy which is

accrued to precarious workers in Zimbabwean organisations today. Gollan and Patmore

(2002) defined works council as an elected committee of employees that consult frequently

with management on workplace issues that affect the organisation and employees such as

structure, economic and financial state of the organisation. On the other hand Zimbabwean

Labour Act (Chapter 28:01) views it as composed of an equal number of representatives of an

employer and representatives drawn from members of a workers committee and a chairman.

Turner (1998) argues that there are three main reasons for the existence of works council and

these are to promote workplace harmony by transforming and organising effective

communication channels between employees and their employer, to promote collective

bargaining as stipulated by law and to amend market let-downs through public policies. This

is further supported by Brione and Nicholson (2012) who state that works councils promote

workplace democracy through giving voice to worker on their concerns and interests.

In as much as the above state initiated worker participation strategies may pose as challenges

to managerial prerogative as argued by Davis and Lansbury (1999) cited in Gollan and

Patmore (2002), workers are becoming more educated and capable of taking on more

responsibility and are demanding more input. This justifies the need for management to

involve employees in decision making not only through representative participation by also

through other direct participation initiatives provided for by management. These include

quality circles, total quality management and employee representation in boards.

In as much as workers committees and works councils are accrued to precarious employees

by law, there are other management initiated strategies to workplace democracy for

precarious workers. These strategies depend on the management‟s philosophy towards

involving employees in such work arrangements in decision making. These strategies include

quality circles, team working and suggestion schemes which allow employees to have a say


on work issues like workplace bottlenecks, product development and working conditions. For

example quality circles comprise of employees who frequently meet to discuss problems of

quality and problems related to their work station to which they come up with solutions they

present to the management. Helms and Cengage (2006) argue that in order to promote

workplace democracy such suggestion by employees quality circles should be treated with

consideration and respect. This is because employees are directly linked to the production

process hence views should be greatly appreciated in decision making.

Marchington, Goodman, Wilkinson and Ackers (1992) further enlisted worker cooperatives

and worker directors as management initiatives aimed at increasing the voice and

participation of employees in workplace decisions. Summers and Hyman (2005) also

acknowledge other management initiatives to workplace democracy which included team

briefings, suggestion schemes. According to Petersson and Spängs (2005) initiatives are also

characterised with workplace democracy attributes which include giving room for employees

to air out their views and voices through forums such as suggestion schemes and team

briefings.

While workplace democracy is an imperative concept that fosters various rationales to

precarious employees in their involvement workplace decisions such as harmony and balance

of power, the degree of workplace democracy may still be subject to the nature of their

employment which is precarious. However participation and involvement in workplace

decision making is not a preserve of permanent employees but also extends to non-permanent

personnel (precarious workers). The nature of precarious employment may thus have an

impact on the promotion of workplace democracy for such employees.

IMPACT OF PRECARIOUS EMPLOYMENT IN THE ADVANCEMENT OF

WORKPLACE DEMOCRACY

Precarious employment makes employees prone to fear of victimisation when taking part in

workplace decision making. According Brione and Nicholson (2012) this has a huge impact

towards advancing workplace democracy where employee representatives may become

submissive to management due to fear of losing their jobs. This fear comes as a result of lack

of continuity and unstable contractual arrangements they may find themselves in. While

section 4 of the Labour Act (Chapter 28:01) gives every employee fundamental right to join


and be a member of a workers committee or trade union of their own choice and take part in

lawful activities in advancing their interests, this right may not be enjoyed by precarious

workers. Precarious workers may fear that they may not be re-engaged at the lapse of their

contracts as the employer may view them as a problem among a pool of other employees.

ILO (2011) reaffirms that precarious workers are by definition in an insecure situation and

they feel less confident enough to organise collectively so as to safeguard their jobs which are

prone termination.

The nature of contracts attributed to precarious employment enlightens management to view

workers in precarious workers as passer-by‟s who are not engaged to the organisation for

long. This makes management hostile and unenthusiastic in enhancing workplace democracy

for employees in such employment arrangements. Golembiewski (1982) argues that

workplace democracy in organisations require psychological contingencies that are

conducive, attitudinal and behavioural support. He further reaffirms that precarious workers‟

participation and involvement is unlikely to succeed if it is embedded in an organisational

culture which is sluggish or hostile to workplace democracy. According to Richer (1999) this

perception towards precarious workers may be drawn from the idea that they are considered

to be less knowledgeable about the organisation in terms of its values, culture and vision, thus

their contribution may be perceived as less influential than those of permanent employees.

However, Richer (1999) also argued above all there is only one reason challenging advancing

workplace democracy for workers in precarious employment. This reason is mentioned to be

simply the idea that management have habitually enjoyed the role of decision making, thus

making them less motivated to allow employees to take part in workplace decisions that

affect their interests.

Furthermore, the continuous growth in precarious employment weakens precarious workers‟

participation at enterprise level which in turn also affects the advancement of their interest in

workplace matters. According to Tucker (2002), worker representation is weakened as a

result of various reasons such as unstable and lack of employment continuity associated with

precarious employment even for those in representative forums, hence their influence in

workplace decision will be washed away. Moreover, workplace representation in precarious

employment may not be as influential as those in standard employment. For example

according to the Labour Amendment Act 5 of 2015 section 12C when dealing with

employees in standard employment (permanent), an employer who wishes to retrench one or

more employees shall provide a letter of intent to a works council which take part in deciding


whether or not those employees should be retrenched. This is not the case in precarious

employment such as fixed term contract, casual and seasonal workers as the employers do not

need to consult the works council when they want to get rid of them. This therefore means the

employer will simply terminate their contracts on notice for instance giving 1 day notice for

fixed term contracts with duration of three months, (Labour Act section 12). ILO (2011),

views this as a global erosion of such precarious worker‟s representation forums as they do

not have any influence in such workplace issues relating to employee job security. However,

Maphosa (1991) argues that employers try to maintain the existence of workplace democracy

forums such as workers committees with no viable authority but rather as a communication

link on workplace matters such as policies changes.

In addition the shift from decent employment to precarious employment is also considered to

refuel the imbalance of power between employers and precarious workers in workplace

decisions that also affect them as stakeholders. This power imbalance can be traced from

Rodgers and Rodgers (1989) who argue that precarious employment arrangements are subject

to loss of control over the labour process, which may be linked to the absence of employee

representative forums such as workers committees and works council which relates to control

over working conditions, wages, and the pace of work. Failure of workers in precarious

employment to take part in workplace democracy initiatives may limit employees to raise

their voice in workplace decisions. This therefore leads to imbalance of power between

precarious workers and the employer as employees lack representation of their interests in

workplace decisions. According to Tucker (2002) these include decisions which may relate to

uncertain hours of work and functions of the job which can be changed at will by the

employer without the involvement of employees.

According to Tucker (2002) precarious employment is also characterised with lack of training

and career growth. Lack of training and career growth leads to knowledge deficit which may

pose constrain towards allowing workers in precarious employment to genuinely take part

and influence workplace decisions. According to Poole (1986) this is because most precarious

workers lack various skills, knowledge and experience that management have, thus allowing

them to participate in decision making may lead to bad or ineffective decisions. This is also

supported by Maphosa (1991) in his argument on why employee representative initiatives in

Zimbabwe are not effective as these lack quality especially in terms education which makes

them fail to understand some management terminology. Workers in precarious employment

usually take part in shop floor work unlike those in standard work arrangements who may


occupy relatively higher posts in the organisation hence the majority of them do not to

possess skills, knowledge or techniques that may be needed to take part in strategic and

technical decisions. Van de Vliet (2012) however disputed this arguing that the opposite is

also true that managers and workers in decent employment may not possess some skills and

knowledge that some precarious workers possess either. Therefore decision making process

which includes the skills, knowledge and techniques of everybody in the organisation would

be preferable without considering their employment status.

The other impact of precarious employment in the advancement of workplace democracy is

the idea that it may be viewed as time consuming. Promoting workplace democracy forums

may be time consuming both to management and precarious workers themselves. From a

worker perception, workers on precarious employment may view their participation in

workplace decision making as time consuming as they would be foregoing working which is

their core business in order to earn more income. This is usually the case with casual workers

who may be paid based on the actual hours of work. In support of this time consuming view

associated with workplace democracy, Poole (1986) avows that the most common objection

to involving employees in decision making is that is cumbersome to involve everyone in

decision making as it slows down the implementation of decisions. Time is money, thus slow

decision making becomes unhealthy for any business entity. This therefore means that

management may at times not even consider various participative management forums that

call for worker opinions and voices when making decisions of interest to workers.

In as much as various scholars view the spread of precarious employment as part of what is

fair to call a global industrial attack on workers‟ right to organise and bargain collectively

through non-standard employment (ILO, 2011), the practice also inspires workers in

precarious work arrangements to bring up innovative ideas which may be of great value to

the development of the organisation. This is usually the case with management initiatives to

workplace democracy such as quality circles and total quality management as employees in

precarious work arrangements are given the platform to offer creative and innovative ideals

which may add value to organisational decisions aimed at improving performance and

productivity. Such contribution by precarious workers can help build their profile through

recognition of their exceptional ideas which may allow them to be engaged into a more stable

employment status (permanent). KPMG (2014) view this as talent identification as precarious

workers‟ participation in management initiatives enables the management to identify talent in

some of them which the organisation may require on permanent basis. This therefore means


precarious employment also brings positive impacts to the advancement of workplace

democracy, despite the overhaul of negative impacts.

