I still think that the definition of contingent work is important here. It may be that the traditional definition of contingent as used by the BLS is too narrow. For example, the building where I work used to be cleaned by union members in a division called building services. Those jobs have all been eliminated and the building is now cleaned and maintained by contract, all the cleaners being Hispanic, and minimum wage, with no benefits, no retirement, no ... . Now, by definition, the company cleaning the building does not hire 'contingent workers' yet, there is a regular turnover. The jobs are 30 hours a week, so the employees are not eligible for unemployment, and, as service workers, I believe they are exempt from social security as well. Now, given the standard definition of contingent, temporary work may be only a small portion of the workforce. BUT, expanding the temporary concept to include marginal workers who don't work at any one job for a long period of time, and who don't receive benefits or retirement significantly increases the importance of the concept of contingency. Second, even the narrow definition of contingency has far more meaning for some sections of the working class than others. Women and minorities make up the majority of temporary and part time workers. Expanding contingency to include low wage/no benefit jobs simply takes in larger numbers of women and minorities. Third, seasonal work is not considered contingent but should be. Tell Mexican migrant workers they are not contingent and they'll say; "Loco Gringos." Finally, there is a huge 'informal' sector in the u.s.a. which is not recorded by the BLS nor anywhere else. Who populates this sector? Women and minorities. I've never yet met a welfare mother who does not have some sort of off the books income. The informal sector covers a huge number of workers, especially in major cities: Garment, restaurants, prostitution, elder care, child care ... . The point of all this is that all these statistics describing the working class in the united states really must be taken with a grain of salt. While I do think the BLS does an excellent job given their limitations, I think we should stop short of saying that these statistics accurately describe the working class. For one thing, the collection of statistics is run by people who believe that everyone's work is accurately recorded. This is simply not true. Work is not recorded for a number of reasons: people here illegally, the non-recognition of work performed by women and minorities, the incentive businesses have to avoid recording workers so they can pay less than a minimum wage. To some extent, the BLS determines their answers by the questions asked. By narrowly defining contingency, they limit the number of workers who will be described as contingent. I think part of the job of left economists should be to use the BLS not as a place for answers, but as a beginning point to begin building a picture of the working class, not as an actual picture. I do not think that the importance of anecdotal evidence of contingency should be underrated. It was inaccurate pictures of welfare mothers which fed the drive to eradicate welfare as we know it. It is the thought of being made contingent which keeps many workers eating shit to bring home a paycheck which does not fill the needs of themselves or their families. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
