28 Monthly Labor Review March 2001

Alternative Work Arrangements Alternative Work Arrangements

Characteristics of and preference for

alternative work arrangements, 1999

Characteristics of individuals employed in alternative

work arrangements were similar to those of the 1995 and 1997

surveys; however, the proportion of these workers who prefer

these arrangements has increased since the mid-1990s

Marisa DiNatale

Marisa DiNatale

is an economist in the

Office of Employment

and Unemployment

Statistics, Bureau of

Labor Statistics.

The proportion of the workforce consisting

of independent contractors, on-call workers, temps, and contractors is small, and

the shares of these workers are not growing, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics 1999

Contingent and Alternative Work Arrangements

Survey.1 In 1999, workers in all four alternative

arrangements combined accounted for 9.3 percent of total employment, compared with 9.9 percent in 1997 and 9.8 percent in 1995. Although

independent contractors remained the largest

group numerically, their share of total employment declined slightly between 1997 and 1999.

The proportions of total employment comprised

of the other three arrangements changed little

over the period. (See exhibit 1 and table 1.) Alternative work arrangements are defined in exhibit 1.

Perhaps the most significant finding from the

1999 data is that more workers in alternative employment arrangements are choosing these arrangements. Data on preference for the arrangements show that more workers actually prefer

their alternative work arrangements to traditional

jobs. This was true overall for on-call workers,

and for temps and independent contractors with

3 or fewer years of tenure. Furthermore, among

the four groups, enormous diversity exists in

terms of demographics, earnings, benefit coverage, and preference for the arrangements.

This article uses the data from the 1999 Contingent and Alternative Work Arrangements

supplement to the February Current Population

Survey (CPS) to address several issues relating to

job quality and how or if it has changed since the

prior surveys. In 1995 and 1997, the arrangements differed widely from each other in their

demographics, preferences, and pay. Although

it may be tempting to lump these arrangements

together, a clear distinction can be drawn among

them in terms of job quality and satisfaction. In

particular, independent contractors and workers

provided by contract companies have very different experiences from both on-call and temporary help agency workers.

Since the mid-1980s, some employment analysts have debated the issue of the size and

growth of the workforce in “nonstandard” or alternative employment arrangements. Is a growing trend in nontraditional employment arrangements an indication that more American workers

are being forced into “bad” jobs?2

 Some analysts stereotype workers who are in alternative

arrangements as being in substandard jobs, often citing low earnings, low rates of health insurance and pension coverage, job instability, and

dissatisfaction with work.3 These concerns have

ushered in a host of articles and debates on the

topic. Proponents of the arrangements argue that

these jobs provide much needed flexibility in a

tight labor market for both employers and employees. They claim that these arrangements

enable employers to more easily modify their hiring levels and cost effectiveness when demand

for their goods or services fluctuates.4

 On the
Monthly Labor Review March 2001 29

Workers in alternative arrangements as a percent of total employment, February 1995, 1997,

and 1999

Alternative arrangement February 1995 February 1997 February 1999

Independent contractors

Workers identified as independent contractors,

independent consultants, or freelance workers,

whether they were self-employed or wage and

salary workers ........................................................................... 6.7 6.7 6.3

On-call workers

Workers called to work only as needed, although

they can be scheduled to work for several days

or weeks in a row ...................................................................... 1.7 1.6 1.5

Temporary help agency workers

Workers paid by a temporary help agency, whether

or not their job actually was temporary ................................ 1.0 1.0 .9

Contract company workers

Workers employed by a company that provides them

or their services to others under contract and who

are usually assigned to only one customer and usually

work at the customer’s worksite ............................................. .5 .6 .6

Exhibit 1.

supply side, these alternative arrangements allow individuals

to balance work with nonlabor market activities.5

In response to the emerging interest about workers in alternative work arrangements, the Bureau of Labor Statistics conducted the first supplement to the Current Population Survey

on this topic (and on contingent workers) in February 1995;

subsequent surveys were conducted in February 1997 and

February 1999.6 This article focuses on workers in alternative

arrangements; an accompanying article beginning on page 3

profiles contingent workers from the same CPS supplement

and further defines alternative employment arrangements.7

Independent contractors

More than 8 million persons worked as independent contractors, freelancers, or independent consultants in 1999. (BLS

refers to these three groups of workers collectively as independent contractors.) These workers accounted for more than

6 percent of all employed persons, slightly below their shares

of total employment in 1995 and 1997. (See exhibit 1.)

Demographic characteristics. The demographic characteristics of independent contractors have not changed significantly across the three surveys. (See table 2.) Compared with

traditional workers, independent contractors were more likely

to be men, older, and white. (See table 3.) Independent contractors were also somewhat more highly educated than

traditional workers. A little more than one-third of independent contractors aged 25–64 were college graduates, and

about 12 percent held an advanced degree. These proportions were slightly lower for traditional workers—31 percent were college graduates, and 10 percent held advanced

degrees. (See table 3.)

Part-time status and hours. Both male and female independent contractors older than 20 years were twice as likely as

their counterparts in traditional arrangements to work part

time. (See table 4.) Despite the relatively high incidence of

part-time work among independent contractors, full-timers in

this arrangement worked longer hours than did traditional fulltime workers. The average workweek for full-time independent contractors was 46.4 hours, compared with 42.5 hours for

traditional workers. In 1999, 15 percent of independent contractors worked more than 60 hours per week, compared with

only 6 percent of traditional workers.

For women, the propensity to work part time may reflect a

desire to balance work with child care. Female independent

contractors were somewhat less likely to have children overall

than women with traditional work arrangements; however,

they were more likely to have pre-school children than women

in traditional arrangements. Along the same lines, adult women

were more likely than men in the arrangement to be working
30 Monthly Labor Review March 2001

Alternative Work Arrangements

Incidence of alternative and traditional work arrangements by selected characteristics, February 1999

 [Percent distribution]

Age and sex

 Total, 16 years and older2 ............................................ 131,494 6.3 1.5 .9 .6 90.6

16 to 19 ............................................................................. 6,662 1.1 2.7 1.0 .6 94.0

20 to 24 ............................................................................. 12,462 2.0 1.6 2.0 .7 93.4

25 to 34 ............................................................................. 30,968 4.8 1.5 1.1 .8 91.7

35 to 44 ............................................................................. 36,415 6.8 1.4 .6 .6 90.5

45 to 54 ............................................................................. 28,144 7.7 1.1 .6 .5 90.0

55 to 64 ............................................................................. 13,062 9.3 1.6 .6 .4 88.1

65 and older....................................................................... 3,781 14.8 4.4 .9 .4 79.3

 Men, 16 years and older ............................................. 70,040 7.8 1.4 .7 .8 89.2

16 to 19 ............................................................................. 3,339 1.4 2.8 1.1 .9 93.3

20 to 24 ............................................................................. 6,489 2.4 1.8 1.8 1.1 92.5

25 to 34 ............................................................................. 16,617 5.4 1.2 .9 1.0 91.3

35 to 44 ............................................................................. 19,603 8.7 1.2 .4 .8 88.9

45 to 54 ............................................................................. 14,684 9.6 1.1 .5 .5 88.3

55 to 64 ............................................................................. 7,186 11.3 1.4 .4 .5 86.3

65 and older....................................................................... 2,122 20.1 4.0 .8 .6 74.2

 Women, 16 years and older ........................................ 61,454 4.5 1.7 1.1 .4 92.2

16 to 19 ............................................................................. 3,323 .9 2.6 .9 .2 94.8

20 to 24 ............................................................................. 5,973 1.6 1.4 2.2 .3 94.3

25 to 34 ............................................................................. 14,351 4.0 1.9 1.4 .5 92.2

35 to 44 ............................................................................. 16,812 4.7 1.6 .9 .4 92.4

45 to 54 ............................................................................. 13,459 5.7 1.1 .8 .4 91.9

55 to 64 ............................................................................. 5,876 6.8 1.8 .9 .2 90.2

65 and older....................................................................... 1,659 8.0 5.0 .9 .1 86.0

Race and Hispanic origin3

White ................................................................................. 110,887 6.7 1.5 .8 .5 90.2

Black ................................................................................. 14,620 3.3 1.8 1.7 .7 92.6

Hispanic origin ................................................................... 13,356 3.8 1.8 1.2 .3 92.5

Full- or part-time status

Full-time workers ................................................................ 107,630 5.8 .9 .9 .6 91.8

Part-time workers .............................................................. 23,864 8.6 4.3 1.1 .4 85.2

Educational attainment

 (aged 25 to 64)

Less than a high school diploma ....................................... 10,027 5.5 2.0 1.2 .4 90.6

High school graduates, no college .................................... 33,867 6.4 1.3 .8 .4 90.9

Less than a bachelor’s degree .......................................... 20,842 7.1 1.4 1.0 .6 89.9

College graduates .............................................................. 33,930 7.4 1.2 .5 .7 90.1

1Workers with traditional arrangements are those who do not fall into any of

the “alternative arrangements” categories. 2 Detail may not sum to total employed because a small number of workers

are both “on call” and “provided by contract firms,” and total employed includes

Workers with alternative arrangements

Characteristic

Total

employed

(thousands) Independent

contractors

On-call

workers

Temporary

help

agency

workers

Table 1.

Contract

company

 workers

Workers

with

traditional

arrangements1

day laborers, an alternative arrangement not shown separately. 3Detail for the above race and Hispanic-origin groups will not sum to totals

because data for “other races” group are not presented and Hispanics are

included in both the white and black population groups.

part time by choice (35 percent and 11 percent, respectively).

(See table 4.)

Occupation and industry. The occupational and industrial

distribution of independent contractors did not change from

the prior surveys. In 1999, independent contractors were more

likely than traditional workers to hold managerial, professional

specialty, sales, and production jobs, but were less likely to

work in technical, administrative support, and service occupations. In terms of industry, independent contractors were more

likely than traditional workers to be employed in the agriculture,

construction, finance, and services industries. (See table 5.)

Paid employees. Nearly one-quarter of independent contractors had paid employees in 1999. Of this group, about twothirds had fewer than six employees. This proportion of independent contractors with paid employees fell slightly from the

previous surveys. Depending on whether the business was
Monthly Labor Review March 2001 31

incorporated or unincorporated, the share of workers with

paid employees differed widely. Among independent contractors, more than 50 percent with incorporated businesses

had paid employees, compared with only 14 percent of unincorporated business owners.

Contract company workers

In 1999, contract company workers (769,000) were the smallest of the four alternative work arrangement groups. These

workers are employees of one company but carry out assignments for another company—that is, they work for only one

client at the client’s place of business. Workers in this arrangement made up about the same proportion of total employment across the three surveys. (See exhibit 1.)

Demographic characteristics. As was the case in prior surveys, contract company workers in 1999 were more likely than

traditional workers to be men, aged 20–44, and black. (See

table 3.) The proportion of contract company workers aged

25–64 that had a college degree—more than one-third—was

the highest of all the work arrangements, including the traditional arrangement, and the share that had an advanced degree (10 percent) was about the same for traditional workers.

Part-time status and hours. In 1999, contract company workers were somewhat less likely than traditional workers to be

employed part time. (See table 4.) In prior surveys, they had

been as likely as traditional workers to work part time. The

average workweek for full-time contract company workers was

44.2 hours in 1999, slightly above the average for traditional

workers—42.5 hours.

Occupation and industry. Compared with traditional workers, contract company workers were more likely to hold professional specialty, service, production, and technical jobs,

and were less likely to be in managerial, sales, administrative

support, and operator, fabricator, and laborer positions. (See

table 5.) Nearly 1 in 10 contract company workers were employed as security guards, and a little more than 1 in 10 workers were computer scientists and computer systems analysts.