BACKGROUND OF COMPANY

This research focused on LSSS as the organisation. LSSS stands for Lorimak Strategic

Staffing Services Private Limited which is a subsidiary of Lorimak Africa Private Limited an

indigenous company founded in May 1994. LSSS employs temporary contracts employees (3

months or less duration) which are either casual workers and fixed term contract workers who

are deployed to various LSSS client organisations such as National Foods Ltd, Schweppes

Ltd, Zuva Petroleum and Pro Brands Ltd. LSSS deploy these temporary employees to its

client organisations. LSSS can terminate their contracts at short notice as a response to the

client organisation‟s business needs. These temporary workers are not part of LSSS or its

client organisation permanent human capital as they are only engaged and assigned to client

organisations when required. These employees‟ labour costs are billed to client organisations

by LSSS according to the client organisation‟ current industry minimums as prescribed by

NEC. LSSS‟ profile views their engagement to subcontracting as an innovative and cost

effective method of managing its client organisation‟s labour costs through a system that

allows its client organisations to adjust their staff numbers to the peaks and lows of their

business requirements. Therefore researcher sought to find out the impact of such precarious

work arrangements of LSSS employees in the advancement of workplace democracy.

PROBLEM STATEMENT

LSSS is a staffing services company that only engages and manages workers in non-standard

employment contracts in form of fixed term contracts, casual and temporary contracts. As at

December 2014 the period when the researcher was on work related learning at LSSS, the

organisation had a staff head count of 210 shop floor employees all non-standard

employment which according to Tucker (2002) is precarious employment. However, LSSS

has platforms for promoting the participation and involvement of shop floor personnel in

decisions that affects their interests at workplace. As noted from the works council minutes of

06/ 11/14 employee representatives who are themselves on non-standard employment

contracts as well raised complains to the effect that management were unilaterally making


decisions without consulting them and even not implementing agreements arrived at during

the negotiations at works council. These related to management of leave days and payment,

work patterns, employee transfer and management of over time compensation. ILO (2011)

argue that the temporariness of an employment status (precarious employment) may have an

impact in the extent to which workplace democracy may be promoted as the management

may use their power to threaten the employment relationship. It was therefore the aim of this

research to establish the impact to advancing workplace democracy in precarious

employment at LSSS.

OBJECTIVES

1. To find out the drivers and forms of precarious employment at LSSS.

2. To find out the rationale of advancing workplace democracy for precarious workers at

LSSS.

3. To explore the strategies for promoting workplace democracy among precarious

employees at LSSS.

4. To establish the impact of precarious employment in the advancement of workplace

democracy at LSSS.

5. To give recommendations on advancing workplace democracy in precarious

situations at LSSS.

JUSTIFICATION OF STUDY

This study provides a knowledge base for understanding on the impact placed on workplace

democracy by precarious employment. The successful completion of the research the study

gives detailed information from employer and employee perceptions towards precarious

employment, its growth and how its dynamics as a whole impacts on the advancement of

workplace democracy. Moreover, this is also significant to LSSS as a focus organisation

specifically Human Resource Department as it enlightens them on the link between these two

concepts in the coherent and strategic management of human resources in workplace decision

making regardless of employment status. Furthermore, the study is also of great relevance to

MSU as a learning institution as it provides students or researchers with a reference point in


understanding issues to do with workplace democracy for employees in various precarious

work arrangements.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Sashkin (1984) provides a framework that gives an overview which helps in conceptualising

the effect of precarious employment in advancing the degree in which employees participate

in and influence in workplace decision that affect them as key stakeholders. He identifies

three types of contingencies that affect participative management and workplace democracy.

These include psychological contingencies, organisational contingencies and environmental

contingencies.

Psychological contingency to workplace democracy consist of values, attitudes and

expectations placed on participation on workplace decisions by members of the organisation.

These may include values or attitude placed by both management and employees towards

workplace democracy which may have an impact on worker participation and involvement in

decision making. Sashkin (1984) generally indicates that some workers do not want to

participate and this is usually the case with workers in precarious employment. Precarious

workers tend to have to have a negative attitude towards taking part and influencing

workplace decisions. Their employment status may tend to make them fear to involve

themselves in some of the workplace democracy forums. Sashkin (1984:08) went on to

conclude that “efforts to generate participative involvement when such workers form a

significant proportion of the employee population are almost certain to fail”, this is usually so

in organisations which engage a large pool of precarious work arrangements as they for fear

of contract termination or non-renewal of contracts should their views be perceived by

management as unwelcome.

Organisational contingency is the other factor that affects workplace democracy as stipulated

by Sashkin (1984). This include the degree at which design of work makes employees to

depend on each other and also allow them to autonomously or individually participate in

decision making. According to Brione and Nicholson (2012), workplace democracy through

organisation contingencies can be done through provision of worker participation forums

such as quality circles, team works, and joint consultative committees. They view this as an

appreciation of employees‟ differences which is useful in helping organisations to implement


policies that are well suited to their particular circumstances. In relation to this study,

precarious workers in non-standard work arrangements may be side lined by those in decent

jobs such as permanent work as they may suggest that precarious workers should not be

included in their participative forums as they may see no need to include passer-by‟s in

workplace decisions which may affect the unforeseeable future of the organisation . This is

because for precarious workers there is no guaranteed continuity of employment in precarious

employment as their contract duration is relatively short.

The third factor to workplace democracy in relation to Sashkin (1984)‟s frame work is

environmental contingency. Environmental contingencies include changes in aspects such as

state regulations which may be of effect towards the degree of workplace democracy in an

organisation. Changes in these environmental contingencies may promote employee

participation in decision making unlike what was traditionally practiced by organisations

through emphasis of managerial prerogative as stated by Gollan and Patmore (2002). This is

also evidenced in Zimbabwean context through change in government regulations from pre-

colonial to post-colonial times. According to Maphosa (1991) pre-colonial regulations did not

allow black employees to participate and influence workplace decisions whilst post-colonial

regulations give provisions which regulate workplace democracy regardless of racial or any

differences. The provision of Labour Act (Chapter 28:01) abolished discrimination and give

every employee the right to participate in decisions that are of interests to them regardless of

their type of contract. This therefore means that workers in precarious employment can still

take part in workplace democracy as these state regulations are not only limited to employees

in decent employment but relatively all employees who are willing to take part in workplace

decision making.

Conclusively, this framework by Sashkin (1984) enlightens the impact of precarious

employment in the advancement of workplace democracy.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Bryman (2012:04) defines research methodology as the approaches that are employed by the

researcher to go about research processes in all its phases which include formulation of

objectives, choosing research methods, securing research participants, collecting, analysing

and interpreting data and disseminating findings to others. The components of research


methodology used in this research include research design, sample frame, sample size,

research instruments, data collection procedures, ethical considerations and data presentation

and data analysis procedures.

RESEARCH APPROACH

In gathering information and data for this study, the researcher adopted mixed methods

approach though research was largely qualitative. Somekh and Lewin (2011) advocate that

mixed method approaches to social inquiry are uniquely able to generate better understanding

in many contexts than studies bounded by a single methodological tradition. This is because

combining both qualitative and quantitative research approaches allows the convergence and

corroboration of results from different methods, thereby enhancing validity and credibility of

the results of the study.

The researcher largely used qualitative research approach as it gives an in depth picture of the

feeling, experience, attitude, behaviour and perceptions of the target group towards the

impact of precarious employment in advancing workplace democracy. Dooley (1995) defined

qualitative research as based on field observations analysed without statistics. In relation to

this research, qualitative research method also sort to find out the challenges faced at LSSS in

advancing workplace democracy among workers in precarious employment as it focuses on

precarious worker experiences in their jobs and the degree of the involvement and

participation in workplace decisions. However, quantitative research was also used to

quantify data collected in the research pertaining to the number of LSSS shop floor and

managerial employees and workers committee members participating in the study. This data

was presented in form of tables and respondents figures.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Bryman (2012:44) relates research design to criteria that were employed in evaluating social

research which provides a framework for the generation of evidence that is suited both to a

certain set of criteria and to the research questions in which the researcher was interested in.

A research design therefore provides information that is coherent to the objectives and the

problem which the study seeks to address. This research made use of a case study on LSSS to


determine the impact of precarious employment in the advancement of workplace democracy.

Armstrong (2006) views a case study as a description of an event or sequence of events in a

real life setting with the aim to promote enquiry, the exchange of ideas, and the analysis of

experience in order to discover underlying principles that the case study is designed to

illustrate.

SAMPLING

Fridah (2002) defines sampling as the act, process, or technique of selecting a suitable

sample, or a representative part of a population for the purpose of determining parameters or

characteristics of the whole population.

Sampling method

Bryman (2012) identify sampling as a segment of a population that is selected for

investigation. The researcher adopted use non probability sampling which gave every one

from shop floor employees, workers committee and management a known chance of being

selected through random selection. Simple random sampling was used for all shop floor

employees in order to give room for equal representation in all samples from various work

stations within the organisation. This enabled all employees from various departments to air

their views pertaining to the impact of precarious employment in advancing workplace

democracy. Convenient sampling was also used in interviewing workers committee members

and management due to the busy work schedules among management and some workers

committee members.

