Dimensions of Atypical Forms of Employment in Thessaloniki, Greece STELIOS GIALIS and ELEUTHERIA KARNAVOU Abstract Post-Fordist reconstitutions in economy and society are positively related with the expansion of atypical employment. This article argues that many of the claims that an increase in atypical forms promotes less rigid labour markets rely on narrow readings of official statistics and also underestimate different local labour realities. Drawing upon case studies in Thessaloniki’s Labour Inspectorates and industrial enterprises, it highlights the fact that Greek labour markets, which are already flexible enough, have been rearranged to accommodate new use patterns for atypical forms, both traditional and modern. A controversially expanding trend towards part-time and temporary work and non-agricultural self-employment is discussed. This trend is traced to trades, sectors, industries and firms that have developed distinct patterns in the exploitation of atypical employment within the context of locally constituted social and regulatory practices that interact with globalized capital accumulation procedures. The expansion of atypical employment is examined along two interpretative lines, the one focusing on the effect of recent reforms on small industrial enterprises, the other analysing post-Fordist, flexible socio-spatial restructurings. Introduction: atypical employment in Greece — convergence and variation in the context of EU policies Recent changes in productive and regulatory patterns have arguably been followed by an expansion of atypical forms of employment. Consequently, a series of questions arise regarding the causes, rates and socio-economic dimensions of the expansion in jobs of this type; their contribution to the restructuring of contemporary local labour markets; and the relation between modern atypical forms, on the one hand, and traditional atypical employment or informal employment, on the other (Amin, 1994; Carre et al., 2000; Houseman and Osawa, 2003). Answering these questions is not easy, given both the lack of reliable statistics for all productive activities and the divergent views regarding recent changes. For instance, certain discussants see the expansion of atypical forms, and flexible employment patterns in general, as necessary conditions for revitalizing national economies (Siebert, 1997; Wilthagen and Tros, 2004); while others view it as a new managerial strategy deepening work fragmentation and downgrading employees’ status (Kalleberg and Reynolds, 2003; Reimer, 2003). 1 1 This controversy is reflected in the several definitions of ‘atypical employment’ current nowadays. Researchers use varied terms such as ‘precarious’, ‘special’, ‘non-standard’, ‘modern’ or ‘flexible’. Many studies of the advanced capitalist social formations, to which the scope of this article will be limited, define an employment relationship as atypical when it lacks one or more of the features making up a ‘typical’ or ‘formal’ employment relationship, the dominant employment model established in the post-war era. Although any atypical/typical dualism suffers from significant International Journal of Urban and Regional Research DOI:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2008.00813.x © 2009 The Authors. Journal Compilation © 2009 Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published by Blackwell Publishing. 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St, Malden, MA 02148, USA