With regard to industry, services, manufacturing companies,

transportation and public utilities companies, and the government were most likely to use contract company workers.

(See table 5.)

On-call workers

Workers in on-call arrangements numbered 2 million in 1999,

or 1.5 percent of total employment. (See exhibit 1.) Both the

level and the proportion were similar in the prior two surveys.

On-call workers do not have an established schedule for reporting to work, but work, rather, on an as-needed basis; however, they may be scheduled to work for months at a time, as a

substitute teacher, for example.

Demographic characteristics. As in the prior survey, on-call

workers were similar to workers in traditional arrangements,

except that they were slightly more likely to be female and

younger than traditional workers. (See tables 2 and 3.) Among

women, the proportion of on-call workers who were mothers

(61 percent) was slightly higher than their counterparts in

traditional arrangements (56 percent). (See table 4.) Slightly

more than half (56 percent) of 16- to 24-year-olds in the on-call

arrangement were attending school, compared with 44 percent

of workers of the same age range in traditional arrangements.

The educational attainment of on-call workers was lower

than the education levels of traditional workers. For instance,

among 25- to 64-year-olds, 13 percent of on-call workers were

high school dropouts, compared with 9 percent of traditional

workers. (See table 3.) The proportion of on-call workers who

had college degrees (28 percent) was slightly lower than that

for traditional workers (31 percent). Compared with women,

male on-call workers were more likely to have dropped out of

high school. Women in the arrangement were actually more

likely to have graduated college than women in traditional

work arrangements (35 percent and 30 percent, respectively).

Part-time status and hours. The proportion of on-call workers employed part time (51 percent) was much higher than that

for traditional workers (17 percent). (See table 4.) Reflecting

this, the average workweek for on-call workers was 28.1 hours,

the lowest of all arrangements. Among on-call workers in

1999, adult women were nearly 21⁄2 times more likely than men

in the arrangement to work part time (67 percent versus 27

percent, respectively). The number of on-call workers who

preferred to be working part time was up slightly from 1997,

although there was still a substantial share (27 percent) who

would have preferred to work a full-time schedule. This was

nearly twice the rate for traditional workers.

Occupation and industry. There were clear distinctions between gender in the occupational distribution of on-call workers. A large proportion of men in the arrangement were operators, fabricators, and laborers, and most women were employed

in professional specialty and service occupations. (See table

5.) About 1 in 5 women were teachers, presumably substitutes,

and about 1 in 10 women were in health occupations such as

registered nurses and therapists. For women, personal- and

food-service occupations were also among the most common,

and for men the most common occupations were motor vehicle

operators, cleaners and helpers, and other construction trades.

On-call workers were most likely to work in services, trade,

construction, and transportation industries. They were much
32 Monthly Labor Review March 2001

Alternative Work Arrangements

Workers in alternative arrangements by selected characteristics, February 1995, 1997, and 1999

Characteristics 1995 1997 1999 Characteristics 1995 1997 1999

Independent contractors

Age and sex:

 Total 16 years and older ....................... 100.0 100.0 100.0

 16 to 19 ............................................. 1.5 .8 .9

 20 to 24 ............................................. 2.4 2.4 3.1

 25 to 34 ............................................. 19.7 18.3 17.9

 35 to 44 ............................................. 30.8 31.1 30.2

 45 to 54 ............................................. 25.3 26.5 26.4

 55 to 64 ............................................. 13.6 13.9 14.7

 65 and older ....................................... 6.7 7.0 6.8

Men, 16 years and older ........................ 67.3 66.6 66.2

 16 to 19 ............................................. .9 .3 .6

 20 to 24 ............................................. 1.6 1.5 1.9

 25 to 34 ............................................. 12.6 11.4 10.9

 35 to 44 ............................................. 21.0 20.7 20.7

 45 to 54 ............................................. 16.7 17.7 17.0

 55 to 64 ............................................. 9.6 9.9 9.9

 65 and older...................... ............. 4.9 5.1 5.2

 Women, 16 years and older ................. 32.7 33.4 33.8

 16 to 19. ............................................ .6 .5 .4

 20 to 24 . ........................................... .8 .9 1.1

 25 to 34 ............................................. 7.1 7.0 7.0

 35 to 44 ............................................. 9.8 10.4 9.5

45 to 54............................ .............. 8.5 8.8 9.4

 55 to 64 ............................................. 4.0 4.0 4.8

 65 and older ....................................... 1.8 1.9 1.6

Race and Hispanic origin:1

 White .................................................... 92.3 90.7 90.6

 Black .................................................... 5.0 5.3 5.8

 Hispanic origin ...................................... 5.2 7.3 6.1

Educational attainment:

 Total, 25 to 64 years ............................ 100.0 100.0 100.0

 Less than a high school diploma .......... 8.7 8.7 7.5

 High school graduate, no college ......... 29.1 30.3 29.7

 Some college, no degree ..................... 27.9 26.8 28.5

 College graduates ................................ 34.4 34.1 34.3

Marital status:

 All marital statuses .............................. 100.0 100.0 100.0

 Married, spouse present ...................... 70.7 69.2 68.8

 Married, spouse absent ....................... 2.8 3.4 2.7

 Divorced ............................................... 10.0 11.5 11.5

 Widowed ............................................... 2.9 2.2 2.0

 Never married ....................................... 13.5 13.7 15.0

Contract company workers

Age and sex:

 Total 16 years and older ....................... 100.0 100.0 100.0

 16 to 19 ............................................. 2.5 1.9 4.8

 20 to 24 ............................................. 12.7 8.1 11.3

 25 to 34 ............................................. 39.0 34.2 30.5

 35 to 44 ............................................. 23.3 31.1 28.1

 45 to 54 ............................................. 11.8 14.2 17.2

 55 to 64 ............................................. 6.7 7.7 6.1

 65 and older ....................................... 4.1 2.8 1.9

 Men, 16 years and older ...................... 71.5 69.8 70.5

 16 to 19 ............................................. 1.4 1.1 3.8

 20 to 24 ............................................. 6.4 7.7 9.2

 25 to 34 ............................................. 29.8 24.0 21.8

 35 to 44 ............................................. 19.0 21.9 20.1

 45 to 54 ............................................. 5.7 9.1 9.4

 55 to 64.. ........................................... 5.2 5.1 4.6

 65 and older. ...................................... 4.1 0.9 1.6

 Women, 16 years and older ................. 28.5 30.2 29.5

 16 to 19 ............................................. 1.1 .8 1.0

 20 to 24 ............................................. 6.1 .4 2.0

Table 2.

 On-call workers

Age and sex:

 Total 16 years and older ........................ 100.0 100.0 100.0

 16 to 19 ............................................. 7.9 9.6 8.8

 20 to 24. ............................................ 12.6 11.9 9.9

 25 to 34 ............................................. 24.6 22.5 23.1

 35 to 44 ............................................. 23.7 25.4 24.9

 45 to 54 ............................................. 15.7 14.4 14.9

 55 to 64.. ........................................... 9.2 9.7 10.1

 65 and older ....................................... 6.4 6.5 8.2

Men, 16 years and older ........................ 50.1 49.0 48.8

 16 to 19 ............................................. 4.1 5.3 4.6

 20 to 24 ............................................. 7.4 6.4 5.9

 25 to 34 ............................................. 13.0 11.8 10.0

 35 to 44 ............................................. 11.8 12.1 11.6

 45 to 54. ............................................ 6.8 6.9 7.6

 55 to 64. ............................................ 3.7 3.9 5.0

 65 and older. ...................................... 3.4 2.6 4.2

 Women, 16 years and older .................. 49.9 51.0 51.2

 16 to 19 ............................................. 3.8 4.3 4.2

 20 to 24 ............................................. 5.1 5.4 4.0

 25 to 34. ............................................ 11.6 10.6 13.1

 35 to 44 ............................................. 11.9 13.4 13.4

45 to 54 .............................................. 8.9 7.5 7.3

55 to 64 .............................................. 5.5 5.8 5.1

65 and older ....................................... 3.0 3.9 4.1

Race and Hispanic origin1

 White .................................................... 84.0 89.3 84.2

 Black .................................................... 11.0 7.8 12.7

 Hispanic origin....................... ........... 12.5 13.3 11.6

Educational attainment:

 Total, 25 to 64 years ............................ 100.0 100.0 100.0

 Less than a high school diploma .......... 13.4 13.4 13.4

 High school graduate, no college ......... 35.1 28.7 29.6

 Some college, no degree ..................... 30.7 32.0 29.1

 College graduates ................................ 20.8 25.9 27.9

Marital status:

 All marital statuses .............................. 100.0 100.0 100.0

 Married, spouse present ...................... 54.8 51.4 52.3

 Married, spouse absent ....................... 3.8 4.8 3.9

 Divorced ............................................... 9.2 10.2 8.2

 Widowed ............................................... 2.8 3.5 3.2

 Never married ....................................... 29.4 30.2 32.3

Race and Hispanic origin1

 White .................................................... 83.0 81.5 79.2

 Black .................................................... 11.7 12.9 12.6

 Hispanic origin ...................................... 8.4 6.3 6.0

Educational attainment:

 Total, 25 to 64 years ............................ 100.0 100.0 100.0

 Less than a high school diploma .......... 9.5 7.2 6.4

 High school graduate, no college ......... 29.8 36.8 22.7

 Some college, no degree ..................... 30.2 23.4 31.9

 College graduates ................................ 30.6 32.7 38.9

Marital status:

 All marital statuses .............................. 100.0 100.0 100.0

 Married, spouse present ...................... 55.7 58.1 44.1

 Married, spouse absent ....................... 2.6 3.5 6.5

 Divorced ............................................... 8.3 10.8 10.4

 Widowed ............................................... 2.1 1.4 1.3

 Never married ....................................... 31.3 26.2 37.6

 25 to 34 ............................................. 9.2 10.3 8.8

 35 to 44 ............................................. 4.3 9.2 8.0

 45 to 54 ............................................. 6.3 5.1 7.8

 55 to 64 ............................................. 1.5 2.6 1.6

 65 and older ....................................... – 1.9 .3

1

See Footnote at end of table.
Monthly Labor Review March 2001 33

more likely than workers in traditional arrangements to be employed in the services industry.

Temporary help agency workers

In February 1999, there were 1.2 million temporary help agency

workers who accounted for 0.9 percent of total employment.

(See exhibit 1.) The proportion was almost unchanged from

the previous survey. Like contract company workers, temp

workers are paid employees of the temp agency and work at

the clients’ sites.

Demographic characteristics. As with all other alternative

arrangements, the characteristics of temporary help workers

were similar to those found in past surveys. (See table 2.) Temp

workers were disproportionately young, black or Hispanic origin, and female. The temporary help arrangement had the highest concentration of women of any arrangement—nearly threefifths of workers in the arrangement were women. In terms of

age, more than one-quarter of temp workers were under 25 years,

and more than half were under 34 years. Compared with other

work arrangements, temp help agency workers had the largest

proportions of blacks and Hispanics. In fact, temps were nearly

twice as likely as traditional workers to be black. School enrollment among young temporary agency workers was up from 16

percent in 1997 to 23 percent in 1999. This arrangement had

the highest rate of high school dropouts among the four alternative arrangements—15 percent of those aged 25–64. About

21 percent of this age group were college graduates—10 percentage points lower than traditional workers. (See table 3.)

Of women in any alternative arrangement, temps were most

likely to have children. (See table 4.) In February 1999, twothirds of women in the arrangement had children, compared

with a little more than half in traditional arrangements. The

share of women with children in the temp arrangement increased

substantially from 1997, when not quite half had children.

