According to many commentators and employers, the 1990s is being seen as the decade of flexibility in employment. High unemployment rates of previous decades are being attributed to labour market inflexibilities, and some writers are urging greater flexibility as a means of achieving higher labour productivity (see, e.g., Metcalf 1989). Flexibility in employment, according to Evans and Bell (1986) can mean two things: ‘functional flexibility’, whereby demarcation lines are removed and employees are able to perform many different jobs, and ‘numerical flexibility’, whereby an organisation ensures its ability to respond to short-term changes in the demand for labour by making greater use of part-time, temporary or sub-contracted workers. Flexibility is often seen as the key to employing women, but in practice, as research has shown (Huws et al 1989), flexibility for the employer means low pay and loss of job security for the worker. The impetus for flexibility is being encouraged in the light of the single European market envisaged under the Single European Act, which took effect on 1 January 1993 and allows, among other things, for the free movement of labour throughout EC m ember states; and by the Treaty of European Union (the Maastricht Treaty). The growth of flexible employment patterns, particularly forms of employment known as atypical, is yexpected as part of the single market.1 Atypical work, such as part-tim e or subcontracted work, zero-hour contracts or the absence of employee status, has tended to be associated with women, and is also generally regarded as being of low status, particularly where it is accompanied by an absence of the range of em ploym ent rights and benefits normally taken for granted by employees. Recent research shows a growing employer usage of part-time and other atypical forms of work in Ireland (see Wickham 1993).