Jump to content

Talk:Contingent work: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Squashy (talk | contribs)
casual work
No edit summary
 
(30 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=y|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Business|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Economics|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Law|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Organized Labour|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health|importance=Top}}
}}
{{merged-from|Contingent workforce|30 November 2016}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|archiveprefix=Talk:Contingent work/Archive
|format= %%i
|age=2160|<!--90 days-->
|header={{automatic archive navigator}}
|maxarchsize=100000
|minkeepthreads=4
|numberstart=1
}}


==Untitled==

This entry does not offer a complete, balanced picture of "contingent work." It opens with a link to what looks like a blog and a small online survey to support the claim that contingent work generally pays more than permanent work. Other sources (ones that strike me as reliable) paint a different picture. See, for example:
== casual work ==
Karen Kosanovich. A Look at Contingent Workers. Sept. 2018 at https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2018/contingent-workers/home.htm

More at: https://www.bls.gov/cps/lfcharacteristics.htm#contingent
I am considering moving this article to [[casual work]]. Although I've had major input into this article, with hindsight I think that the term ''casual work'' is more widespread, and more NPOV than ''contingent work''.
or

2002
That said - casual work perhaps isn't quite the same thing as contingent work. At the moment, I don't think there's enough material to justify [[casual work]] and [[contingent work]] being two separate articles. However, I don't think that ''contingent work'' and ''casual work'' are quite the same thing - in particular, [[part time]] jobs are often considered contingent work, but aren't necessarily casual. And [[full time]] jobs in organisations that have an unusually high staff turnover might be considered contingent work, even if they're not casual.
Nicole Skalski. Explaining the Wage Gap Between Contingent and Non-Contingent Workers. 2002 at https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1170&context=parkplace

[[User:Jk180|Jk180]] ([[User talk:Jk180|talk]]) 15:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Also - the term [[contingent work]] seems to be used more commonly by those who consider it a social issue. Although such an opinion wouldn't be NPOV in itself, I still believe that it's legitimate to have an encyclopædia article covering those viewpoints. And I feel as though it would be more appropriate in an article about [[contingent work]] than in one about [[casual work]]. If there ''is'' scope to have articles on both subjects, they should definitely link to each other - and if there isn't, then one should redirect to the other.

So I'm undecided, and would like opinions. Thanks. [[User:Squashy|Squashy]] 23:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:57, 31 August 2024


Untitled

[edit]

This entry does not offer a complete, balanced picture of "contingent work." It opens with a link to what looks like a blog and a small online survey to support the claim that contingent work generally pays more than permanent work. Other sources (ones that strike me as reliable) paint a different picture. See, for example: Karen Kosanovich. A Look at Contingent Workers. Sept. 2018 at https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2018/contingent-workers/home.htm More at: https://www.bls.gov/cps/lfcharacteristics.htm#contingent or 2002 Nicole Skalski. Explaining the Wage Gap Between Contingent and Non-Contingent Workers. 2002 at https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1170&context=parkplace Jk180 (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]