The world of work is facing an ongoing pandemic and an economic downturn with severe effects worldwide. Workers trapped in precarious employment (PE), both formal and informal, are among those most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we call attention to at least 5 critical ways that the consequences of the crisis among workers in PE will be felt globally: (a) PE will increase, (b) workers in PE will become more precarious, (c) workers in PE will face unemployment without being officially laid off, (d) workers in PE will be exposed to serious stressors and dramatic life changes that may lead to a rise in diseases of despair, and (e) PE might be a factor in deterring the control of or in generating new COVID-19 outbreaks. We conclude that what we really need is a new social contract, where the work of all workers is recognized and protected with adequate job contracts, employment security, and social protection in a new economy, both during and after the COVID-19 crisis.

The prevalence of precarious employment has increased in recent decades and aspects such as employment insecurity and income inadequacy have intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify, appraise, and synthesise existing evidence pertaining to implemented initiatives addressing precarious employment that have evaluated and reported health and well-being outcomes. We used the PRISMA framework to guide this review and identified 11 relevant initiatives through searches in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and three sources of grey literature. We found very few evaluated interventions addressing precarious employment and its impact on the health and well-being of workers globally. Ten out of 11 initiatives were not purposefully designed to address precarious employment in general, nor specific dimensions of it. Seven out of 11 initiatives evaluated outcomes related to the occupational health and safety of precariously employed workers and six out of 11 evaluated worker health and well-being outcomes. Most initiatives showed the potential to improve the health of workers, although the evaluation component was often described with less detail than the initiative itself. Given the heterogeneity of the 11 initiatives regarding study design, sample size, implementation, evaluation, economic and political contexts, and target population, we found insufficient evidence to compare outcomes across types of initiatives, generalize findings, or make specific recommendations for the adoption of initiatives.

The aim is to identify trajectories of precarious employment (PE) over time in Sweden to examine associations of these with the subsequent risk of myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke. This is a nation-wide register-based cohort study of 1,583,957 individuals aged 40 to 61 years old residing in Sweden between 2003-2007. Trajectories of PE as a multidimensional construct and single PE components (contractual employment relationship, temporariness, income levels, multiple job holding, probability of coverage by collective agreements) were identified for 2003-2007 by means of group-based model trajectories. Risk Ratios (RR) for MI and stroke according to PE trajectories were calculated by means of generalized linear models with binomial family. Adjusted estimates showed that constant PE and borderline PE trajectories increased the risk of MI (RR: 1·08, CI95%:1·05-1·11 and RR:1·13, CI95%: 1·07-1·20 respectively) and stroke (RR:1·14, CI95%: 1·10-1·18 and HR:1·24, CI95%: 1·16-1·33 respectively) among men. A higher risk of stroke in men was found for the following unidimensional trajectories: former agency employees (RR:1·32, CI95%:1·04-1·68); moving from high to a low probability of having collective agreements (RR: 1·10, CI95%:1·01-1·20). Having constant low or very low income was associated to an increased risk of MI and Stroke for both men and women. The study findings provide evidence that PE increases the risk of stroke and possibly MI. It highlights the importance of being covered by collective bargaining agreements, being directly employed and having sufficient income levels over time. The Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, no. 2019-01226.

This rapid scoping review of existing evidence and research gaps addressed the following question: what research evidence exists and what are the research gaps at global, regional, and national levels on interventions to protect jobs, small- and medium-sized enterprises, and formal/informal sector workers in socioeconomic response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic? The results are based on 79 publications deemed eligible for inclusion after the screening and prioritizing of 1,658 records. The findings are organized according to the 3 main categories of socioeconomic interventions—protecting jobs, enterprises, and workers—although the 3 are intertwined. Most results were derived from global-level gray literature with recommendations for interventions and implicit links to the sustainable development goals. Based on research gaps uncovered in the review, future implementation science research needs to focus on designing, implementing, evaluating, and scaling: effective evidence-based socioeconomic interventions; equity-focused, redistributive, and transformative interventions; comprehensive packages of complementary interventions; interventions to upend root causes of systemic social inequities; collaborative and participatory approaches; interventions that integrate environmental sustainability; and city-level interventions. Failing to consider the environmental dimensions of economic recovery is shortsighted and will ultimately exacerbate social inequities and poverty and undermine economic stability in the long term.

In recent decades, economic crises and political reforms focused on employment flexibilization have increased the use of non-standard employment (NSE). National political and economic contexts determine how employers interact with labour and how the state interacts with labour markets and manages social welfare policies. These factors influence the prevalence of NSE and the level of employment insecurity it creates, but the extent to which a country's policy context mitigates the health influences of NSE is unclear. This study describes how workers experience insecurities created by NSE, and how this influences their health and well-being, in countries with different welfare states: Belgium, Canada, Chile, Spain, Sweden, and the United States. Interviews with 250 workers in NSE were analysed using a multiple-case study approach. Workers in all countries experienced multiple insecurities (e.g., income and employment insecurity) and relational tension with employers/clients, with negative health and well-being influences, in ways that were shaped by social inequalities (e.g., related to family support or immigration status). Welfare state differences were reflected in the level of workers' exclusion from social protections, the time scale of their insecurity (threatening daily survival or longer-term life planning), and their ability to derive a sense of control from NSE. Workers in Belgium, Sweden, and Spain, countries with more generous welfare states, navigated these insecurities with greater success and with less influence on health and well-being. Findings contribute to our understanding of the health and well-being influences of NSE across different welfare regimes and suggest the need in all six countries for stronger state responses to NSE. Increased investment in universal and more equal rights and benefits in NSE could reduce the widening gap between standard and NSE.