Sample frame

Bryman (2012: 187) defines a sample frame as the listing of all units in the population from

which the sample will be selected. LSSS comprise of 210 shop floor employees and 15

managerial employees and a workers committee which comprise of 12 shop floor employees.

Sample size

According to Bailey (2007) sample size refer to the number of units that are chosen from

which data is to be gathered. For the purpose of the research study a subset of the population

was engaged in order to undertake questionnaires and interviewing in order to provide data

and information for the research. The researcher used a sample target of 40 shop floor


employees, 8 managerial employees and 4 workers committee members. However due to

various constrains 26 shop floor employees respondents to the questionnaires. Semi

structured interviews were undertaken by 4 workers committee members and 4 management

representatives. Therefore the actual sample size was 34 out of a target sample of 52

respondents.

S0URCES OF DATA

This researcher made use of both primary and secondary sources of data. Saunders, Lewis

and Thornhill (1997) view primary sources of data as the original source of data that provides

direct description of the study by the person who actually observed or witnessed the

occurrence of an event or carried it out. The rationale for using primary data sources is that

the information obtained is reliable since it is obtained from the original source/ first hand.

The researcher used various primary sources of data to attain information at LSSS. These

include semi structured interviews and questionnaires on shop floor employees and

management. Among other information these primary data sources were used to identify the

forms of precarious employment at LSSS and strategies available in enhancing workplace

democracy in precarious work arrangements.

Secondary data sources involve data that can be clearly collected and readily available from

other sources hence, this data is easily obtainable as it is already available. The researcher

made use of works council minutes and obtained information on LSSS‟s website as

secondary sources of data. Works council minutes of November 6 2014 provided information

on worker representatives complains about workplace decisions which management

unilaterally made without consulting them. LSSS‟s website also gave the researcher

information on the nature of contractual work arrangements the organisation offer.

RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS

Questionnaire (semi structured)

Kumar (2004:126) defined a questionnaire as a written list of questions, the answers to which

are recorded by respondents. Questionnaires consist of various questions that are designed to

attain the objectives of the research. This research consisted of questionnaires which were


specifically addressed to shop floor employees at LSSS which included asking them of the

workplace democracy strategies put in place in relation to their employment status. Leedy

(1993) argue that questionnaires can be presented in two ways which are open questions and

closed questions. With open questions, shop floor employees were asked questions and they

responded in any way they wished whereas closed questions they were provided with a pool

of alternatives from which they select the appropriate answer. These questionnaires were self-

administered by the researcher through personally delivering them by hand to all shop floor

employee respondents. Questionnaire method was effective as it provided large amounts of

information collected from a large number of shop floor employees in a short period of time

and in a relatively cost effective way.

Interviews (semi structured)

Interviews are face to face interpersonal role situations in which an interviewer asks

respondents questions designed to obtain answers pertinent to the research hypotheses.

According Punch (1998) interviews are a fundamental data collection instrument especially

in qualitative research as it is a way of accessing individual peoples‟ perceptions, meanings

and definitions of situations and constructions of reality. The researcher used semi structured

interviews which were administered to 4 managerial employees and 4 workers committee

respondents. This technique was used to collect qualitative data by setting up a situation (the

interview) that allows a respondent the time and scope to talk about their opinions on a

particular subject as it also uses open ended questions. These questions included asking

management of forms and reasons for engaging employees on non-standard precarious

employment without limiting them to alternative answers. Each interview focus issues were

decided by the researcher and the wording of the questions was not the same for all

participants for example those presented to management and workers committee members on

the impact of precarious employment in advancing workplace democracy. According to

Bryman (2012)semi structured interviews creates rapport between the interviewer and the

respondents as the interview in like a conversation, hence participants were able to talk about

something in detail and depth such as a conversation with workers committee members

discussing the impact of precarious employment in their advancement of workplace

democracy.


ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Ethical considerations relates to ethical issues in carrying out the research. According to

Bryman (2012) ethical issues cannot be ignored as they relate directly to the integrity of the

research and their concerns in both the start and the course of the research. First the

researcher asked for permission from LSSS authorities to undertake this research on the

impact of precarious employment in the advancement of workplace democracy with LSSS as

a case study. During the course of the study, the researcher also adhered to various ethical

considerations which are explained below.

Academic use- All participants involved in this research study were assured that data

collected will be used for academic purposes only.

Respect for all participants- The researcher showed respect through fairly treating

all participants in the study regardless of their positions at LSSS.

Anonymity- The names of the participants who took part in the interviews or

questionnaires were undisclosed for various reasons such as fear of victimisation and

fear which would limit their participation in the study. No respondents stated or

mentioned their names in both questionnaires and semi structured interviews.

LIMITATIONS

These are limiting factors that the researcher faced in conducting the research.

Resistance from participants from taking part in this research. Some LSSS managerial

employees viewed this research on precarious employment as a threat towards

hindering their corporate image. Employees also feared victimisation as some had a

negative attitude towards the research as they thought the researcher was sent by

management to spy on them. In order to overcome this challenge, the researcher

ensured all participants that the research and data collected will be used for academic

use only. The researcher also assured employees that their responses will be kept

confidential.

Participants were busy when the researcher intended to carry out the study especially

managerial employees who were mobile. Employees also had busy work schedules

and workload which did not give them enough time to respond to the questionnaire


and interviews. However the researcher made appointments with management on the

dates he intended to come to interview them on the subject matter. With shop floor

employees and workers committee members the researcher thus engaged them during

break time and lunch time when they were free.

DELIMITATIONS

Delimitations are the parameters within which a study was designed and conducted. The

study was limited to National Foods Ltd Harare where all the 210 LSSS shop floor

employees and management were based at. Some managerial participants operated from

LSSS‟ head office in Newlands, thus the researcher conducted interviews with these

managers at LSSS‟ head office. Moreover this study solely focused on determining the

impact of precarious employment in the advancement of workplace democracy.

DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS METHOD

The thematic approach was used as it enhances easy references and analysis. According to

Somekh and Lewin (2011) thematic methods of data analysis involve reducing accumulated

data to a manageable size, developing summaries looking for patterns and applying statistical

analysis. Themes for data presentation and analysis were designed in accordance with the

research study objectives. The researcher further analysed the data by comparing the

research findings with existing literature on precarious employment and its impact in the

advancement of workplace democracy.

DATA PRESENTATION

This section show findings obtained at LSSS pertaining to the impact of precarious

employment in the advancement of workplace democracy at LSSS among other objectives of

the study. This data was collected from LSSS‟ shop floor employees, workers committee

members, management and secondary sources of data which include the works council

meeting minutes of November 6 2014 and LSSS‟ website.

Response Rate


Table 1- Response Rate

Category Target

Sample

Actual Sample Response ratio %

Management 8 4 50

Workers Committee 4 4 50

Shop floor employees 40 26 65

Total 52 34 65

Source: primary data

As shown in table 1 the target sample for shop floor employees was 40 and the actual sample

was 26, giving a response rate of 65% to the questionnaires. The researcher also managed to

interview all workers committee members from a sample target of 4, hence giving a 100%

response rate. A sample of 8 managerial employee interviews was also targeted by the

researcher employees though only 4 were available due various reasons which include busy

work schedules during the time of the research. This also gives a 50% respondents ratio from

the management.

Demographics

Table 2- Demographic presentation for shop floor Employees and workers committee

members

Respondents Age (years) Gender Educational qualification Employment

form

Length of service

(years)

18-

25

26-

35

36-

45

45+ Ma

le

Fema

le

O‟lev

el

Diplo

ma

Degre

e

None Fixed Casual Belo

w 1

1-2 Over

2

Workers

committee

1 2 1 4 4 4 1 3

Shop floor

employees

8 13 3 2 15 11 19 1 1 5 17 9 9 7 10

Total 9 15 4 2 19 11 23 1 1 5 21 9 9 8 13

Grand total 30 30 30 30 30

Source: Primary data


The demographic table depicts the response rate according to gender, education qualification,

form of employment and length of service for LSSS shop floor employees and workers

committee members who are also engaged in precarious employment.

Age

In terms of age, a large number of respondents were between 26 to 35 years which

constituted of 13 employees. The lowest respondent age group was that between 45 years and

above which comprise of 2 employees who are all on fixed term contracts.

Gender

The participants who participated most in responding to the questionnaires which were

allocated to the shop floor employees were males. Male participation constituted 58% of the

overall participation for shop floor employees for the allocated questionnaires as compared to

females who also constituted 42%. LSSS workers committee comprised only male employees

therefore they had a 100% participation ratio.

Education Qualifications

Education qualification is significant in the research study as it helps in the analysis of the

data provided by various respondents. Most of the shop floor employees at LSSS had O‟

Level as shown by the demographic presentation as 19 of the shop floor employees fall in this

group of educational qualification. However, 5 shop employees had no educational

qualifications whilst only 2 had higher education such as diplomas and Degrees. All 4

respondents from the workers committee had O‟ Level as their educational qualifications.

Form of Employment

All LSSS shop floor employee respondents including workers committee members were

engaged in precarious forms of employment which are fixed contracts and casual contracts.

These fixed and casual contracts are of 3months duration with 24 hour notice of termination.

In terms of responses 29 participants were on fixed term contracts whilst 9 were on causal

contracts.