Part-time status and hours. Just under four-fifths of temp

workers were on a full-time schedule in February 1999, which

was slightly below the traditional workers’ rate. (See table 4.)

Of those employed part time, roughly one-half were doing so

for economic reasons—that is, they would have preferred fulltime work. This was a substantially higher proportion than for

workers in all other arrangements.

Occupation and industry. Temporary help agency workers

were most likely to work in administrative and clerical jobs and

in operator, fabricator, and laborer jobs. Women in this arrangement were more likely to be in the former occupations,

and men were more likely to be in the latter ones.

Temp workers were much more likely to work in the manufacturing and services industries (relative to traditional workers), and they were less likely than traditional workers to be

assigned to government agencies, and trade companies. (See

table 5.)

As can be seen from the above analysis, independent contractors and contract company workers are overwhelmingly

male and highly educated. Temporary agency and on-call

workers are more likely than traditional workers to be female,

black or of Hispanic origin. Independent contractors are generally older than all other categories of workers, and are much

more likely to be white. In contrast, temporary help agency

workers tend to be much younger than workers in other types

of arrangements. Independent contractors and contract comContinued—Workers in alternative arrangements by selected characteristics, February 1995, 1997, and 1999

Characteristics 1995 1997 1999 Characteristics 1995 1997 1999

Table 2.

 Temporary help agency workers

Age and sex:

 Total 16 years and older ........................ 100.0 100.0 100.0

 16 to 19 ............................................. 5.2 6.1 5.8

 20 to 24 ............................................. 19.7 16.5 20.9

 25 to 34 ............................................. 34.1 30.3 29.3

 35 to 44 ............................................. 21.3 21.5 19.4

 45 to 54 ............................................. 12.1 16.2 15.4

 55 to 64 ............................................. 5.8 6.7 6.5

 65 and older ....................................... 1.8 2.8 2.8

 Men, 16 years and older ...................... 47.2 44.7 42.2

 16 to 19 ............................................. 3.0 2.9 3.2

 20 to 24 ............................................. 11.4 9.6 9.6

 25 to 34 ............................................. 16.8 15.1 12.2

 35 to 44 ............................................. 7.7 6.9 7.0

 45 to 54 ............................................. 4.4 6.2 6.3

 55 to 64 ............................................. 2.8 2.2 2.2

 65 and older ....................................... 1.1 1.7 1.6

 Women, 16 years and older .................. 52.8 55.3 57.8

 16 to 19 ............................................. 2.3 3.2 2.5

 20 to 24 ............................................. 8.3 6.9 11.3

 25 to 34 ............................................. 17.4 15.1 17.1

1 Detail for the race and Hispanic-origin groups will not sum to totals

because data for the “other races” group are not presented and Hispanics are

included in both the white and black population groups.

NOTE: Dash indicates data not available.

 35 to 44 ............................................. 13.5 14.6 12.4

 45 to 54 ............................................. 7.7 10.0 9.0

 55 to 64 ............................................. 2.9 4.4 4.2

 65 and older ....................................... .8 1.1 1.3

Race and Hispanic origin1

 White ................................................... 72.7 75.1 74.3

 Black ................................................... 21.8 21.3 21.2

 Hispanic origin .................................... 11.3 12.3 13.6

Educational attainment:

 Total, 25 to 64 years ........................... 100.0 100.0 100.0

 Less than a high school diploma ........ 14.2 11.2 14.6

 High school graduate, no college ........ 33.4 30.7 30.5

 Some college, no degree .................... 32.1 36.3 33.7

 College graduates ............................... 20.3 21.8 21.2

Marital status:

 All marital statuses ............................. 100.0 100.0 100.0

 Married, spouse present ..................... 42.1 40.2 34.1

 Married, spouse absent ...................... 5.8 6.3 4.1

 Divorced......................................... 11.1 12.2 15.7

 Widowed .............................................. 1.4 1.5 1.3

 Never married ...................................... 39.7 39.8 44.9
34 Monthly Labor Review March 2001

Alternative Work Arrangements

Employed persons with alternative and traditional work arrangements by age and sex, race and Hispanic

origin, and educational attainment, February 1999

[Percent distribution]

Age and sex2

 Total, 16 years and older (thousands) .............. 8,247 2,032 1,188 769 119,109

 Percent ............................................................. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

16 to 19 ................................................................ .9 8.8 5.8 4.8 5.3

20 to 24 ................................................................ 3.1 9.9 20.9 11.3 9.8

25 to 34 ................................................................ 17.9 23.1 29.3 30.5 23.9

35 to 44 ................................................................ 30.2 24.9 19.4 28.1 27.7

45 to 54 ................................................................ 26.4 14.9 15.4 17.2 21.3

55 to 64 ................................................................ 14.7 10.1 6.5 6.1 9.7

65 and older ......................................................... 6.8 8.2 2.8 1.9 2.5

 Men, 16 years and older .................................... 66.2 48.8 42.2 70.5 52.4

16 to 19 ................................................................ 0.6 4.6 3.2 3.8 2.6

20 to 24 ................................................................ 1.9 5.9 9.6 9.2 5.0

25 to 34 ................................................................ 10.9 10.0 12.2 21.8 12.7

35 to 44 ................................................................ 20.7 11.6 7.0 20.1 14.6

45 to 54 ................................................................ 17.0 7.6 6.3 9.4 10.9

55 to 64 ................................................................ 9.9 5.0 2.2 4.6 5.2

65 and older ......................................................... 5.2 4.2 1.6 1.6 1.3

 Women, 16 years and older ............................... 33.8 51.2 57.8 29.5 47.6

16 to 19 ................................................................ 0.4 4.2 2.5 1.0 2.6

20 to 24 ................................................................ 1.1 4.0 11.3 2.0 4.7

25 to 34 ................................................................ 7.0 13.1 17.1 8.8 11.1

35 to 44 ................................................................ 9.5 13.4 12.4 8.0 13.0

45 to 54 ................................................................ 9.4 7.3 9.0 7.8 10.4

55 to 64 ................................................................ 4.8 5.1 4.2 1.6 4.5

65 years and older ............................................... 1.6 4.1 1.3 0.3 1.2

Race and Hispanic origin3

White .................................................................... 90.6 84.2 74.3 79.2 84.0

Black .................................................................... 5.8 12.7 21.2 12.6 11.4

Hispanic origin ...................................................... 6.1 11.6 13.6 6.0 10.4

 Educational attainment2

Total, 25 to 64 years

Thousands ........................................................... 7,359 1,485 838 631 98,207

Percent ................................................................ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Less than a high school diploma ...................... 7.5 13.4 14.6 6.4 9.2

High school graduates, no college ................... 29.7 29.6 30.5 22.7 31.4

Less than a bachelor’s degree ......................... 28.5 29.1 33.7 31.9 28.3

College graduates ............................................. 34.3 27.9 21.2 38.9 31.1

Men, 25 to 64 years

Thousands ........................................................... 4,826 695 330 430 51,769

Percent ................................................................ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Less than a high school diploma ...................... 9.5 16.7 19.7 8.4 10.4

High school graduates, no college ................... 30.7 38.1 33.6 23.7 30.8

Less than a bachelor’s degree ......................... 26.8 25.0 25.2 31.6 26.8

College graduates ............................................. 33.0 20.3 21.5 36.0 32.0

Women, 25 to 64 years

Thousands ........................................................... 2,533 790 508 201 46,439

Percent ................................................................ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Less than a high school diploma ...................... 3.8 10.5 11.2 2.0 7.9

High school graduates, no college ................... 27.6 22.2 28.3 20.9 32.0

Less than a bachelor’s degree. ........................ 31.7 32.8 39.4 31.8 29.9

College graduates ............................................. 36.9 34.7 20.9 45.3 30.1

1Workers with traditional arrangements are those who do not fall into any of

the “alternative arrangements” categories. 2 Detail for other characteristics may not sum to totals because of rounding.

Workers with alternative arrangements

3 Detail for race and Hispanic-origin groups will not sum to totals because

data for the “other races” group are not presented and Hispanics are included

in both the white and black population groups.

Characteristic Independent

contractors On-call

workers

Temporary

help

agency

workers

Table 3.

Contract

company

 workers

Workers

with

traditional

arrangements1
Monthly Labor Review March 2001 35

Employed persons with alternative and traditional work arrangements by reasons for full- and parttime status and marital status, February 1999

[Percent distribution]

Full or part-time status

Employed, total (thousands) ............. 131,494 8,247 2,032 1,188 769 119,109

Percent ............................................. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Full-time workers ........................... 81.9 75.1 49.4 78.5 86.9 82.9

Part-time workers .......................... 18.1 24.9 50.6 21.5 13.1 17.1

 Economic reasons ...................... 2.7 4.8 13.7 9.8 4.4 2.3

 Noneconomic reasons ................. 14.9 20.0 34.6 14.1 9.9 14.2

Men, 20 years and older

Employed (thousands) ...................... 66,701 5,412 900 463 513 59,348

Percent ........................................... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Full-time workers ........................... 92.0 85.1 72.7 83.2 91.6 93.0

Part-time workers .......................... 8.0 14.9 27.3 16.8 8.4 7.0

 Economic reasons ...................... 2.4 5.5 12.2 9.1 5.5 1.9

 Noneconomic reasons ................. 6.1 11.3 17.8 11.0 5.8 5.4

Women, 20 years and older

Employed (thousands) ...................... 58,131 2,759 954 657 219 53,496

Percent ........................................... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Full-time workers ........................... 76.7 56.9 33.4 76.1 79.5 78.5

Part-time workers .......................... 23.3 43.1 66.5 23.9 20.5 21.5

 Economic reasons ...................... 3.0 3.6 16.5 10.5 2.7 2.6

 Noneconomic reasons ................. 19.0 35.3 44.7 15.2 14.6 17.7

Both sexes, 16 to 19 years

Employed (thousands) ...................... 6,662 76 179 68 37 6,265

Percent ........................................... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Full-time workers ........................... 25.2 22.4 16.2 (4) (4) 24.9

Part-time workers .......................... 74.8 77.6 83.2 (4) (4) 75.1

 Economic reasons ...................... 4.5 (5) 6.1 (4) (4) 4.5

 Noneconomic reasons ................. 67.7 76.3 65.9 (4) (4) 68.1

Marital status

Employed women, (thousands) .............. 61,454 2,788 1,040 687 227 56,645

Spouses/reference persons, total ....... 40,821 2,092 686 394 130 37,489

Percent .................................................. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

With children under 18 years ............ 56.1 53.1 61.4 66.0 52.3 56.1

Under 6 years .................................. 22.2 24.3 20.1 28.9 13.1 22.1

6 to 17 years ................................... 33.9 28.7 41.3 37.1 40.0 34.0

With no children under 18 years ....... 43.9 46.9 38.6 34.0 46.9 43.9

 Married, spouse present

Employed (thousands) ........................... 33,050 1,844 590 238 89 30,261

Spouses/reference persons ................ 32,590 1,826 577 227 89 29,843

Percent .................................................. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

With children under 18 years ............ 52.7 51.7 58.4 47.6 51.7 52.7

Under 6 years .................................. 21.7 24.9 18.2 21.1 9.0 21.7

6 to 17 years ................................... 31.0 26.8 40.2 26.4 42.7 31.0

With no children under 18 years ....... 47.3 48.4 41.6 52.4 48.3 47.3

All other marital statuses

Employed (thousands) ........................... 28,405 944 450 449 138 26,384

Spouses/reference persons ................ 8,231 266 109 167 41 7,646

Percent .................................................. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

With children under 18 years ............ 69.4 62.4 76.1 91.0 (4) 69.1

Under 6 years .................................. 24.0 20.7 30.3 39.5 (4) 23.7

6 to 17 years ................................... 45.4 42.1 45.9 51.5 (4) 45.4

With no children under 18 years ....... 30.6 37.2 22.9 9.0 (4) 30.9

1

Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding, and total employed includes

day laborers, an alternative arrangement not shown separately. 2

Workers with traditional arrangements are those who do not fall into any

of the “alternative arrangements” categories. 3

Part time is defined as working 1 to 34 hours per week; full time is 35

hours and over. The classification of full- and part-time workers is based on

the number of hours usually worked. The sum of the two at work part time

Characteristic

Workers with alternative arrangements

Total

employed1

Independent

contractors

On-call

workers

Temporary

help

agency workers

Contract

company

workers

Workers

with

traditional

arrangements2

categories do not equal the part-time worker estimate as the latter includes

those not at work during the reference week. Persons at work part time for an

economic reason can work either full or part time on a usual basis; persons at

work part time for a noneconomic reason are limited to those who usually work

part time. 4

Less than 0.05 percent.

