User:Squashy/contingent work - article aims

This article is in three sections - firstly, the rant about an article being deleted, secondly, some concerns I have about where to go from here in order to restore things. And thirdly, some positive ideas I've had about how that article could develop once it's been reinstated - which, at the moment, is looking very likely.

The rant
Hooray - it's been restored! I take back my rant! Thanks.

The newbie concerns
The restoration process has also answered my concerns about history.

The ideas
Phew! Now for the ideas. If I do manage to get the article undeleted, this is what I aim to achieve.


 * The article should try to define what is usually meant by contingent work. This is easier said than done, because it's a little bit fuzzy round the edges, though not impossible. It's probably easiest to do this this contrasting contingent work with non-contingent work - perhaps best described as jobs for life. Perhaps there's a better phrase for it - but I don't think it's casual work. All casual work is contingent work - but not all contingent work is casual work. And it's not McJobs either. (Actually - come to think of it - casual work and contingent work are pretty close to each other - and perhaps casual work is the more common term. However, there isn't an article on casual work either yet.)


 * The article should contain some criticism of seeing things in such a black and white way, of contingent vs non-contingent work, if any such criticism exists in credible sources.


 * The article should also briefly try to explain a little of the history of employment law, so that readers understand how our concept of jobs - and therefore also contingent work - have come about. However, perhaps some of this would be more appropriate in a general article about employment. Then again - do we consider jobs in McDonalds franchises to be jobs - or not? Assuming someone is at school and has therefore never worked, is it really necessary to explain the history of the industrial revolution and Lancashire cotton mills in order for them to understand the concept of working at McDonalds? Maybe not. If not, then this stuff doesn't need to be in an article about general employment. However, if it isn't in an article about general employment, then it needs to be explained somewhere else for a person to have an appreciation of what contingent work is - at least on an intellectual level.


 * Of course - no disrespect to any of the people who actually do casual work, on the docks or on building sites etc. But then again - Wikipedia is not for original research. I've got enough of my own experiences of casual work, and I can't pretend that's not why I'm fascinated by the subject - but Wikipedia really isn't the place for it.


 * The article should also list some credible theories about social problems caused either directly by contingent work, or indirectly - for example, by what some see as a trend towards casualisation. The article should also mention some counter-theories. The article should also cite evidence that those from poorer backgrounds or from ethnic minorities are over-represented in contingent work, and under-represented in non-contingent - but without falling into the trap of fallacies of definition in the process. In other words, just because a black or hispanic person does a particular kind of work, it doesn't mean that work is contingent by definition.


 * Oh yeah, it might be a good idea to cite some peer reviewed sources. I'm sure I've read some somewhere, I don't think I've made it all up out of thin air! But I appreciate that anything that can't be backed up, goes.