Length of Service

For the sake of this research study length of service refers to length of time to which the

respondents have been engaged at LSSS in the form of employment they stated. None of


these employees has a length of service which is above 3 years. Thirteen respondents both

shop floor employees and workers committee members were engaged at LSSS for more than

2 years whilst other 8 and 9 employees have been at the organisation for 1 to 2 years and

below 1 year respectively.

Management Profile

All 4 management respondents were male. Two of these respondents aged between 26 to 35

years have honours degree in human resource management. Another one respondent aged

between 36 to 45years had masters in business administration whilst the other one aged 45

and above had masters in corporate management and he has been in the organisation since it

was formed. Three management respondents were engaged with LSSS for more than 4 years

and they were all part of LSSS‟ permanent head count.

Conceptualisation of workplace democracy and precarious employment

The question on the meaning and understanding of workplace democracy was asked to

workers committee and management respondents who were all males. All four workers

committee members acknowledged that workplace democracy is when employees are jointly

involved in workplace decisions with management on matters that impact them. Three

management respondents were of consensus that workplace democracy is a workplace

environment that creates a situation which allows workers to say their views in decision

making and giving them a win/win situation in terms of implementing those decisions to

which they would have initiated. One of the managers mentioned that, “workplace

democracy is like a family where the parent involves the children in decision making as a

family member”. Through further probing on the concept, the same respondent referred the

employer as the parent who engages the children who are the employees.

The researcher gave respondents an insight understanding of the term precarious employment

referring it to the non-permanent employment contracts. This was after the respondents had

asked on the simplification of the term precarious employment. All workers committee

members explained that precarious employment is the type of contracts that lead to lack of

employment security and benefits such as pension. All 4 management respondents also stated

that precarious employment does not offer any guarantee of continuity and no career

development programs are attached to it. One management respondent in possession of a

masters degree stated that “precarious employment involves all non-standard work


arrangement that do not provide permanent citizenship to employees which include casual

jobs and those employees on fixed term contracts offered by our organisation”.

Forms and drivers of precarious employment at LSSS

The researcher sought to determine the forms of precarious employment at LSSS and their

drivers. Seventeen shop floor employees stated that they were on fixed term contracts, while

9 said that their contracts were casual. Four workers committee members said that their

contracts were on fixed term. A management respondents in the HR department stated that all

employees were non-permanent at LSSS. LSSS website which the researcher accessed

showed that the organisation recruits shop floor employees on a non-permanent basis. The

researcher during work related learning from December 2013 to December 2014 established

through employee contract forms that the types of contracts were temporary, either fixed term

or casual, and giving them short term termination notice in line with the labour Act (Chapter

28:01). A member of the workers committee stated that “all employees are engaged on 3

months fixed term contracts subject to renewal by management unless in the case of casual

workers who do not stay long in the organisation”. Responses from 30 shop floor employees

including workers committee members show that 9 of them had been with organisation for

less than 1 year, 8 between 1 and 2 years while 13 respondents had their contracts renewed

for a cumulative period over 2years. 2 managers agreed that they renew contracts as long as

there was work to be done and also consider individual employee performance.

The question on the drivers of precarious employment was asked to management as they

initiators of the practice. A manager with a degree stated that non-standard precarious

employment are new work arrangements in the modern world as this reduce cost of labour.

He said that “managing a permanent worker is expensive in this day where business

productivity and capacity is low”. Another manager in the HR department with a masters

degree said that their organisation does not employ people on permanent basis because they

are subcontractors providing labour for companies that seek labour at a lower cost to avoid

long term employment liabilities. On further probing on these liabilities he mentioned

pension, medical aid, bonuses and incentives. The managers also stated that LSSS was

responsible for the overall welfare, recruitment, termination of employment contracts whilst

the client premises would provide work.

Two management respondents also highlighted that precarious employment promotes

flexibility for the organisation. They emphasised that this flexibility is attained through


matching labour to business requirements. One of the 2 managers went on to say “a client

organisation for instance National Foods may face production bottlenecks due to machine

faults, shortage of raw materials such as wheat for production, thus it may require less

labour than it normally does. This means LSSS as the labour provider would be obliged to

cut labour numbers in order to match with the specific requirements of the client

organisation at that time and this is done through giving a 24 hour notice to its fixed term

contract workers even before the lapse of their 3months contracts”.

All managers concurred that engaging employees on non-permanent basis was of less strain

compared to permanent ones. They stressed that the Zimbabwean labour laws discouraged

from engaging employees on permanent basis due to its rigidities when retrenching or

dismissing them. One manager stated that “Zimbabwean retrenchment laws are not employer

friendly as they constitute to many procedures which are costs to employers want to get rid of

idle of unwanted labour. Therefore see engaging employees in precarious employment is our

run away route from such risk decent employment”. Another manager with a masters said “I

wonder how security firms who are in the same line of business as us are managing as they

recruit employees on a permanent basis before deploying them to their client organisations”.

The rationale of advancing workplace democracy for workers in precarious

employment at LSSS

The researcher sought to find out the reasons for advancing workplace democracy among

precarious workers at LSSS. This question was addressed to all respondents groups which

included shop floor employees, workers committee members and management. According to

5 fixed contract workers them in decision making at LSSS a room to air their views on

various issues affecting their day to day work issues. One female respondent stated that “our

involvement in decision making allow us to directly notify management on issues affecting

our work such inadequate safety equipment, hence management would know the work areas

which need to be improved”. Ten shop floor employees mentioned the following decisions

that they air to the management in the invocom and through the workers committee: healthy

and safety issues and its improvement, canteen issues as the bills are deemed high, work

targets, working conditions, work patterns like shifts changes and overtime compensation

issues.

All workers committee members mentioned that advancement of workplace democracy at

LSSS was an effective way to advance both employer and employee interests mutually


regardless of their employment nature. One workers committee member who had been with

the organisation for a period between 1 to 2years stated their participation and involvement in

workplace decision making through workers committee and works council enables them to

enjoy their collective bargaining right where the respondent also mentioned that employees

would be allowed to discuss issues such as wages, job grading and other worker issues. The

worker‟s committee member further stated that “decision making in works council promote

mutual understanding with the employer as we are able to come to a common ground

pertaining issues affecting us as employees”.

Five shop floor employees also stated that they are equally the same as any other employees

in the organisation, thus they should have the right be involved and participate in all

workplace decisions that affected them. One female participant stated that “in as much as we

have a short stay at the organisation, we are LSSS’ cash cow and its contract with National

Foods relies on our performance and for that reason they should involve us in decision

making for us to highlight to management what needs to be improved to enhance our

performance and for management to do equally the same”. Seven shop floor employee

respondents on fixed term contracts also highlighted their involvement and participation in

decision making gives them a sense of belonging in the short term period they are engaged

with at LSSS. Two of these respondents further mentioned that this sense of belonging boost

their motivation towards their work which they viewed as essential to the overall

performance of the organisation.

More so all workers committee members mentioned that employee involvement and

participation in decision making gave them collective power to advance their interests which

cannot achieve individually due to their employment nature. One workers committee member

who had been engaged with the organisation for a period more than 2years stated that

“workplace democracy allow us to come up together as employees and select representatives

who are assigned to go head to head with management in pursuing issues which are agreed

upon by all employees”.

In addition 3 management respondents were of the consensus that advancing workplace

democracy for precarious workers at LSSS was important as it reduced the externalisation of

disputes or matters to trade unions which they were not willing to bear. A managerial

employee with a degree in HR stated that engaging employees in collective bargaining

pertaining to their wages, job grades and health and safety issues enables decisions and


agreements of such issues to be made at enterprise level without involving third parties such

as trade unions. One management respondent also stated that advancing workplace

democracy for the fixed term and casual workers enable them to exercise their right by law.

All management respondents also acknowledged that the involvement and participation of

their employees in workplace decisions enhanced workplace harmony between them and the

employees. One management respondent with a degree in HR further stated that “worker

participation enables employees to stay abreast of all workplace decisions, thus they never

feel alienated from decisions that concern them as failure to observe such democracy may

lead to conflict as employees may feel management are only pursuing decisions that benefit

them and the employer”.

Strategies of workplace democracy at LSSS

This question was asked to all targeted group of respondents which include shop floor

employees, workers committee members and management. Seventeen floor employees on

fixed term contracts acknowledged that the following strategies were available for advancing

workplace democracy at LSSS: workers committee, works council and invocom. One female

respondent who was on fixed term contract however stated that “in as much we seem to take

part in decision making in these strategies, most of these decisions are never implemented

which makes us wonder if these strategies are a reality for us or something that is just on

paper” Five respondents who were on casual contracts highlighted invocom as the strategy

which enables them to participate and influence decision making. Four casual workers left the

question blank and one of them explained that “our form of employment does not allow us to

participate in decision making because the more time we spend taking part in the invocom

business, that means less money for us since we are paid in accordance to the actual number

of hours we work”.

Three workers committee respondents who have been renewing contracts with organisation

for over 2years also cited workers committees, works council and invocom as the strategies

for workplace democracy for precarious workers at LSSS. All management participants also

cited the existence of workers committee, works council and invocom as platforms for

employees to advance their interests to management.

The researcher further probed participants on the effectiveness of these available workplace

democracy strategies at LSSS. Fig 1 below show 26 shop floor employee respondents‟


response to the question whether the existing workplace democracy initiatives were effective

or not.