5Percentage not shown where base is less than 75,000.

Table 4.
36 Monthly Labor Review March 2001

Alternative Work Arrangements

Employed persons with alternative and traditional work arrangements by occupation and industry,

February 1999

[Percent distribution]

Occupation2

 Total, 16 years and older (thousands) ........... 8,247 2,032 1,188 769 119,109

 Percent ........................................................ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Executive, administrative, and managerial ....... 20.5 5.3 4.3 12.0 14.6

Professional specialty ....................................... 18.5 24.3 6.8 28.8 15.5

Technicians and related support ....................... 1.1 4.1 4.1 6.7 3.3

Sales occupations ............................................ 17.3 5.7 1.8 1.5 12.0

Administrative support, including clerical .......... 3.4 8.2 36.1 3.4 15.0

Service occupations ......................................... 8.8 23.5 8.1 18.8 13.7

Precision production, craft, and repair .............. 18.9 10.1 8.7 16.0 10.5

Operators, fabricators, and laborers ................. 7.0 16.0 29.2 10.7 13.6

Farming, forestry, and fishing ........................... 4.4 2.9 .9 2.2 2.0

 Men, 16 years and older (thousands) ............ 5,459 993 501 542 62,464

 Percent ........................................................ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Executive, administrative, and managerial ....... 22.6 7.2 4.4 10.7 14.7

Professional specialty ....................................... 16.0 13.1 7.0 27.3 13.5

Technicians and related support ....................... 1.2 3.1 5.4 5.7 3.0

Sales occupations ............................................ 15.2 4.4 2.0 .9 11.8

Administrative support, including clerical .......... 1.0 2.5 16.7 1.1 6.1

Service occupations ......................................... 2.5 18.4 5.2 16.6 10.5

Precision production, craft, and repair .............. 26.8 18.4 15.7 21.8 18.1

Operators, fabricators, and laborers ................. 9.2 28.1 42.0 13.1 19.4

Farming, forestry, and fishing ........................... 5.5 4.7 1.6 2.8 2.9

 Women, 16 years and older (thousands) ....... 2,788 1,040 687 227 56,645

 Percent ........................................................ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Executive, administrative, and managerial ....... 16.5 3.6 4.1 15.0 14.6

Professional specialty ....................................... 23.5 35.0 6.7 32.6 17.6

Technicians and related support ....................... 1.1 5.1 3.2 8.8 3.6

Sales occupations ............................................ 21.2 6.8 1.6 2.6 12.2

Administrative support, including clerical .......... 8.3 13.7 50.4 8.8 24.7

Service occupations ......................................... 21.1 28.3 10.3 23.8 17.2

Precision production, craft, and repair .............. 3.4 2.0 3.6 2.2 2.1

Operators, fabricators, and laborers ................. 2.7 4.4 19.7 5.3 7.2

Farming, forestry, and fishing ........................... 2.3 1.1 .4 0.9 0.9

Industry2

 Total, 16 years and older (thousands) ............ 8,247 2,032 1,188 769 119,109

 Percent ........................................................ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Agriculture ......................................................... 4.9 2.2 .4 .4 2.0

Mining ................................................................ .2 .4 .1 2.7 .4

Construction ...................................................... 19.9 9.6 2.5 9.0 5.1

Manufacturing ................................................... 4.6 4.5 29.7 18.0 16.5

Transportation and public utilities ...................... 5.7 9.5 6.1 14.0 7.4

Wholesale and retail trade ................................ 13.7 16.4 8.1 5.4 21.6

Finance, insurance, and real estate ................. 8.8 2.7 7.0 8.9 6.7

Services ............................................................ 42.1 52.0 38.7 27.1 35.2

Public administration ......................................... .2 2.6 (3

) 10.7 5.1

 Men, 16 years and older (thousands) ............. 5,459 993 501 542 62,464

 Percent ........................................................ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Agriculture ......................................................... 5.9 3.9 1.0 .2 2.6

Mining ................................................................ .3 .9 .2 3.5 0.7

Construction ...................................................... 28.1 18.5 4.8 12.7 8.6

Manufacturing ................................................... 4.8 5.0 31.3 21.4 21.6

Transportation and public utilities ...................... 7.2 15.0 6.4 14.2 9.8

Wholesale and retail trade ................................ 12.4 17.6 11.0 6.6 21.7

Finance, insurance, and real estate ................. 7.8 2.3 3.8 6.6 5.2

Services ............................................................ 33.3 33.0 34.1 22.5 24.4

Public administration ......................................... .2 3.7 .2 9.2 5.3

See footnotes at end of table.

Occupation and Industry Independent

contractors On-call

workers

Temporary

help

agency

workers

Contract

company

workers

Workers

with

traditional

arrangements1

Workers with alternative arrangements

Table 5.
Monthly Labor Review March 2001 37

Continued—Employed persons with alternative and traditional work arrangements by occupation and industry,

February 1999

[Percent distribution]

Industry2

 Women, 16 years and older (thousands) ....... 2,788 1,040 687 227 56,645

 Percent ........................................................ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Agriculture ......................................................... 3.0 .6 – .9 1.2

Mining ................................................................ .1 – .1 .9 .1

Construction ...................................................... 3.7 1.1 .7 (3

) 1.3

Manufacturing ................................................... 4.2 3.9 28.4 10.1 10.9

Transportation and public utilities ...................... 2.8 4.2 5.8 13.7 4.7

Wholesale and retail trade ................................ 16.1 15.1 6.0 2.6 21.5

Finance, insurance, and real estate ................. 10.6 3.1 9.5 14.1 8.3

Services ............................................................ 59.3 .7 42.1 38.3 47.2

Public administration ......................................... .2 1.6 1.7 14.5 4.8

1Workers with traditional arrangements are those who do not fall into any of

the “alternative arrangements” categories. 2

Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding and/or to persons not

reporting. For temp workers and workers provided by contract firms, the

Workers with alternative arrangements

Occupation and Industry Independent

contractors

On-call

workers

Temporary

help

agency

workers

Contract

company

workers

Workers

with

traditional

arrangements1

industry classification is that of the place to which they were assigned. 3

Less than 0.05 percent.

NOTE: Dash indicates data not available.

Table 5.

pany workers also are more likely to have graduated from college than other groups of workers.

 One common characteristic of the alternative work arrangements is that workers in every arrangement, except for contract company workers, are more likely to work part time than

workers in traditional arrangements. Perhaps this phenomenon is related to the fact that female on-call and temporary

help agency workers are more likely to have children than

women in other arrangements. Although female independent

contractors are less likely than traditional workers to have any

children, they are more likely to have children under 6 years

old, perhaps explaining their propensity to work part time. Fulltime independent contractors and contract company workers

work longer hours per week than any other type of worker.

Also, temps and on-call workers have lower average weekly

hours than workers in the other arrangements.

The following discussion focuses on further differences

among the four groups in alternative work arrangements in

terms of their preferences and reasons for being in their

employment arrangements.

Tenure and contingency

One perceived aspect of job quality is stability, a trait which

most analysts view as desirable. Not all workers prefer a job

that continues, however. The two indicators of job stability

for workers in alternative arrangements are tenure and contingency. Tenure measures the length of the relationship between the worker and the employer. Workers are contingent if

they believe the nature of their jobs to be temporary, or if there

is no explicit or implicit contract for ongoing employment in

the positions. Being in an alternative arrangement does not

automatically make a worker contingent; indeed, contingency

rates vary greatly across the four arrangements, and the vast

majority of contingent workers are in traditional arrangements.

BLS constructs three measures of contingency. The first

measure is the narrowest. The third is the broadest, and is

also the one most commonly cited. However, for temporary

help agency workers and contract company workers, it is interesting to look at the rate of contingency using the BLS first

estimate of contingency because it measures attachment to

the arrangement, rather than to the worker’s particular assignment. Specifically, a temp or a contract company worker is

considered contingent under this estimate if their employment

arrangement with the temporary help or contract company is

expected to last for 1 year or less, and they work for that expected duration. This is an important distinction for contract

company workers and temps because even if they think they

cannot continue in a particular assignment indefinitely, they

may believe they can continue working in the arrangement for

as long as they wish. Therefore, it is misleading to consider a

high rate of contingency under estimate 3 as an indication of

job instability if the worker can stay indefinitely with the contract company or temp help agency.
38 Monthly Labor Review March 2001

Alternative Work Arrangements

Independent contractors had the most stable jobs by these

criteria. As in 1997, only a small fraction of independent contractors in 1999 reported that their job was contingent—3 percent. (See table 6.) These workers had the lowest rate of

contingency across all alternative arrangements, and they had

about the same contingency rate as workers in traditional arrangements. Therefore, independent contractors perceive

their jobs to be very stable.

Not suprisingly, independent contractors also had the

longest median tenure across all arrangements; in fact, they

had higher median tenure than did workers in traditional arrangements. (See table 7.) A substantial number of independent contractors had been in their arrangement for quite a

long time: 43 percent had been in their jobs for at least 10

years, and 18 percent had been in the arrangement for more

than 20 years. These rates were much higher than those for

traditional workers, perhaps reflecting the older age profile of

independent contractors.

Judging from these data, it appears that independent contractors generally have stable work arrangements. This probably reflects the fact that they have a stronger attachment to

their arrangement than to a particular client or employer.

In 1999, 20 percent of contract company workers were

contingent under the broadest (estimate 3) definition. By contrast, only 3 percent of traditional workers were contingent.

Looking at the rate of contingency under estimate 1 (which

measures attachment to the arrangement rather than to the

assignment), only 6 percent were contingent. (See table 6.)

For contract company workers, the median tenure in the

arrangement was 2.1 years, and the median tenure in the assignment was 1.6 years. The majority of contract workers had

been in the arrangement for more than a year, but 43 percent

had been in their jobs for a year or less. Only 10 percent had

been contract workers for more than 10 years, and 2 percent

had more than 20 years of tenure.

Contract company workers, on average, are younger than

traditional workers, and this may help explain some of the

tenure disparity between the two arrangements.

Under contingency estimate 3, about 28 percent of on-call

workers felt that they could not continue in their jobs for as

long as they wished. (See table 6.) Median tenure for those in

the arrangement also has not changed since 1997, remaining

at about 2 years. (See table 7.)

