Flexible work arrangements or flexible work practices (FWP) are work practices commonly found in the creative industry work ecosystem. In this case, two dimensions of flexibility are closely related to the creative industry. First, the flexibility of workspace and time. Second, the flexibility of the labor market is related to the informality and vulnerability of workers in it.
The historical context behind it is the beginning of the post-Fordism era in the late 1970s. Its main characteristic is no longer the dominant centralization of commodity production from upstream to downstream in a large factory. This new strategy initiated by multinational companies is also implemented to implement systemic rationalization and flexible production. They are called profitable. Because the leading company has the authority to outsource the show to other companies. Usually to companies in Southern or Asia Pacific countries whose wages are relatively much lower than in Northern countries.
The creative industry also applies this system, although not all products from the creative industry use this mode of production. The results of one’s creativity are not infrequently mass-produced in the style of Fordism’s production mode for profit.
The lack of security, social protection, and job security due to “flexploitation” are some of the main types of vulnerabilities experienced by workers in the creative industries. Several studies also mention other impacts on vulnerable workers in the creative industry, both physically and mentally.
Lorey (2015) describes the vulnerability of workers more broadly and does not cover only economic aspects. Broadly speaking, there are two vulnerabilities besides the economy, namely first, vulnerable to disease and accidents. Second, exposure refers to inequality and uncertainty or insecurity based on social hierarchies in society (inequality of class, gender, race, etc.).
Although to a certain degree, workers in this industry can work according to the values they believe in, this autonomy is often deprived of it. This deprivation of independence can be seen in the artwashing phenomenon, namely the hijacking of art and creativity for the sake of gentrification. Creativity and skill in this context are used to create capital spaces or “trendy” areas that can attract investment.
In artwashing, creative industry workers cannot use their autonomy fully because their creative products are required to align with gentrification’s interests. In other words, in artwashing, creative industry workers are faced with the choice to continue to carry out their social ethics during the struggle for survival.
The issue of the relative autonomy of workers in this industry is also related to the problem of their working status. With relative freedom, workers are often perceived as self-employed workers and even entrepreneurs, although not all of them are. In Indonesia, this fraudulent employment relationship takes two forms. First, through the mention of ‘creative workers.’ Second, through the discourse of entrepreneurship that thrives in the gig economy. This deception about working status also contributes to their condition and vulnerability.
Then, most workers in the creative industry work in a company or workplace with various statuses. These work statuses include casual workers, non-permanent work agreements, and workers with permanent work agreements. As well as workers with multiple working grades at once.
The conditions that do various jobs in the creative industries fall into the “shit jobs” category and then impact the health and safety of workers, including mental health. Anxiety, anxiety, and feeling isolated are some mental conditions they often experience due to working conditions under flexploitation. Furthermore, workplaces that accommodate diverse worker identities but do not fulfill fundamental rights, such as a living wage, can be another indication of workers’ vulnerability in this industry.
In the end, however, they had little choice but to continue to sell labor (Marx, 1887).