Fig 1

Source: Primary data

As highlighted in Fig 1, 80% of shop floor employee respondents disagreed that the existing

workplace democracy strategies were effective at LSSS. Four workers on fixed term

contracts mentioned that invocom decisions are of less value since management often did not

implement or recognise decisions reached in this forum. Ten shop floor employee

respondents also stated that management did not involve them in some decisions that affected

them which they also stated to be a sign of inefficiency in the available workplace democracy

strategies. November 6 2014 works council minutes also show complains from employee

representatives who complained that management unilaterally made some decisions without

consulting them. Change in work patterns such as shifts and hours of work, change in

company bank and employee transfer are decisions which management unilaterally made as

mentioned by 2 workers committee members who had been with a length of service of over

2years. One female shop floor employee stated that “in decisions concerning over time

compensation, HR department only inform employees that they will be given time off for the

extra hours they worked or the payment will be accrued to them next month. We as

vulnerable employees will be left with no word as the management would have already


determined how they intend to compensate us without even discussing the matter with the

workers committee notifying us in invocom”.

All management workers also confirmed that they unilaterally made some workplace

decisions which included agreements with client organisation, change of banks, employee

transfer, work patterns and management of leave days. Two management respondents with

masters stated that decisions such as change of work patterns and banks required immediate

attention and consulting employees or their representatives would slower the implementation

of their intended decisions. One management respondent who had been engaged with the

organisation since its inception in 1994 also mentioned the temporariness of LSSS‟ fixed

term and casual workers as a strain towards involving them in decision making. He further

stated that “it’s hard to involve temporary workers in decisions that affect the operations of

the organisation in the next 5years when they have a short stay in the organisation”.

The other 15% of shop floor employee respondents agreed that the available workplace

democracy strategies were effective. After further probing 1 respondent on fixed term

contract mentioned that “our workers committee are being involved in collective bargaining

with our employer which is a great deal towards the enhancing our interests”. Two shop

floor employees who had been engaged with LSSS for a period between 1 to 2 years

mentioned that their representatives had initiated for the provision of beverages to employees.

The 5% neutral section was also ticked by some respondents as they had mixed feelings

towards the effectiveness of these workplace democracy initiatives of workplace democracy.

Two female casual employees mentioned that short duration of their employment and lack of

time did not allow them to take part in decision making. One of these female casual worker

respondents stated that “in case works council decisions are implemented, that will probably

happen long after we leave the organisation, thus we won’t benefit from such decisions”.

In addition, the researcher also asked workers committee members and management on the

effectiveness of the available strategies of workplace democracy at LSSS. All workers

committee respondents disagreed to that the available strategies of workplace democracy

were effective. One workers committee respondent who had been with the organisation for

over 2years stated that decisions they agree upon with the management take long to be

implemented and some are not even advanced. After further probing the respondent

mentioned the change of workers grade as an issue they agreed upon with management in a

work‟s council meeting in 2014 but up to the time the researcher carried out his study,


employee grades had not been changed. All workers committee members also stressed that

the works council strategy was not effective as they only held their meetings twice a year,

which they all defined as not enough to advance all employee interests. More so, all workers

committee members were also of the consensus that management overshadowed them in the

works council as they stated that the management decide on all meeting agendas and

postpone some issues which are not important to them. One workers committee member also

stated that “management tend to postpone our issues pertaining management of leave days,

canteen cost as we raise them in the works council meetings. This becomes hard for us to

view our participation as viable as these issues are only addressed when the management

sort to discuss them”.

In addition 2 management respondents also stated that LSSS workplace democracy strategies

tend to be less effective as they cited over emphasis on the same matters all the time by the

workers committee as limiting factor for them to advance other employee interests. One

managerial employee with a degree in human resource management stated that “employee

representatives are overzealous on job grading rather than giving attention to other worker

interests like health and safety at the client organisation’s workplace which LSSS should

improve”. A management respondent with masters also stated that the available workplace

democracy strategies tend to lack efficiency as employees are less informed of issues to

discuss in these platforms which he also stated to be the reason why they tend to raise

unrealistic and irrelevant issues in decision making. The same respondent further stated that

“some employees stress of wage increment and job grading in the invocom, matters which

they should advance through their workers committee and representatives in the works

council, thus overriding the invocom business”.

The impact of precarious employment in the advancement of workplace democracy at

LSSS

This question sought to find out how the advancement of workplace democracy was impacted

by the precarious nature of employment among workers at LSSS. Two respondents from the

workers committee highlighted that their nature of employment instilled fear in them

especially in coming up with decisions or ideas which collide with those of management in

the works council or invocom. One of them stated that “our contracts can be easily

terminated within 24hours at the employer’s will without any termination benefits and due to

this we are forced to comply with all employer suggestions even when collectively discussing


issues with them so as to safe guard our jobs”. Five female respondents who were on fixed

contracts also stressed that they even fear bringing their workplace issues to HR as they did

not want to be labelled badgering since the HR department was responsible for renewing their

contracts.

All respondents from the workers committee also highlighted that them being in non-

permanent jobs makes them prone to intimidation from management at all work place

democracy levels. One of these workers committee members who had O‟level educational

qualification also mentioned that this intimidation comes in form of constant reminders that

they are contract workers by management. One fixed term contract employee who had been

with the organisation for less than 1year also stated that “one of the HR personnel in the

invocom asked us to bear in mind that we are just contract workers who are privileged to

work for LSSS since our services are easy to acquire, thus we should not ask for too much but

rather should be content to whatever management is bringing on the table”.

Six shop floor employee respondents who had been with the organisation for a period more

than 2years mentioned that the precarious nature of their jobs made management to give less

recognition to their voices be it in the morning brief meetings in the invocom or through their

representatives. Ten fixed term contract workers and workers committee members all stated

that it took long for management to implement some of the decisions they would have

mutually agreed upon and at times these decisions were not even implemented at all. One

respondent from the workers committee who has been in the organisation for over 2years said

“since 2013 employees through their representatives have discussed with the management on

the canteen issues whereby employees were complaining that cost of meals at the client

organisation’s premises was too high and management agreed that they will look into the

issue and find ways to address the issue but up to now nothing has been done”.

The researcher then probed management on why they took long to implement these

decisions. Two management respondents mentioned that they had to undertake various

processes before they could implement such decisions. One management respondent with a

degree in HR further stated that “at times we need to discuss some of these decisions with our

client organisation to which these employees are deployed at, thus it may take long but once

an agreement is reached decisions will be implemented”. One management respondent also

mentioned that management is at times busy to implement some decisions that may be


pursued by employees as they are responsible for managing other employees in various LSSS

client organisations besides National Foods.

Furthermore 20 shop floor employee respondents also mentioned that management had a

negative attitude towards promoting their involvement and participation in workplace

decision making. Ten fixed contract shop floor employees highlighted that LSSS

management often absent themselves from invocom meetings which are done in the morning

before employees start work whilst their client organisation (National Foods Ltd) supervisors

and line managers attend these meetings. One female participant said “management will not

be informed of some of the decisions made in these meetings since they are not present, thus

our contribution will be in vain as any decisions we make in the invocom will only apply to

National Foods employees since their employer is personally there to witness exactly what

the employees want.” Two workers committee members also mentioned that the HR

department often tell them to do their meetings off work hours and which they also stated as a

limiting factor for them to do their meetings since they finish work in separate times.

All 9 casual worker participants also highlighted that their nature of employment does not

give them time to participate and be involved in decision making. In giving reasons for this

answer, one male casual worker emphasised that they are being paid in accordance to the

actual number of hours that they work and some of them are paid on tonnage. The researcher

quoted one male casual worker aged between 26 to 35years, stating that “we are paid on

hourly basis or in relation to the number of trucks we load. Thus it’s hard for us casual

workers to be members of the workers committee as some meetings are done during work

hours which becomes hard for us to balance the two responsibilities as we cannot for go

work for these meetings since that will mean less money for us”.

Five casual workers who have been engaged with LSS for a period less than 1 year

highlighted that by virtue of being employed on casual contracts their zeal of taking part in

decision making is diminished. One male casual employee stated that “I am less motivated to

take part in decision making or even taking part in workers committee business since there is

no future for me in the organisation as I already know that I am one of the first individuals to

lose my job whenever there is less work”. Other 4 casual worker participants mentioned that

they are content with what their employer provides and are only hoping for a better future in

their next jobs.


However, 5 respondents gave a positive response to the effect placed on their participation in

decision making by their nature of employment at LSSS. Two fixed contract worker

respondents commented that to some extent their nature of employment motivates them to

take part in workplace decision making as they saw this as a stepping stone towards giving

them to opportunity to be recognised by LSSS management and National Foods personnel

who supervise their work. One male respondent with a length of service of 1 to 2years

mentioned that through workplace democracy strategies such as the invocom and works

council they can individually make constructive arguments or suggestions which may be very

helpful to management and the overall organisation. The same respondent stated that “there

is hope that our constructive arguments and innovative ideals recognised through being

awarded a permanent job at LSSS’ client organisation or being well recommendable when

making reference to LSSS as a previous employer when applying for a job elsewhere”.