In 1999, 56 percent of temporary help agency workers were

Employed persons with alternative and traditional work arrangements by contingent and noncontingent

employment, February 1999

[Percent distribution]

Total

With alternative arrangements:

Independent contractor ............................................ 8,247 (2

) 2.9 2.9 97.1

On-call workers ........................................................ 2,032 12.6 13.2 28.0 72.0

Temporary help agency workers ............................... 1,188 24.2 36.1 55.9 44.1

Contract company workers ...................................... 769 6.0 12.7 20.2 79.8

With traditional arrangements3 .................................... 119,109 1.4 1.5 3.2 96.8

 Men

With alternative arrangements:

Independent contractor ............................................ 5,459 (2

) 2.1 2.1 97.9

On-call workers ........................................................ 993 14.6 15.1 29.8 70.1

Temporary help agency workers ............................... 501 25.3 36.3 57.1 42.9

Contract company workers ...................................... 542 5.0 11.3 19.6 80.6

 With traditional arrangements3 .................................... 62,464 1.2 1.3 3.0 97.0

 Women

 With alternative arrangements:

Independent contractor ............................................ 2,788 (2

) 4.3 4.3 95.7

On-call workers ........................................................ 1,040 10.6 11.3 26.3 73.8

 Temporary help agency workers .............................. 687 23.4 36.0 55.2 45.0

 Contract company workers ...................................... 227 8.4 15.9 22.0 78.0

 With traditional arrangements3 .................................... 56,645 1.6 1.8 3.5 96.5

1

Noncontingent workers are those who do not fall into any estimate of

“contingent” workers. 2

Not applicable.

3Workers with traditional arrangements are those who do not fall into any of

the “alternative arrangements” categories. Independent contractors, as well as

the self-employed, are excluded from estimate 1.

Contingent workers

Work arrangements Total

 (thousands) Estimate 1 Estimate 2 Estimate 3

Noncontingent

workers1

Table 6.
Monthly Labor Review March 2001 39

Employed persons with alternative and traditional work arrangements, tenure in the arrangement, February

1999

[Percent distribution]

Total, 16 years and older (thousands) ...................... 8,247 2,032 1,188 769 119,109

Percent .................................................................. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Total reporting specific tenure ...................................... 97.4 96.1 92.4 97.4 95.3

1 year or less ........................................................ 14.8 49.3 68.9 42.5 26.0

Less than 6 months ........................................... 5.1 26.2 39.3 16.7 10.3

6 to 12 months ................................................... 9.7 23.1 29.5 25.8 15.7

More than 1 year ................................................... 85.2 50.8 31.1 57.5 74.0

Less than 4 years .............................................. 15.7 20.8 23.0 24.8 20.1

4 to 9 years ....................................................... 26.5 17.0 6.8 22.8 24.5

10 to 19 years .................................................... 24.6 9.2 1.3 7.6 18.4

20 years or more ................................................ 18.3 3.8 – 2.1 11.0

Specific tenure not available ........................................ 2.6 3.9 7.7 2.6 4.7

Median tenure (in years) ............................................... 7.7 1.9 .6 2.1 4.6

Men, 16 years and older (thousands) .................... 5,459 993 501 542 62,464

Percent .................................................................. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Total reporting specific tenure ...................................... 96.8 96.5 93.4 97.8 95.1

1 year or less ........................................................ 12.6 46.9 69.4 44.9 24.1

Less than 6 months ........................................... 4.7 24.5 40.6 16.2 9.5

6 to 12 months ................................................... 7.9 22.3 28.6 28.7 14.7

More than 1 year ................................................... 87.4 53.1 30.3 55.1 75.9

Less than 4 years .............................................. 14.5 22.1 21.4 25.8 19.8

4 to 9 years ....................................................... 24.7 15.0 8.1 19.4 24.2

10 to 19 years .................................................... 26.4 10.8 .9 7.5 18.6

20 years or more ................................................ 21.1 5.3 – 2.3 13.3

Specific tenure not available ........................................ 3.2 3.4 6.8 2.4 4.9

Median tenure (in years) ............................................... 9.1 2.1 .6 2.0 5.0

Women, 16 years and older (thousands) ............... 2,788 1,040 687 227 56,645

Percent .................................................................. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Total reporting specific tenure ...................................... 98.5 95.6 91.7 96.5 95.5

1 year or less ........................................................ 19.0 51.6 68.3 36.5 28.1

Less than 6 months ........................................... 5.9 27.7 38.4 17.4 11.3

6 to 12 months ................................................... 13.1 23.9 29.8 19.2 16.8

More than 1 year ................................................... 81.0 48.4 31.7 63.5 71.9

Less than 4 years .............................................. 18.1 19.5 24.1 22.4 20.5

4 to 9 years ....................................................... 30.1 18.8 6.0 31.1 24.9

10 to 19 years .................................................... 21.2 7.6 1.6 8.2 18.1

20 years or more ................................................ 11.6 2.4 – 2.2 8.1

Specific tenure not available ........................................ 1.5 4.4 8.3 3.5 4.5

 Median tenure (in years) .............................................. 5.7 1.7 .6 2.6 4.2

1Workers with traditional arrangements are those who do not fall into any of

the “alternative arrangements” categories. Detail may not sum to totals due to

rounding. For workers with traditional arrangements, estimates reflect tenure

Workers with alternative arrangements

Tenure and sex Independent

contractors

On-call

workers

Temporary

help

agency

workers

Contract

company

workers

Workers

with

traditional

arrangements1

with the current employer. Median tenure was calculated only for those who

reported a specific tenure.

NOTE: Dash indicates data not available.

Table 7.

contingent under the broadest measure (estimate 3)—the

highest rate of all arrangements. This estimate of contingency

measures the temps’ attachment to their assignment. Under

estimate 1, only 24 percent of temps were contingent. (See

table 6.) These data indicate that although the majority of

temps did not think they could continue indefinitely in their

current assignment, about 75 percent believed that they could

continue temping for as long as they wished.

The median tenure at the place assigned was about 5

months—the same as 2 years ago. About 32 percent had been

in their current assignment for less than 3 months, and 20

percent had been in the assignment for more than a year.

For temps, median tenure in the arrangement was somewhat higher than the 7-month tenure in the assignment.
40 Monthly Labor Review March 2001

Alternative Work Arrangements

Median weekly earnings of full-time workers with alternative and traditional work arrangements by selected

characteristics, February 1999

Workers with alternative arrangments

Age and sex

 Total, 16 years and older ............................ $640 $472 $342 $756 $540

16 to 19 ........................................................ 300 227 (2) (2) 275

20 to 24 ........................................................ 424 314 321 507 362

25 years and older ........................................ 652 497 356 813 580

 25 to 34 ...................................................... 624 484 348 785 509

 35 to 44 ...................................................... 689 505 370 908 599

 45 to 54 ...................................................... 662 625 326 792 647

 55 to 64 ...................................................... 651 465 557 (2) 616

 65 and older ............................................... 419 278 (2) (2) 368

 Men, 16 years and older ............................. 689 507 367 770 613

16 to 19 ........................................................ (2) 237 (2) (2) 283

20 to 24 ........................................................ 478 311 367 (2) 388

25 years and older ........................................ 697 586 378 834 657

 25 to 34 ...................................................... 666 557 371 786 537

 35 to 44 ...................................................... 726 518 354 932 688

 45 to 54 ...................................................... 689 673 321 (2) 759

 55 to 64 ...................................................... 755 622 (2) (2) 755

 65 and older ............................................... 477 447 (2) (2) 371

 Women, 16 years and older. ...................... 441 348 331 690 474

16 to 19 ........................................................ (2) 158 (2) (2) 245

20 to 24 ........................................................ (2) 320 313 (2) 335

25 years and older ........................................ 459 352 346 (2) 493

 25 to 34 ...................................................... 414 318 329 (2) 477

 35 to 44 ...................................................... 478 469 376 (2) 492

 45 to 54 ...................................................... 500 337 329 (2) 515

 55 to 64 ...................................................... 445 347 (2) (2) 504

 65 and older ............................................... (2) 204 (2) (2) 364

Race and Hispanic origin

White ............................................................ 662 478 338 734 562

Black ............................................................ 414 393 354 719 445

Hispanic origin .............................................. 504 308 296 (2) 396

Educational attainment

Less than a high school diploma .................. 474 290 302 (2) 335

High school graduate, no college ................. 520 485 311 572 445

Some college, no degree .............................. 621 451 354 717 512

Associate degree .......................................... 607 677 (2) 816 588

College graduates ......................................... 844 619 515 966 832

1Workers with traditional arrangements are those who do not fall into any of

the “alternative arrangement” categories.

 2Data not shown where base is less than 75,000.

Characteristics

Independent

contractors

On-call

workers

Temporary

help agency

workers

Contract

company

workers

Workers with

traditional

arrangements1

Table 8.

About 31 percent had been temping for more than 1 year.

(See table 7.)

Earnings

The earnings “gap” between workers in alternative arrangements and traditional workers is one of the most oft cited criticisms of these arrangements.8

 However, when comparing the

earnings of workers in those alternate arrangements, factors

such as age, tenure, work experience, hours, educational attainment, and occupation must be considered.9

 For example,

there are stark demographic differences between the arrangements in which workers earn more than traditional workers and

those in which they earn less. Older, highly educated men

who work long hours in higher paying occupations are overrepresented in independent contracting and in contract company work. The arrangements in which earnings are lower

than in traditional arrangements—on-call work and temp help

work—are more likely than traditional jobs to have young,

minority, or female workers, groups which traditionally have

lower levels of education, higher rates of school enrollment,

and greater incidence of part-time work. Furthermore, workers

in alternate arrangements are concentrated in lower-paying

occupations such as administrative and production occupa-
Monthly Labor Review March 2001 41

Percent of independent contractors with health insurance and pension coverage by selected characteristics,

February 1999

 Age and sex

 Total, 16 years and older ....... 8,247 73.3 1.8 26.7 33.0 10.6 40.5 38.6

 16 to 24 years ..................... 328 52.1 3.7 31.1 8.2 5.5 7.6 3.7

 25 years and older .............. 7,920 74.2 1.7 26.6 34.0 10.8 41.9 40.1

25 to 34 years .................... 1,479 63.6 2.8 27.7 25.2 6.9 27.0 24.9

35 to 44 years .................... 2,491 70.8 1.2 27.9 36.7 4.7 38.9 37.1

45 to 54 years .................... 2,491 70.8 1.2 27.9 36.7 4.7 38.9 37.1

55 years and older .............. 1,773 83.8 1.8 19.6 34.2 26.8 52.3 50.3

Men ..................................... 5,459 71.6 1.8 20.4 37.2 11.4 40.7 38.8

Women ................................ 2,788 76.8 1.9 39.1 24.8 9.2 40.1 38.4

 Race and Hispanic origin2

White .................................. 7,471 74.2 1.6 27.4 33.7 10.3 42.3 40.4

Black .................................. 476 58.6 3.4 17.2 22.7 13.7 15.1 13.2

Hispanic origin .................... 506 48.6 1.0 11.7 27.1 4.0 20.6 20.0

 Full- and part-time status3

Full-time workers ................... 5,997 72.3 2.1 23.0 38.4 7.8 41.3 39.2

Part-time workers ................. 2,191 76.4 .9 37.4 18.2

1

Detail for sources of health insurance coverage will not sum to totals

because information on a specific source was not always available. 2

Detail for race and Hispanic-origin groups will not sum to totals because

data for the “other races” group are not presented and Hispanics are included

in both the white and black population groups. 3 Detail for full- and part-time workers will not sum to totals because the

usual status on the principal job is not identifiable for a small number of multiple

jobholders.

 18.3 38.6 37.2

Characteristics Number

(thousands) Total

(percent)

Through

current

employer

at main job

Through

spouse or

other family

member

Purchased

on own

Other

sources

Total

(percent)

IRA or

Keogh

With health insurance coverage1 With pension coverage

Table 9.

tions. In addition, other personal characteristics exist that

may influence earnings.10 Data on earnings of workers with

alternate work arrangements are in table 8.

