These phrases have in common their definition of employment relations that differ from typical work arrangements in which it was normally implied that work was implemented full-time, would last for an indefinite period, and was fulfilled at the employer’s office strictly according to the employer’s instruction. Typical work arrangements were the model in a lot of industrial states for much of the twentieth century and were the foundation of the structure within which employment law, bargaining, and security systems functioned.
Reforms beginning at the end of twentieth century created the situation that led countries, companies, and employees to look for more flexibility in employment. As a result, the usual employment relationship started changing (Galbraith, 2004, p. 42. Houseman &. Osawa, 1995, p. 10). Worldwide economic reforms increased competition and indecision among companies and made them to push for larger earnings and to be more adaptable in setting relations with their workers and responding to customers. Slow-moving economic development resulted in high unemployment rate that made it obvious, particularly in Europe, that economies were unable to create a sufficient amount of jobs to offer full-time salary employment for all employees (Keeley, 2001, p. 214). The adoption of atypical employment was facilitated by technical developments in communication and information systems that made it simple for companies to specialize their manufacture, bring temporary workers together quickly for assignments, and count more on outside contractors. Employment laws created to protect permanent workers also fueled the development in atypical work by making employers pass up the mandates and expenses connected with these laws (Brown et al. 2000, p. 13). So too did demographic reforms in the composition of the work force, such more married women and old people working, who frequently preferred the flexibility obtainable through atypical employment arrangements (Gellerman, 1990, p. 122).
Therefore, if to evaluate temporary employees and so-called "multifunctional full-time workers" (those who do most part of the work on constant basis), the former is obviously more beneficial and profitable.
Atypical work relations are not new. Work arrangements that did not correspond the model of full-time work always existed, and history is full of instances of peripheral work forces and flexible labor markets where the work is unbalanced and temporary (Gratton et al., 1999, p. 74). For example, in the contracting system of the United States in the 19th century, management provided equipment and space in the plant, supplied raw material and monetary resources, and set for the sale of the product while contractors were accountable for manufacture and hired the employers, paid them and controlled them (Jackson &. Schuler 1995, p. 237).