Management also mentioned how the precarious situation of their employees impacted on the

advancement of workplace democracy. One management participant who had been with the

organisation since its inception in 1994, labelled LSSS fixed and casual contract workers as

visitors to the organisation who are only with them for a short period of time. He further

mentioned that “it becomes hard for us to involve shop floor workers with 3months contracts

in strategic decisions which affect the future of the organisation as their contracts may be

terminated at any time with a notice of 24 hours which is next to nothing. For that reason its

meaningless decision making whilst consulting someone who can work up gone and this is

the case with all LSSS shop floor employees and their workers committee representatives”.

Two management respondents also mentioned that the precarious nature of their workers‟

jobs subjected them to unplanned changes in representatives who advance their interests.

These two management respondents further stated that such change is as a result unstable

employment contracts which can also lead to the laying off of workers committee members.

A management respondent with a degree stated that “the laying off of workers committee

members means new representatives have to be selected and this may bring problem in the

advancement of worker interests as new members may not be well informed on the duties and

responsibilities of the workers committee, hence they may not deliver”.

All management respondents also mentioned that the nature of employment of their

employees and representatives limited the degree of their representative participation in

decision making and enabled management to unilaterally make some decisions such layoffs


without consulting workers or their representatives. One management respondent who had

been engaged with the organisation for over 4years stated that “because these employees are

employed on temporary contracts, we are allowed by law to terminate their contracts or lay

them off without consulting them or their representatives but rather just issue a notice of

contract termination”.

DATA ANALYSIS

Data analysis sought to analyse and examine the collected data on the impact of precarious

employment in the advancement of workplace democracy making comparison to literature.

The analysis was done using thematic approach to data analysis.

Response Rate

The study‟s highest response rate was attained from the shop floor employees and their

workers committee. This is because they were more interested in this topic as it explores the

impact placed on workplace democracy advancement for employees in precarious

employment to which they are victims. However, some did not respond up to expectation

which was a result of failure to grasp some of the concepts of the study such as the term

precarious employment. This is as a result of low educational levels and qualification in all

shop floor employees were most only have O‟ level which is not enough to understand some

of the concepts highlighted in the study. More so, others feared that the researcher was sent

by the management to spy on them since the researcher was once an attaché at LSSS, thus

they left some questionnaire answer sections blank. On the other hand, the researcher

managed to secure only half of the intended semi structured interviews with the management

which was a low response rate as compared to those held with workers committee members.

In as much as managerial employees tend to be busy, this may be as a result of fear of being

exposed of their failure or unwillingness to involve employees in workplace decisions as they

are the ones who control the degree of workplace democracy in the organisation.

Demographic analysis for shop floor employees and workers committee members

As highlighted in the data presentation, the age group of 26-35 years has the highest

respondent rate followed by 18- 25 range. This is attributed by the ideal that these age groups

are considered highly mobile and flexible in the labour market as they occupy non-standard


work arrangements which are for short term basis. This allows them to gain experience from

various employers as they are able to change organisation after the lapse of their contracts

especially when those contracts are not renewed. This conforms to KPMG (2014)‟s view that

precarious work is mainly attributed to mobile labour as it can be discharged from work at

any time whenever their needs are not required by the organisation for the sake flexibility in

matching labour with business requirements. On the other hand, the age range of 35-45 and

45+ constitute a low response rate which is mainly because this group of employees are

stable in the labour market. These prefer decent employment which guarantees them

permanent citizenship in the organisation.

In terms of gender male respondents to the research were more than female respondents. This

may be as a result that in Zimbabwe the production industry which requires much manual

work is usually male dominant. This is the case with LSSS employees who are deployed at

National Foods which is in the production industry with manual work such as baggage

carriers load and offload wheat and maize, packers and truck drivers. Female mainly

dominate industries such as education, health care and the informal sectors. The researcher

also noted that no woman was among the workers committee participants in the semi

structured interviews. This is because there are more man than woman in the organisation,

thus woman‟s voice is usually override by that of man in these workplace democracy forums.

From what can be derived from the data presentation 23 shop floor employees including the

workers committee members have O‟ level educational qualifications whilst 5 have O‟ level.

This may be regarded as low level qualifications which Poole (1986) reaffirms through

labelling precarious jobs do not have important skills and knowledge that management have.

The researcher also noted all shop floor employee and workers committee member

respondents are on precarious forms employment which is fixed term contracts and casual

contracts. Labour Act (Chapter 28:01) categorise these forms of employment as non-

permanent which categorise their nature as the precarious as they are prone to termination on

short term notice and lack guarantee of continuity. Sashkin (1984) also noted that an

employee‟ form employment may affect their attitude towards their participative management

and workplace democracy which maybe the case with casual workers who view themselves

as passer byes. This gives them a negative attitude as they are not with the organisation for

long, thus they see no need to engage themselves in workplace decisions.


All shop floor employees and workers committee respondents have been renewing their

contracts at LSSS for a period less than 3years. This conforms to Evans and Gibbs (2009)

who view precarious employment as associated with non-standard work arrangements that

are non-permanent, thus their length of service would not be long as their contracts are often

terminated whenever the employer wishes. More so, all 9 casual employee respondents had a

length which was less than 1 year. According to Burgess and Campbell (1998) casual

workers are the most vulnerable to all work precarity, thus they are prone to be the first

victims for termination whenever the employer sort to reduce labour, thus explaining their

low length of service.

Conceptualisation of workplace democracy and precarious employment

Research findings show similar interpretations of workplace democracy by respondents. The

workers committee members equated workplace democracy to involving and allowing

employees participation in decision making on issues of interests to them at workplace.

Management also shared the same view recognising the importance of involving employees

in decision making. The views by the respondents are in line with the key tenets of workplace

democracy which Lansbury (2009) reaffirms. He views a democratic organisation as one in

which employees as key stakeholders are given a platform to participate and influence

workplace decisions that affect them.

The research findings reveal that precarious employment brings with it lack of employment

security, continuity, growth and benefits with no provision of permanency. These views

conform to Evans and Gibbs (2009) assertion that precarious employment is characterised by

non-standard employment contracts which are prone to limited or no social benefits and

statutory entitlements, high degrees of job insecurity, low job tenure and low wages. Tucker

(2002) also characterises precarious employment as work with no chances for career growth.

Forms and drivers of Precarious Employment

Research findings reveal that LSSS shop floor employees are on non-standard employment

forms which are fixed term and casual. These conform to Rodgers and Rodgers (1989)

dimension of precarious jobs which they described as temporal, subject to lack of continuity

and high risk of termination. The vulnerability of the employees at LSSS makes their

participation in decision making difficult position cemented by KPMG (2014) arguing that


precarious workers tend to be vulnerable to lack of participation and involvement in decision

making as they are engaged only when they organisation require their services.

Management respondents highlighted that LSSS engages precarious workers in order to

reduce labour cost, for flexibility reasons and due to perceived rigidity of labour laws in

Zimbabwe. These views are in line with the advancements in literature for the adoption of

precarious work contractual arrangements. Machaka (2013) mentioned that labour laws in

Zimbabwe overly protect employees as the retrenchment laws make it difficult to terminate

employees as much as the process is costly also. The concept of flexibility is asserted by

Atkinson (1987)‟s numerical flexibility concept that allows the employer to match labour

numbers to business needs. KPMG (2014) also view benefits entitled to permanent

employees as contributing to long term employment liabilities in the long run for any

organisation, hence engagement of precarious employment.

The reasons advanced by management for employing workers on non-standard precarious

employment show that the employees therein are prone to easy termination of employment

contracts. Temporary workers have no guarantee for certainty (Tucker 2002) which makes

advancement of their interests in decision making made by management difficult. This could

explain the unilateral approach to some decisions by LSSS management on issues such as

work patterns and employee transfer.

The rationale of advancing workplace democracy for workers in precarious

employment at LSSS

The research findings show various rationales for advancing workplace democracy for

workers in precarious employment at LSSS. The major findings from shop floor employees

and workers committee were of the idea that workplace democracy enable employees to air

out their voices on day to day work experiences, mutual advancement of both employer and

worker interests and exercise of their right to participation in decision making. Management

respondents also viewed workplace democracy as a way to deal with workplace disputes at

enterprise level. The rationale of mutual advancement of both employer and employee

interest fit in Summer and Hyman (2005)‟ notion that workplace democracy is a shift from

neo liberal master servant relationship as it enhances co-operation between management and

employees through giving workers the platform to advance their interest in decision making

along with management.


The idea that workplace democracy gives precarious workers at LSSS a sense of belonging

is of congruent to Wilson and Peel (1990)‟s argument. They argue that employees feel

recognised and attached to the organisation through participating and initiating workplace

decisions. Mitchel (1998) cited in Gollan and Partmore (2002)‟s arguments supports the

findings that participation and involvement in decision making gives precarious workers

collective power to advance their interests. She argues that workplace democracy remedy

power balance between the employer and precarious workers as employees are given the

right to take part in decision making as supported by Labour Act (Chapter 28:01) which gives

employees right to freedom of association through workers committees and works councils.