The difference between the median weekly earnings of fulltime independent contractors and their traditional counterparts widened further in 1999. In 1997, independent contractors’ earnings were 15 percent higher than traditional workers’

earnings, and in 1999, they were 19 percent higher. A disparity

in earnings still existed between genders, however. Earnings

of male independent contractors continued to out-pace their

counterparts in traditional jobs, but women independent contractors continued to earn less. Shorter tenure in the arrangement and fewer hours worked per week help explain much of

this gap between male and female independent contractors.

Contract company workers who usually worked full time

continued to have the highest median weekly earnings across

all arrangements—including traditional arrangements—and

also experienced the largest percentage increase in wages over

the three surveys. The median weekly earnings for full-time

contract workers in February 1999 were $756, compared with

$540 for traditional workers. Both men and women out-earned

their counterparts in traditional jobs.

The median weekly earnings of full-time on-call workers

were $472 in 1999—87 percent of the median for full-time traditional workers. Earnings by gender differed significantly in

the arrangement: women earned 73 percent of the median for

women in traditional jobs, and men earned 83 percent of the

median for men in traditional arrangements.

Unlike the other arrangements, the majority of on-call workers worked part time. Because of this, it is interesting to note

that this is the only arrangement in which part-time workers

made less than part-time workers in traditional work arrangements. The median weekly earnings of part-time on-call workers in 1999 were $119, compared with $157 for part-time traditional workers. Furthermore, the median wage for part-time

on-call workers stayed the same since 1997, while the median

wage for traditional part-timers increased by 9 percent from its

1997 level.

Temporary help agency workers who usually worked full

time had median weekly earnings of $342 in February 1999.

This was the lowest earnings figure across all arrangements.

Differing from other arrangements, earnings among the major

demographic groups in the temporary help arrangement were

very similar. Women temps earned 90 percent of the median
42 Monthly Labor Review March 2001

Alternative Work Arrangements

Percent of persons in alternative and traditional work arrangements with health insurance and pension

coverage, by selected characteristics, February 1999

With health insurance coverage1

On-call workers

Age and sex:

Total, 16 years and older ..... 2,032 67.3 21.1 3.1 31.6 22.5 29.1

16 to 24 years ........................ 381 58.3 8.9 0.3 16.3 4.5 12.1

25 years and older ................. 1,652 69.3 23.8 3.7 35.2 26.7 33.0

25 to 34 years ..................... 470 61.1 28.7 2.3 38.1 28.9 37.0

35 to 44 years ..................... 507 65.7 23.5 1.0 34.9 25.6 32.3

45 to 54 years ..................... 303 70.3 25.4 5.6 38.0 24.8 31.4

55 years and older .............. 372 83.9 16.7 7.5 30.1 26.9 29.8

Men ......................................... 993 61.8 29.7 4.9 40.6 23.3 30.5

Women .................................... 1,040 72.4 12.8 1.3 23.1 21.7 27.8

Race and Hispanic origin:2

White ...................................... 1,711 70.0 20.9 3.3 32.0 23.2 29.5

Black ...................................... 258 46.9 22.5 1.2 30.6 19.4 28.7

Hispanic origin ........................ 237 37.6 15.6 0.8 23.2 11.0 16.0

Full- and part-time status:3

Full-time workers ..................... 919 64.7 35.9 4.2 46.1 29.5 37.8

Part-time workers ................... 1,080 69.9 7.8 2.1 19.0 16.1 21.2

Temporary help agency

 workers

Age and sex:

Total, 16 years and older ..... 1,188 41.0 8.5 1.0 31.4 5.8 12.6

16 to 24 years ........................ 317 38.5 8.2 – 31.5 4.4 14.2

25 years and older .................. 871 41.9 8.7 1.4 31.5 6.4 12.2

25 to 34 years ..................... 348 35.6 10.3 – 36.5 5.7 12.1

35 to 44 years ..................... 231 39.8 7.8 (4

) 27.7 4.8 10.4

45 to 54 years ..................... 182 38.5 7.7 3.8 28.6 5.5 11.5

55 years and older .............. 110 72.7 7.3 4.5 28.2 12.7 17.3

Men ......................................... 501 36.1 7.8 1.6 29.7 9.6 16.0

Women .................................... 687 44.4 9.2 0.6 32.6 3.2 10.2

Race and Hispanic origin:2

White ...................................... 883 42.9 10.2 1.4 33.2 5.9 12.3

Black ...................................... 252 30.6 2.8 – 27.0 3.6 11.9

Hispanic origin ........................ 161 30.4 6.2 – 19.9 6.8 13.7

Full-and part-time status:3

Full-time workers ..................... 916 38.3 10.5 0.8 34.0 6.3 14.1

Part-time workers ................... 270 49.3 1.1 1.9 22.2 3.3 7.4

Contract company

workers

Age and sex:

Total 16 years and older ...... 769 80.0 56.2 2.0 71.1 40.2 55.0

16 to 24 years ........................ 124 66.9 46.8 1.6 65.3 21.8 46.0

25 years and older ................. 645 82.3 58.1 2.2 72.2 43.7 56.7

25 to 34 years..................... 235 85.1 67.2 2.1 76.2 44.3 65.0

35 to 44 years..................... 216 78.7 57.9 3.2 70.8 50.5 58.8

45 to 54 years. ................... 132 81.1 50.8 1.5 72.7 34.1 43.2

55 years and older .............. 61 (4) (4) (4) (4) 37.7 47.5

Men ......................................... 542 79.0 60.5 2.4 73.4 43.9 57.6

Women .................................... 227 82.4 45.8 1.3 65.6 31.3 48.9

Race and Hispanic-origin:2

White ...................................... 609 81.4 58.1 2.3 72.1 41.7 56.5

Black ...................................... 97 56.7 33.0 2.1 59.8 35.1 48.5

Hispanic origin ........................ 46 (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5)

Full- and part-time status:3

Full-time workers ..................... 663 83.1 64.0 2.3 79.9 45.2 61.8

Part-time workers ................... 106 60.4 7.5 (4

) 16.0 8.5 13.2

See footnotes at end of table.

With pension coverage

Characteristic Number

(thousands) Total

Through

current

employer

at main job

Through

other job

or union

Eligible for

employerprovided

health

insurance

Total

Eligible for

employerprovided

pension

Table 10.
Monthly Labor Review March 2001 43

Continued—Percent of persons in alternative and traditional work arrangements with health insurance and

pension coverage, by selected characteristics, February 1999

With health insurance coverage1

Workers with

traditional arrangements6

Age and sex:

Total, 16 years and older .... 112,829 82.9 61.1 .7 73.7 50.9 58.5

16 to 24 years ........................ 17,720 69.5 30.2 .2 45.3 15.5 28.3

25 years and older ................. 95,109 85.4 66.8 .8 79.0 57.4 64.1

25 to 34 years ..................... 27,534 80.0 63.9 .6 77.0 49.1 59.1

35 to 44 years ..................... 31,213 85.7 68.2 .6 80.1 59.8 66.1

45 to 54 years ..................... 23,677 89.4 70.8 .9 82.6 65.1 69.5

55 years and older .............. 12,685 89.4 62.5 1.4 73.5 55.4 60.1

Men ......................................... 58,483 82.2 66.3 1.1 76.3 53.2 60.0

Women.................................... 54,346 83.7 55.4 .3 70.8 48.3 56.8

Race and Hispanic origin:2

White ...................................... 94,415 84.0 61.2 .7 73.8 51.5 58.9

Black ...................................... 13,283 76.6 61.4 .4 73.4 49.5 59.0

Hispanic origin ........................ 11,977 62.7 49.2 .8 60.7 33.6 40.6

Full- and part-time status:3

Full-time workers ..................... 92,711 84.8 70.6 .7 82.6 58.2 65.9

Part-time workers ................... 19,894 74.3 16.9 .7 32.3 16.8 23.9

1

Detail for sources of health insurance coverage will not sum to totals

because information on a specific source was not always available. 2

Detail will not sum to totals because data for the “other races” group are

not presented and Hispanics are included in both the white and black population groups. 3

Detail will not sum to totals because usual status on the principal job is not

identifiable for a small number of multiple jobholders. 4

Less than 0.05 percent.

5

Data not shown where base is less than 75,000.

6Workers with traditional arrangements are those who do not fall into any of

the “alternative arrangements” categories.

NOTE: Dash indicates data not available.

With pension coverage

Total

Eligible for

employerprovided

health

insurance

Through

other job

or union

Through

current

employer

at main job

Total

Number

(thousands) Characteristic Eligible for

employerprovided

pension

Table 10.

for men. Earnings for blacks and whites in the arrangement

were nearly the same. Temps who worked part time in 1999

out-earned part-time traditional workers.

Benefits

Employer-provided benefits such as health insurance and pension coverage also are a measure of job quality. For this reason, analysts have been concerned that workers in alternative

arrangements do not enjoy the same rates of benefit and pension coverage as do workers in traditional jobs. Like earnings,

benefit coverage of workers in alternative arrangements varies

widely by arrangement—generally following the same pattern

as earnings. Demographics, hours, and occupations play a

large role in the extent to which employees in a particular arrangement received health insurance and pension coverage.

In 1999, as in past survey years, the incidence of health

insurance coverage and pension coverage was lower for workers in alternative arrangements than for workers in traditional

jobs. Coverage levels differ between independent contractors

and contract company workers on one hand, and on-call workers and temps on the other. The alternative arrangements

showed some improvement in coverage in the benefits area

since the last survey: pension coverage rates increased for all

the arrangements, although the rates were still below that of

traditional workers. The proportion of contract company workers and temps who had healthcare coverage also increased

from 1997, while the rate for traditional workers stayed the

same. Tables 9 and 10 present the incidence of health insurance

and pension coverage for workers in alternate arrangements.

Because independent contractors do not have employers

that can provide them with health insurance or pension benefits, they must purchase them on their own. About 73 percent of independent contractors had health insurance from

some source, compared with 83 percent of workers in traditional arrangements. In both arrangements women were somewhat more likely than men to have some source of healthcare

coverage. This is most likely due to the fact that more women

are covered under the plan of a relative. Nearly twice the

percentage of men with health insurance purchased their

plans (52 percent) as were covered under another family

member’s plan (29 percent). For women with insurance, the

percentages were nearly reversed—51 percent were covered

under another family member’s plan, while only 32 percent

purchased it on their own.

Perhaps because the vast majority of female independent
44 Monthly Labor Review March 2001

Alternative Work Arrangements

contractors were working part time, part-timers in the arrangement were more likely to have health insurance than were fulltime independent contractors. The reverse was true for traditional workers. As would be expected, coverage rates rose,

with rising levels of educational attainment. While the same

was true for traditional workers, they were still more likely to

have coverage than independent contractors at all levels of

educational attainment.

In 1999, 41 percent of independent contractors had some

type of pension plan, compared with 37 percent in 1997. The

corresponding rates for traditional workers were 51 percent in

1999 and 50 percent in 1997. Nearly all covered independent

contractors had either an IRA or a Keogh plan.

In 1999, 80 percent of contract company workers had

health insurance from some source. This rate was the highest

among the alternative work arrangements, and was very close

to the coverage rate for workers in traditional jobs. The percentage of contract company workers with employer-provided

insurance rose to 56 percent in 1999 from 50 percent in 1997.

This also was about the same rate as workers in traditional

arrangements.

With regards to pension coverage, contract company workers had similar rates of coverage as independent contractors,

and higher rates than the other three alternative arrangements.

The percentage of contract company workers who were eligible for employer-provided pensions rose to 55 percent in

1999 from 46 percent in 1997. This was the same rate as workers in traditional arrangements. About 40 percent of workers

in the arrangement actually participated in their employer’s

pension plan, compared with 48 percent of traditional workers. The rates for both arrangements rose since 1997.