Kochan et al (1986) cited in Richer (1999) categorises the involvement of workers in day to

day decision making as a scope of workplace democracy whereby precarious workers can air

their voices to workplace issues such as working conditions, hours of work, work scheduling

as prescribed by the mentioned rationale of airing their views on day to day work

experiences. Labour Act (Chapter 28:01) gives employees fundamental right to workplace

democracy which also gives precarious workers the right to advance workplace democracy as

it is their right regardless of the nature of their employment contracts. More so,

management‟s views that workplace democracy enhance workplace harmony is also in light

with Summers and Hyman (2005)‟s assertion. They ascertain that involving employees in

workplace decisions creates a harmonious work environment which is free from trade unions,

thus all workplace disputes and conflicts will be dealt with an enterprise level rather than

employees advancing issues to trade unions.

Strategies of workplace democracy at LSSS

Research outcomes show a consensus on the strategies available for enhancing workplace

democracy at LSSS among shop floor employee respondents and the workers committee

members who all mentioned workers committee, works council and invocom as their

available forums. All management respondents also acknowledged workers committee,

works council and invocom as the available strategies for workplace democracy at LSSS.

Workers committee and works council conform to Labour Act (Chapter 28:01)‟s employee

rights which promote precarious workers‟ participation in decision making through

representative participation in advancing employee interests. These strategies are enforced by

law ensure representation participation of all employees in decision making regardless of the

nature of their employment. Invocom also fit in Kochan et al (1986) day to day decision


making forums in which employees are involved in direct participation on issues such as

working hours, daily targets and working conditions.

After further probing on the effectiveness of the available workplace democracy at LSSS,

majority of the shop floor employees and workers committee disagreed giving a consensus

that management took much time to implement decisions they collectively agreed upon,

unilaterally decision making by management, less frequency of works council meetings and

too much management control in the works council. Findings from management also stated

that worker representatives over emphasised on same issues they deemed as an ineffective

running of these workplace democracy strategies. These findings conform to literature on the

factors that determine the effectiveness of workplace democracy strategies. Davis and

Lansbury (1999) cited in Gollan and Patmore (2002) view workplace democracy as not

favoured by management as it poses a threat to managerial prerogative, they tend to take

landslide control in workplace democracy forums so as to retain their right to make decisions.

The lack of implementation of made decisions is in light with Gollan and Patmore (2002)‟s

view that implementation of decisions lies with management as they view management as

the ones with the power to consider the decisions brought up by employees, thus the

advancement of such decisions lies in their hands.

Unilaterally decision making by management conform to Richer (1999)‟s assertion that

management view precarious workers as passer byes, thus they are reluctant to relinquish

decision making to them. In addition according to Poole (1986) involving employees in

decision making make the process of decision making and implementation slow, thus forcing

management to hold few works council meetings as they may be time consuming to some

issues that may require management‟s attention. The over emphasis on one subject matter and

provision of irrelevant suggestions by employees conform to Maphosa (1991)‟s argument

that employee representatives in Zimbabwe are not effective as they lack quality especially in

education. Thus worker representatives would not know matters to discuss in different

platforms such as collective bargaining in the works council whilst making day to day

workplace decisions in their invocom. Findings from 2 female respondents who were casual

workers were neutral show that they had mixed feelings towards the effectiveness of the

available strategies of workplace democracy at LSSS. According to Burgess and Campell

(1998) casual workers experience highest degree of vulnerability associated with termination

and lack of representation, thus they are usually the first victims of termination if ever the

employer wishes to reduce human capital. Due to this vulnerability to early termination,


casual workers have less chances of witnessing the influence of workplace democracy

strategies.

The impact of precarious employment in the advancement of workplace democracy

Research findings pertaining to how shop floor employees and workers committee members

viewed the impact of their non-permanent jobs in the advancement of workplace democracy

were congruent. They mentioned fear, intimidation less recognition of employee voice,

management negative attitude, less motivation and time as the impacts on their degree of

involvement and participation in decision making. Management respondents also viewed

precarious workers at LSSS as visitors which also had an impact towards the degree of their

participation in decision making. Fear of victimisation and intimidation conform to Brione

and Nicholson (2012)‟s argument that precarious worker representatives who also fall in the

same form of employment tend to be submissive to management due to fear of losing their

jobs. Intimidation can also be traced to Rodgers and Rodgers (1989)‟s argument that

precarious work arrangements subject employees to loss of control of the labour process.

Less recognition and management‟s negative attitude towards involving fixed term and

casual contract workers in decision making may be as a result psychological contingency of

Sashkin (1984). These psychological contingencies take form of the value placed by

management towards temporary workers contribution in workplace decisions that may affect

the on-going concern of the organisation. This is also supported by Golembiewski (1982)

who argues that workplace democracy requires attitudinal and behavioural support, thus

management negative attitude may be a limiting impact towards the involvement and

participation of precarious workers in workplace decisions at LSSS.

The idea that casual workers lack time to participate in decision making is also in light to

KPMG (2014)‟s argument. They argue that casual workers tend to be vulnerable to lack of

involvement and participation as they are hired on emergency when the organisation requires

extra labour, thus there would be no time to take part in any workers committee business or

any workplace democracy strategy as this may limit their contribution towards the work they

would have been hired to complete.

The limiting impact of management‟s view of fixed term and casual workers as visitors to the

organisation conform to Richer (1999) who viewed precarious workers as passer byes who

are less informed about the organisation‟s culture, vision, thus management may view their


participation in workplace decision as less influential. KPMG (2014) also viewed precarious

employment as a way of identifying talent by organisation before engaging one on a

permanent jobs, this may be motivating factor to some employees who viewed their

employment nature as a way to initiate innovative ideals in workplace democracy strategies

as they may be recognised by management.

More so, findings that the non-permanent contracts at LSSS limited the degree of worker

representation conform to Tucker (2002)‟s assertion that precarious employment weakens

worker representation in decision making. Unlike in the case of permanent employees as

provided by Labour Amendment Act 5 of 2015 section, management are by law allowed to

lay off temporary workers without consulting the works council of their intentions. ILO

(2011) also viewed this as a global erosion of precarious workers‟ representation forums as

they as they do not have any influence on workplace issues related to job security.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Intimidation and threats to worker representatives should be discouraged as this

diminishes workplace democracy for fixed term and casual contract workers at LSSS

which may in turn destruct workplace harmony. Employees‟ fear to take part in

decision making may force them to externalise their workplace matters to institutions

such as trade unions. Trade union intervention may cost the organisation through

unending negotiations with such unions.

2. Management should also thrive to constantly implement decisions that they agree

upon with workers or their representatives. Employees see no influence of their input

in decision making if these decisions are not implemented after being mutually agreed

upon. Implementing these decisions will not only guarantee workplace democracy but

it also motivates employees which is a plus for LSSS as motivated workers work

hard. This boost their performance, hence LSSS will be able to retain the contract

with their client organisation through pleasing worker performance

3. Employees should participate in decision making on all matters that directly affect

their work life. This is because these issues bear effect on worker performance,

morale and satisfaction. Matters such as day to day work activities like work

schedules, work patterns and transfer issues which employees are neglected from

participation as this could have a negative impact on their performance and morale.


4. LSSS should ensure that workplace democracy strategies are used sorely for to

advancing worker and employer interest not of one party at the expense of the other.

This can be done through mutually agreeing the agendas to be discussed and

recognition of all participants regardless of the form of employment (whether one is

part of management or the other is a fixed contract worker). More, so management

should not use these platforms to remind employees of their position or employment

status as this may discourage one‟s participation zeal.

5. LSSS employees should also know their right to workplace democracy and the

functions of strategies to workplace democracy as stipulated by law. These rights

include those stated in the Labour Act (Chapter 28:08) pertaining to the freedom of

association, functions of workers committee and works council. Employees can attain

knowledge of such rights through asking for legal instruments from management.

Management should also engage workers committee representatives in workshops

which educate them on the duties they are expected to deliver in such forums. Their

failure to understand these rights may lead the employer to take advantage and exploit

their rights to participation in some decisions at enterprise level.

CONCLUSION

This research unveils the impact to the advancement of workplace democracy among workers

in precarious work arrangements at LSSS. The research findings reveal existence of

institutions to advance industrial democracy in the organisation. However precarious

employment presents challenges towards the promotion of worker participation and

involvement in workplace decision making among fixed and casual contract workers. The

nature of contracts for precarious workers makes them vulnerable to management

unilateralism in decisions made even when such decisions impact their working lives.

Decisions relating to employee transfers, management of leave days, job evaluation, transfer

from one bank to another are of interest to employee concerns. However management at

LSSS have often times arrived at the decisions without consulting employees, a threat to the

tenets of industrial democracy. In order to guarantee workplace harmony industrial

democracy becomes an imperative regardless of the nature of employment contracts for an

organisation‟s most valued assets, its employees.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Armstrong, M (2006) A Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice 10th edition,

Kogan Page: London.

Atkinson, J. (1987). 'Flexibility or Fragmentation? The United Kingdom Labour Market in

the Eighties' Labour and Society, 12 (1): 87-105.

Bailey G. A (2007) A Guide To Qualitative Field Research Second Edition, Pine Forge Press:

Califonia.

Brione. P and Nicholson. C (2012) Employee Empowerment: Towards greater workplace

democracy, Centre Forum: London

Burgess. J and Campbell. I (1998) The Nature and Dimensions of Precarious Employment in

Australia, Labour & Industry: a journal of the social and economic relations of work, 8:3, 5-

21, DOI: Retrieved on http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10301763.1998.1066175 (Accessed on

4August 2015).

Bryman, A (2012) Social Research Methods 4th

Edition, Oxford University Press: New York.

Dooley, D. (1995) Social Research Methods, 3rd Edition, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Evans. J and Gibb. E (2009) Moving from precarious employment to decent work, Global

Union Research Network: Geneva.

Golembiewski, R. (1982). Toward Democracy within and through Administration: A Primer

to Inspire and Guide OD Applications. In Uveges, J. (Eds.) Public Administration: History

and Theory in Contemporary Perspective. Marcel Dekker: New York.

Helms, M.M, and Cengage, G (2006) Participative Management, Encyclopedia of

Management online. Retrieved from http://www.enotes.com/management-

encyclopedia/participative-management (Accessed on 02 August 2015)

Gollan, P.J and Patmore, G. (2002), Partnership at Work, The Challenge of Employee

Democracy, Pluto Press: Sydney.

International Labour Organisation (2011), Policies and Laws To Combat Precarious

Employment, ILO Publications: Geneva.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10301763.1998.1066175

http://www.enotes.com/management-encyclopedia/participative-management

http://www.enotes.com/management-encyclopedia/participative-management


International Labour Organisation (2012), From precarious work to decent work, ILO

Publications: Geneva

KPMG (2014) Report: Precarious Employment: The Employers‟ perspective, Available on:

http://pepsoutwt.files.wordpress.com (accessed on 17 March 2015).

Kumar .R (2004) Research Methodology, Anurag: New Delhi

Labour Act [Chapter 28:01], (2006), Harare: Printflow

Labour Amendment Act of 2015, (2015) Harare: Printflow

Lansbury, R (2009) Workplace democracy and the global financial crisis, University of

Sydney: Sydney.

Leedy, P. D. (1993) Practical Research: Planning and design, McGraw Hill, New York.

Lewis, P, Thornhill, A. and Saunders, M. (2003) Employee Relations: Understanding the

Employment Relationship, Pearson Education Limited: London.

Lewis, P, Thornhill, A. and Saunders, M. (2003) Employee Relations: Understanding the

Employment Relationship, Pearson Education Limited: London.

Machaka, D (2013) Zimbabwean workers overly protected, Sunday Mail 25 August 2013

Marchington, M, Goodman, J, Wilkinson, A. and Ackers, P. (1992) New development in

employee involvement, Employment Department Research Series, Employment department

publication, No 2

Maphosa, G.J (1991), Industrial democracy in Zimbabwe: case of Ziscosteel: Redcliff, xviii

(1), pp15 – 23.

Muchichwa, N and Matombo, T (2006) The effects of casualization on the workforce of

Zimbabwe, Labour and Economic Development Research Institution of Zimbabwe: Harare.

Richer. L, P (1999) An Evaluation Of Employee Initiatives In Canada, Industrial Relations

Centre: Kingston.

Rodgers, G and Rodgers, J (1989) Precarious Jobs in Labour Market Regulation; the Growth

of Atypical Employment in Western Europe, International Institute for Labour Studies,

International Labour Organisation, Geneva

http://pepsoutwt.files.wordpress.com/


Saunders, M, Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (1997) Research Methods for Business Students,

Pearson Professional Limited: London.

Sashkin, M. (1984). Participative Management Is an Ethical Imperative. Organizational

Dynamics. Spring 12(4) pp. 4-22.

Somekh, B and Lewin, C (2011) Theory and Methods in Social Research, Sage Publications:

London.

Summers, J and Hyman, J (2005) Employee Participation and Company Performance, Joseph

Rowntree Foundation: Layerthorpe.

Tucker, D (2002), „Precarious‟ Non-Standard Employment: A Review of the Literature,

Wellington: Labour Market Policy Group.

Turner, L. (1998), Fighting for Partnership: Labour and Politics, Cornell Press: New York.

Petersson, M. and Spängs, A. (2005) A multiple-case study of workplace democracy,

retrieved from: KTH Publications Database DiVA http://kth.diva-

portal.org/smash/search/jsf?rvn=3 (Accessed on 19 August 2015).

Poole, M. (1986). Towards a New Industrial Democracy: Workers‟ Participation in Industry.

Routledge: London.

Punch, K.F (1998) Introduction to Social Research: quantitative and Qualitative Approaches,

Sage Publication: New Dehli.

Wilson, N. and Peel, M. (1990) The impact of profit-sharing, worker participation, and share

ownership on absenteeism and quits. London: Routledge.

Van de Vliet. M (2012) An Alternative Organisational Model: Workplace Democracy,

Retrieved from http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=122513 (Accessed on 12 August 2015.

http://kth.diva-portal.org/smash/search/jsf?rvn=3

http://kth.diva-portal.org/smash/search/jsf?rvn=3

http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=122513


Appendix 1

Questionnaires for shop floor employees

My name is Prince Takaindisa and I am a student at Midlands State University. I designed

this questionnaire in partial fulfilment BScs Degree in Human Resource Management

aimed at soliciting information on the study entitled “Impact of precarious employment in

advancing workplace democracy”. A case of Lorimak Strategic Staffing Services (Pvt)

Ltd. Kindly respond to the questionnaire as your participation is of great value towards the

completion and success of this research study. The information you provide for this research

study will be kept confidential and will also be used only for academic use.

In the case where applicable, please tick the appropriate boxes. In the case where your views

are sought, please provide your responses in the space(s) provided.

Section A

a) Gender

Male Female

b) Age (years)

20-25 26-35 36-45 45+

c) Educational Qualifications

O‟Level A Level Certificate Diploma None

d) Form of Employment

Casual work Fixed Contract Seasonal Work

e) How long have you been in this organisation under the

form of contract stated above?

Less than 1 year 1to 2years Over 2 years


f) How long is your current contract at LSSS?

0-3Months 4-9months above 9months

Statement Agree Neutral Disagree

1. Employees at LSSS are involved

and participate in workplace decisions that affect them.

2. LSSS workplace democracy

forums effectively enhance the interests of employees.

3. Workplace democracy is

beneficial to both the organisation and employees.

4. My job allows me to participate

in workplace decisions.

5. LSSS has provisions giving

employee right to take part in the works councils and

forming workers committees.

6. There is effective recognition of

employee decisions from worker committee and works

council.

7. Works council and workers

committee effectively represent the interests of

employees.

8. At LSSS initiatives that enhance

workplace democracy such as quality circles and

suggestion schemes are available to workers.

9. HR updates and consults

employees on issues that affect them.

10. HR creates a democratic

organisation that allows employees to freely participate

in workplace decisions.

11. Employment status affects the

degree of employee participation and influence in

workplace decisions.


12. Describe the nature of decisions that you participate or involved in

at LSSS?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

13. What strategies are available to promote participation and

involvement or workers in decision making at LSSS? Tick the applicable area.

Workers committee Team briefings

Works council Suggestion schemes

Quality Circle Self-managed teams

Others (specify) ………………………………………………………………...

14. What are some of the challenges you encounter when involved in these strategies?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………

15. How does the form your employment contract affect your participation and

involvement in workplace forums at LSSS? (Please explain).

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………

16. Are these worker participation and involvement forums effective in enhancing the

interests of workers in precarious employment? (Explain your answer).

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………


17. How does your form of employment disadvantage you?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………

18. Are there any benefits that accrue to you as a result of your form of contract?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………

THANK YOU


APPENDIX 2

Interview for Worker Committee Members

1. What is your understanding of the terms workplace democracy and precarious

employment?

2. To what extent is there workplace democracy at LSSS?

3. Describe the forms of employment contracts for workers at LSS?

4. In what ways do these forms affect participation and involvement by these in decision

making?

5. Describe the nature of decisions that these take part in at LSSS?

6. What strategies are in place at LSSS to provide the participation and involvement?

7. Comment on the effectiveness of these, given the nature of contracts for these at

LSSS?

8. Would you think these forms of contracts are of any advantage to employees at

LSSS? Explain.

9. What is the attitude of management towards the involvement and participation by

employees in decision making in the light of the existing forms of employment

contracts?

10. Are there any decisions that management unilaterally made by management without

consulting employees and their representation. Please give details.

11. Comment on the role of HR in promoting the participation and involvement by these

in various non-permanent employment?

12. What challenges have you faced in advancing in non-permanent employment?

13. What suggestions would you make for the organisation towards advancing workplace

democracy for non- permanent contract staff?

THANK YOU


APPENDIX 3

Interviews for HR Managers and Management

1. What do you understand by the following terms: workplace democracy and precarious

employment?

2. What are the various forms of precarious employment at LSSS?

3. What are the reasons for the organisation to engage employees on precarious

employment arrangements?

4. Do you consider precarious workers worthy involving in workplace decisions and if

so, why?

5. What workplace democracy strategies are there in place to promote the participation

and involvement of workers in workplace decisions?

6. What issues are discussed in these workplace democracy forums?

7. What decisions are often made unilaterally by management?

8. Why are employees not consulted in these?

9. To what extent do employees influence decisions made through various strategies in

place at LSSS?

10. Comment on how advancing workplace democracy for workers in precarious

employment contributes toward the achievement of organisational goals.

11. What impact is brought on workplace democracy through engagement of employees

in precarious employment?

12. What challenges does both management and HR face in advancing workplace

democracy for workers in precarious employment.

13. In what ways do you think the organisation can improve the degree of workplace

democracy for workers in precarious employment?

THANK YOU

prince takaindisa final dissertation

Documents