Despite the fact that independent contractors, and to a

lesser degree, contract workers, had insurance and pension

coverage rates that were below those of traditional workers, it

could be that these workers are forgoing coverage by choice

because these two groups substantially out-earn their traditional counterparts.

A little more than two-thirds of on-call workers had health

insurance in 1999, but only one-fifth of them had insurance

through their employer. Of those who had insurance from

another source, two-thirds were covered under another family member’s plan. Nearly 10 percent of on-call workers who

had insurance from another source relied on medicare or medicaid for health insurance coverage, compared with only 6

percent of traditional workers. Women who worked on-call

were more likely than men to have insurance, although men

were more likely to have coverage through their employer.

This may occur because most women who worked on-call in

1999 were part-timers, and thus may not have been eligible for

employer-provided health benefits.

About 29 percent of on-call workers were eligible for their

employer’s pension plan, and 23 percent were included in the

plan; these rates were about half those for traditional workers.

Of the on-call workers who were not included in their

employer’s pension plan, 80 percent were not allowed to participate in the plan. Men were more likely than women to be

eligible for their employer’s pension plan, and also were more

likely to actually participate in the plan. The reason for men’s

higher eligibility rate was partially due to men being more

likely to work full time.

Temporary help agency workers had the lowest levels of

both health insurance coverage and pension coverage among

all arrangements. Only 41 percent of temps had health insurance in 1999, and only 9 percent had it through their employer,

although the share of temps who had insurance through their

employer rose slightly between 1997 and 1999. Women were

more likely than men to have insurance. Both sexes were most

likely to have it through another family member. In 1999, 31

percent of temps were eligible to participate in their employer’s

health insurance plan, but nearly half cited cost as their reason for not participating. Only 13 percent of temp workers

were eligible to participate in their employer’s pension plan,

and 6 percent were included in that plan. Both rates were up

by 2 percentage points from 1997.

Prior activity of recent starters

In 1996, Anne E. Polivka studied workers in alternative arrangements who had 3 or fewer years of tenure in their respective jobs.11 Polivka analyzed the prior labor force status of

recent starters in alternative arrangements, their preferences

and reasons for entering into them, and the extent to which

these workers were searching for traditional jobs, in an attempt to measure the degree to which workers were being

forced into these arrangements by labor market conditions.

Updating portions of Polivka’s analysis using the 1999 data

reveals that more workers enter alternative arrangements by

choice. The 1999 data also show that more workers in alternative arrangements, regardless of tenure, prefer to be in them

than was in the case in 1997.

About 30 percent of independent contractors had 3 or

fewer years of tenure in this arrangement. These short-tenured independent contractors were more likely than traditional

workers with similar tenure to have been employed prior to

entering the arrangement. (See table 11.) Nearly three-quarters of independent contractors were employed previously—

a slightly higher proportion as Polivka reported in 1995.

Among the independent contractors who were previously employed, 61 percent had quit their last job, compared with 57

percent in February 1995.

About 68 percent of contract company workers with 3 or

fewer years of tenure were previously employed prior to en-
Monthly Labor Review March 2001 45

Prior labor force status of previously employed persons currently in alternative and traditional work

arrangements with 3 or fewer years of tenure in current job by school enrollment status, and reason

for termination, February 1999

[In thousands]

Workers in alternative arrangements

Independent Temporary help Contract company

contractors agency workers workers

Not in Not in Not in Not in Not in

school2 school2 school2 school2 school2

Prior status

Total, 16 years and older . 2,432 2,321 1,375 1,165 1,039 967 510 478 52,670 45,510

Employed ........................... 1,766 1,730 610 530 634 589 346 334 34,060 31,160

Looking for work3 ............... 132 125 241 196 218 199 65 49 6,853 5,501

Not employed directly

 prior to looking ............... 89 82 178 143 147 139 52 37 4,943 3,760

Previously employed ........ 43 43 58 48 69 58 12 12 1,871 1,701

Not in the labor force:

Going to school ................ 166 98 124 61 56 47 29 23 5,706 3,007

Retired ............................. 22 22 45 45 18 18 5 5 401 393

Had personal or family

 obligations ...................... 275 275 133 133 74 74 5 5 3,488 3,418

Other activities ................ 62 62 38 25 36 36 42 42 1,323 1,258

Status not reported ........... 9 9 183 175 4 4 19 19 840 776

Reason for termination

from previous job

Total, 16 years and older

(thousands) ..................... 1,809 1,773 668 577 702 647 358 346 35,931 32,861

Percent:

 Lost last job .................... 11.4 11.4 13.3 13.8 18.3 18.9 6.5 6.7 9.9 10.6

 Quit last job .................... 60.9 60.8 51.8 52.3 49.4 48.1 66.5 65.3 69.3 68.6

 Temporary job ended ....... 8.4 8.4 15.0 13.2 20.9 20.6 18.3 18.9 9.2 8.8

 Other reason ................... 18.1 18.2 19.5 20.2 11.1 12.0 8.8 9.1 10.3 10.8

Characteristic

On-call workers

Total Total Total Total Total

Workers in traditional

arrangements1

Table 11.

tering into their arrangement—about the same rate as traditional workers. There have been some dramatic shifts in the

reasons for separating from the previous job. About 67 percent of contract workers reported they quit their last job in

1999, compared with 47 percent in 1995. In 1999, only 7 percent reported losing their jobs, while those individuals accounted for 17 percent in 1995. About 19 percent of contract

workers in 1999 had been in a temporary job that ended, while

in 1995, that percentage was 24 percent. The proportion of

those in the arrangement who were looking for work prior to

becoming contract workers has declined since the first supplement in 1995.

Among the on-call workers who were previously employed,

52 percent had quit their last job in 1999. In 1995, this proportion was 44 percent. The percentages of on-call workers who

lost their jobs or had temporary jobs that ended were down

from that in 1995, suggesting that more of these workers voluntarily left permanent jobs to work on-call. (See table 11.) The

percentage of on-call workers with 3 or fewer years of tenure

who looked for work prior to entering the arrangement—18

percent—suggests that this arrangement may provide access

to the labor market for those having difficulty finding employment. The percentage of on-call workers who looked for work

prior to entering the arrangement in 1995 was 23 percent.

In 1999, 61 percent of temporary help agency workers with

3 or fewer years of tenure were employed prior to entering

their arrangements. Suprisingly, this was close to the 65-percent rate for traditional workers. By contrast, 21 percent of

new temps were looking for work prior to starting in the arrangement, compared with 13 percent of traditional workers.

This was the highest previous unemployment rate across all

arrangements in 1999. There has been considerable change

over the years: in 1995, about 27 percent of temps were previously unemployed.

1

Workers in traditional arrangements are those who do not fall into any of

the “alternative arrangements” categories. 2

Only individuals 16 to 24 years old are asked for their school enrollment

status in February.

3

Subcategories do not sum to total looking for work because there were a

few individuals whose activity directly prior to looking for work was unknown.

NOTE: Data on tenure of 3 or fewer years exclude persons who did not

report specific tenure, but did report that tenure was more than 1 year.
46 Monthly Labor Review March 2001

Alternative Work Arrangements

Preference of employed persons in alternative work arrangements for a traditional or an alternative work

arrangement, by prior activity, February 1999

Independent contractors

Total, 16 years and older

Thousands ................................... 8,247 2,432 1,766 132 166 22 275

Percent ........................................ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Prefer traditional arrangement2 ........ 8.5 14.5 14.3 42.1 12.1 (3

) 6.5

Prefer alternative arrangement ........ 83.8 77.8 77.8 50.9 79.4 (3

) 88.6

It depends ....................................... 5.2 5.4 6.4 2.7 3.5 (3

) 2.6

Preference not available .................. 2.5 2.3 1.6 4.3 5.1 (3

) 2.3

On-call workers

Total, 16 years and older .............

Thousands ................................... 2,032 1,375 610 241 124 45 133

Percent ........................................ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Prefer traditional arrangement2 ........ 46.7 50.2 52.2 68.9 57.9 (3

) 28.0

Prefer alternative arrangement ........ 44.7 41.9 37.5 25.2 38.8 (3

) 65.3

It depends ....................................... 4.8 5.1 5.9 4.6 0.5 (3

) 3.7

Preference not available .................. 3.8 2.8 4.4 1.3 2.8 (3

) 3.0

Temporary help agency workers

Total, 16 years and older

Thousands ................................... 1,188 1,039 634 218 56 18 74

Percent ........................................ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Prefer traditional arrangement2 ........ 57.0 59.3 60.7 70.9 (3

) (3) (3)

Prefer alternative arrangement ........ 33.1 32.7 31.6 18.9 (3

) (3) (3)

It depends ....................................... 5.3 4.8 4.1 5.1 (3

) (3) (3)

Preference not available .................. 4.6 3.2 3.5 5.1 (3

) (3) (3)

1

Data exclude persons who did not report specific tenure, but did report that

tenure was more than 1 year, and include those whose prior activity was

classified as “other” and a small number of persons for whom prior activity was

not reported.

2Workers in traditional arrangements are those who do not fall into any of

the alternative arrangement categories.

3Data not shown were base is less than 75,000.

NOTE: Data on workers provided by contract firms are not shown because

these workers were not asked for their preferences. Detail may not sum to 100

percent due to rounding.

With 3 or fewer years of tenure1

With prior labor force status of—

Preference Total

Total

Employed Looking for

work

Going to

school Retired

Had personal

or family

obligations

Table 12.

It is also interesting to compare the reasons why those

temps left their previous jobs to enter the arrangement. Here

again, there is a considerable difference between temps and

other workers. Temps with 3 or fewer years of tenure in the

arrangement were most likely—of any arrangement—to have

lost their previous job. About 18 percent of all temps had lost

their previous job, compared with only 10 percent of workers

in traditional arrangements. (See table 11.) In 1995, this figure

was 25 percent for temps. Temps were also the most likely

workers in any arrangement to have been in a temporary job

that ended prior to becoming a temp worker.

Preference and reason for the arrangement

The overwhelming majority of independent contractors were

very happy in their arrangement and had entered it voluntarily.

About 84 percent of independent contractors reported that

they preferred their arrangement to a traditional one in February 1999. (See table 12.) This was unchanged since the 1997

survey. Among independent contractors with 3 or fewer years

of tenure, this rate has decreased since 1995, when it was last

collected, but only by a small amount. The majority of independent contractors preferred this arrangement rather than

being someone else’s employee, regardless of prior labor force

status. About 10 percent of independent contractors reported

being in the arrangement for an economic reason. Even among

those who said that they would prefer a traditional arrangement, most were in the arrangement for personal reasons rather

than economic ones. (See table 13.)

 Among on-call workers, fewer than half preferred that arrangement. About 45 percent of them preferred on-call work,

compared with 37 percent in 1995. The proportion who said

they would prefer a traditional employment arrangement in

1999 was slightly lower as in 1997. (See table 13.) When only

those workers with 3 or fewer years in the arrangement were

examined, the majority still preferred traditional work, but the
Monthly Labor Review March 2001 47

Employed men and women 16 years and older in alternative work arrangements, by reason for

arrangement and preference for a traditional work arrangement, February 1999

[Percent distribution]

Total Men Women Total Men Women Total Men Women

Reason for arranagement

Economic reasons ................................... 9.6 10.0 8.9 35.4 39.2 31.9 52.4 55.5 50.1

Could only find this type

of employment .................................... 2.6 2.5 2.8 21.3 21.1 21.3 32.4 33.3 31.6

This job may lead to permanent one ... .5 .5 .4 6.2 5.9 6.3 12.3 13.2 11.8

Other economic reasons ...................... 6.2 7.0 5.7 8.1 12.0 4.3 7.7 9.0 6.7

Personal reasons .................................... 75.6 76.0 74.7 47.0 38.3 55.4 32.0 31.1 32.6

 Flexibility of work schedule ................... 25.9 21.9 34.0 28.5 22.9 33.9 17.2 15.8 18.2

 Child care problems ............................... 3.1 1.3 6.6 1.8 .6 2.9 .5 .6 .4

 Other family or personal obligations ...... 1.3 .2 3.4 3.7 1.0 6.3 3.4 1.8 4.7

 In school or training .............................. .5 .2 1.0 4.4 3.4 5.3 4.7 5.6 4.1

 Other personal reasons ........................ 44.7 52.4 29.7 8.6 10.4 6.9 6.1 7.4 5.2

Reason not reported ................................ 14.8 14.0 16.4 17.5 22.6 12.8 15.7 13.4 17.5

Prefer traditional arrangement

Economic reasons ................................... 33.4 36.0 28.6 61.2 61.7 60.8 65.0 64.7 65.1

 Could only find this type of

employment ........................................ 19.0 18.9 19.2 40.0 37.7 42.9 43.0 43.1 42.7

 This job may lead to permanent one ..... 2.9 4.4 — 11.0 8.6 13.6 14.5 15.7 13.2

 Other economic reasons ....................... 11.4 12.5 9.4 10.1 15.6 4.5 7.7 5.9 9.1

Personal reasons .................................... 51.9 51.0 53.5 25.2 20.8 29.7 23.2 23.5 22.6

 Flexibility of work schedule ................... 19.3 17.4 22.9 13.6 10.7 16.7 10.8 11.4 10.2

 Child care problems ............................... 3.7 2.2 6.1 1.3 .4 2.2 .4 1.0 –

 Other family or personal obligations ...... 2.0 .2 5.7 1.5 .8 2.2 2.8 .7 4.6

 In school or training .............................. .7 1.1 — 3.9 4.1 3.9 4.4 4.6 4.3

 Other personal reasons ........................ 26.1 30.1 18.4 4.8 4.9 4.8 4.7 5.9 3.8

Reason not reported ................................ 14.7 13.2 18.0 13.6 17.5 9.5 12.0 11.4 12.1

NOTE: Detail may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. Information was

not collected for contract company workers because of the difficulty of devising questions that would capture the desired information for these workers.Dash indicates data not available.

Reason and preference

Independent contractors On-call workers Temporary help agency workers

Table 13.

proportion has decreased since 1995. Half of on-call workers

preferred a job with regularly scheduled hours, while the proportion in 1995 was 62 percent. Preferences for the arrangement varied depending upon the worker’s prior labor force

status in the arrangement. For example, 69 percent of workers

who were unemployed prior to entering the arrangement would

have preferred a traditional job. (See table 12.) For workers

who were previously out of the labor force attending to personal or family obligations, only 28 percent preferred a traditional arrangement. Overall, since 1995, there seems to be

increased preference for the arrangement regardless of prior

status, except in the case of those who attended school prior

to working on-call. For them, the proportion preferring a traditional job increased from the 1995 share.

In 1999, only 35 percent of on-call workers were in that

arrangement for economic reasons,12 compared with 47 percent in 1995, and 41 percent in 1997. This suggests that more

workers chose to enter the arrangement for reasons unrelated

to labor market constraints. The most common economic reason for being in the arrangement was that it was the only type

of work to be found; however, in 1999, these individuals made

up only 21 percent of total employment in the arrangement,

compared with 27 percent in 1997. (See table 13.)

Note that data on reasons for being in the arrangement and

on the preferred arrangement were not collected for contract

company workers due to the difficulty of devising questions

that would capture the desired information for this group.

The majority of temp workers in 1999—57 percent—would

have preferred a traditional job. (See table 12.) This was down

slightly from 1997. For temps who had been in the arrangement for 3 years or less, about the same proportion preferred

to work in a traditional job, but interestingly, this proportion

decreased substantially since 1995 when 66 percent of new

temps preferred a traditional job. The decrease occurred both

for temps who were previously employed prior to beginning in

the temp arrangement and for those who were previously looking for work. The 1999 survey found that more temps were in

the arrangement for personal reasons than in 1997, although

most temps (53 percent) still cited an economic reason for

being in the arrangement. About a third of temps said it was
48 Monthly Labor Review March 2001

Alternative Work Arrangements

Job search of employed workers in alternative and traditional work arrangements who searched for a

job in the previous 3 months, by selected characteristics, February 1999

[Percent distribution]

Total

Total, 16 years and older

 Thousands ................................... 8,247 2,032 1,188 769 119,110

 Percent ........................................ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Searched for a job ........................... 5.3 19.4 27.4 12.7 5.3

 Searched for a new job ................ 3.2 14.1 24.2 10.9 4.3

 “Permanent” ................................ 2.7 12.8 22.6 9.4 3.8

 Temporary ................................... .2 .7 .8 .5 .2

 Any type ..................................... .4 .6 .9 1.0 .2

With 3 or fewer years of tenure2

Searched for a job ........................... 10.8 23.3 28.8 14.4 8.0

 Searched for a new job ................ 7.0 16.6 26.1 11.8 6.3

 “Permanent” ................................. 5.7 15.0 24.8 11.1 5.5

 Temporary .................................... .2 1.1 .6 (3) .4

 Any type ...................................... 1.1 .5 .6 .4 .4

Prefer a traditional arrangement

Searched for a job ........................... 28.6 32.0 37.3 (4

) (5)

 Searched for a new job ................ 23.4 24.0 34.2 (4

) (5)

 “Permanent” ................................. 19.3 22.3 32.5 (4

) (5)

 Temporary .................................... 0.7 .5 .8 (4

) (5)

 Any type ...................................... 3.5 1.2 .8 (4

) (5)

1 Workers in traditional arrangements are those who do not fall into any of

the “alternative arrangements” categories. 2 Excludes persons who did not report specific tenure, but did report that

tenure was more than 1 year.

3 Less than 0.05 percent.

4 Workers provided by contract firms were not asked their preference.

5 Not applicable.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding.

Characteristic

Independent

contractors

Workers in alternative arrangements

On-call workers Temporary help

agency workers

Contract company

workers

Workers in

 traditional

arrangements1

Table 14.

the only kind of work they could find. And 12 percent were in

the arrangement because they hoped that the job would lead

to a permanent position. (See table 13.)

Job search

Job search activity among workers in alternative arrangements

corresponds closely with their preference for and satisfaction

with their current arrangements. (See table 14.) The pattern

has stayed about the same since the 1995 survey: independent

contractors had job search rates similar to those of traditional

workers; and contract company workers, on-call workers, and

temporary help agency workers had rates higher than those of

their traditional counterparts.

The job search activity of independent contractors mirrored

the activity of traditional workers. Only 3 percent of all independent contractors had searched for a new job in the 3 months

prior to the survey; this rate was 4 percent for traditional workers. For independent contractors with 3 or fewer years of

tenure, 7 percent had searched for a new job, compared with 6

percent of traditional workers.

In 1995, the job search activities of on-call workers and

contract company workers were very similar. In 1999, however, the two groups diverged somewhat—particularly for

workers with 3 or fewer years of tenure in the arrangement.

On-call workers had a job search rate of 17 percent, and contract workers had a 12 percent rate. In the 1995 survey, the

rates for new on-call workers and contract workers were 19

percent and 20 percent, respectively.

Temp workers saw a drop of about 7 percentage points in

new job searches since the first survey. Their job search rate

was still nearly six times the rate for traditional workers—about

the same magnitude as in 1995.

As would be expected, there was considerably more job

search activity for persons who preferred to be in a traditional

work arrangement. Among the relatively small number of independent contractors who preferred to be someone else’s

employee, 23 percent were searching for a new job. For on-call

workers who preferred a job in which they would work regularly scheduled hours, 24 percent were searching for a new
Monthly Labor Review March 2001 49

job. For temps who preferred to work in a traditional arrangement, this rate was 34 percent. All of these rates dropped from

the 1995 survey. For temps, the rate fell by 10 percentage

points from 44 percent in 1995. Nearly all workers (regardless

of their arrangement) who preferred a traditional arrangement

were looking for a permanent job rather than a temporary job.

PREFERENCE FOR AND SATISFACTION WITH THEIR JOBS has increased

among workers in alternative arrangements since 1995. There

is a clear dichotomy between independent contractors and

contract company workers on one hand, and temporary agency

workers and on-call workers on the other, in terms of arrangement preferences. The former group overwhelmingly prefers

to be in their arrangements, while the latter group prefers

Notes

1

 The Current Population Survey (CPS) is a monthly survey of 50,000

households in the U.S. The first supplement to the CPS on contingent

and alternative work arrangements was conducted in February 1995.

Subsequent surveys were done in February 1997 and February 1999.

2

 The issue of “good jobs—bad jobs” is discussed in Neal H. Rosenthal,

“More than wages at issue in job quality debate,” Monthly Labor Review, December 1989, pp. 4–8. See also Joseph R. Meisenheimer II,

“Services industry in the ‘good’ versus ‘bad’ jobs debate,” Monthly

Labor Review, February 1998, pp. 22–47.

3

 See, for example, Helene J. Jorgensen, When Good Jobs Go Bad

(Washington, DC, 2030 Center, 1999).

4

 See, for example, Katharine G. Abraham and Susan K. Taylor,

“Firms’ Use of Outside Contractors: Theory and Evidence,” Journal of

Labor Economics, July 1996.

5

 See, for example, Anne E. Polivka, “Into contingent and alternative employment: by choice?” Monthly Labor Review, October 1996,

pp. 55–74.

6

 See “Contingent Workers & Alternate Work Arrangements” articles in the Monthly Labor Review, October 1996.

7

 It should be noted that the classification of workers in alternative

employment arrangements was made separately from their contingent

work status, that is, whether the job was temporary or not expected to

traditional arrangements.

Because of the claim that their job was the only one they

could find, a significant proportion of temps and on-call workers might very well be unemployed without these arrangements. These alternative arrangements allow a level of flexibility that most traditional jobs do not. Mothers with small children, people going to school, and people taking care of family

members can balance these responsibilities with working.

While there continue to be startling disparities between

some of these arrangements and traditional jobs in terms of

health insurance coverage, pension coverage, and earnings,

these disparities are at least partially the result of differences

in demographics, education levels, the occupational makeup

of these arrangements, and personal choice.

continue. Individuals employed in alternative arrangements were classified as contingent only if they met the requisite criteria.

8

 See, for example, Arne L. Kalleberg and others, Nonstandard

Work, Substandard Jobs (Washington, DC, Economic Policy Institute

and Women’s Research and Education Institute, 1997).

9

 See Anne E. Polivka, Sharon R. Cohany, and Steven Hipple, “Definition, Composition, and Economic Consequences of the Nonstandard

Workforce” in Nonstandard Work: The Nature and Challenges of

Changing Employment Arrangements (Chicago, Industrial Relations

Research Association, 2000).

10 For an example of this type of analysis, see Marianne A. Ferber

and Jane Waldfogel, “The long-term consequences of nontraditional

employment,” Monthly Labor Review, May 1998, pp. 3–12; see also,

Lewis M. Segal and Daniel G. Sullivan, “The Nature of Temporary

Services Employment: Evidence from State UI Data,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1997.

11 This analysis for those with 3 or fewer years of tenure was not

done for the 1997 Contingent and Alternative Work Supplement; however, basic data on preference and reasons for being in the arrangements were collected that year.

12 Nearly 18 percent of workers in the on-call arrangement who

were surveyed did not provide a reason for being in the arrangement.