The Great Unmasking

By Dr. Sviatlana Kroitar 

The arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic subjected the global economy to an intense stress test. Yet, in nations like the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia—which follow a ‘liberal’ model prioritizing employer agility through minimal labor safeguards (Hall, 2015; Schneider, 2021)—that inherent market flexibility immediately transformed into a critical vulnerability for the workforce. The UK’s experience vividly captured this hazard: the very operational ease that businesses valued, which was supposed to be the system’s strength, instantly became a devastating liability for its employees. The health crisis didn’t create new weaknesses; instead, it functioned as a powerful magnifying glass. This powerfully amplified pre-existing systemic flaws that left a considerable segment of the working population financially and mentally unprotected.

The Invisible Army: Rise of Precarious Work

The UK’s labor market underwent a profound transformation in the decade leading up to the pandemic, a shift that saw the non-standard workforce—lacking the security of traditional contracts—swell to over 5 million people just before the crisis (ONS, 2020). This growth was fuelled by surging self-employment, the acceleration of the gig economy, and a shrinking public sector. This last trend, compounded by official plans calling for deep administrative budget cuts by 2028-29 (HM Treasury, 2025), means more people are being pushed into a marketplace where stable, well-paid jobs are becoming increasingly rare.

The diversity of this burgeoning workforce— from freelancers, independent contractors, and zero-hours staff to gig and platform workers—masked a common, dangerous reality. These roles, often termed ‘atypical’ or ‘casualized,’ frequently share the same hallmarks: insecure pay, irregular hours, minimal benefits, and weak social protection (Castel, 1997; Standing, 2011). Precarity concentrated fiercely in the creative industries and the burgeoning gig economy. Think of a zero-hours staff member at a coffee shop whose shifts fluctuate weekly or a freelance graphic designer waiting months for an invoice to be paid.

Personal Insight: The Illusion of Flexibility

I experienced this contradiction directly. Even as a tenured research department head with a Ph.D. in Sociology, I wanted a flexible side hustle for professional growth. So, I signed up to teach English remotely for a major online school. It wasn’t about the pay—the paltry $4.50 per lesson was negligible next to my primary income. I was genuinely just trying to find creative new intellectual and career opportunities.

What I discovered was a system designed for perfect containment. All my lessons had to be conducted within their proprietary platform, using their materials, following a rigid structure, with student connection strictly mediated by code. Essentially, I was just a fragmented part of the labor process, delivering a service with minimal autonomy.

After six months, I pitched an idea to break free from this low-wage setup. I emailed management, highlighting my advanced qualifications, and suggested developing specialized, high-level courses—like English for Academic Writing—that would actually use my expertise.

The response was definitive: no such opportunities existed. My sole function was to stay in the low-skill, fragmented role I already held. My Ph.D. and high-level experience were simply not legible to the platform’s business model.

The platform’s design was ingenious: it had successfully reduced an accomplished scientist to a resource valued only for low-skill, fragmented labor. Its architecture was specifically designed to prevent any movement toward higher-level, autonomous, or collective work. This was not about the flexibility I wanted; it was about the system lock-in the platform needed.

Zero Hour, Zero Income: The Instant Shock

The pandemic delivered a severe economic shock to the whole non-standard sector. For roles without a guaranteed salary—like a retail worker called in only for peak seasons or a barista whose shifts varied with customer traffic—income could disappear overnight. These workers were hit hardest, experiencing a disproportionate number of job losses and furloughs (Work Foundation, 2022).

For freelancers and the self-employed—like a graphic designer who saw all their contracts paused or an independent consultant whose commissions dried up—the loss of projects and clients was so profound that their entire careers felt like they were ‘evaporating’ (Swords & Johns, 2024). This shock was especially concentrated among creative professionals. Fields like television (Swords & Johns, 2024), dance (Cisneros, Ellis, & McLelland, 2023; Kolb & Haitzinger, 2023), and the performing arts (Dinardi, Wortman, & Muñoz Hernández, 2024) were hit by the loss of physical spaces and collaborative networks. 

Workers on fixed-term contracts—such as a researcher whose grant was suddenly frozen or a temporary project manager—were left vulnerable to non-renewal-based dismissals, completing the picture of across-the-board financial fragility.

The Double Burden: Inequality and the Mental Toll

The devastating effects of the pandemic were not evenly distributed. Marginalized and disadvantaged groups, already overrepresented in non-standard roles, bore the heaviest burden of job losses and financial instability. This meant women, young people, disabled workers, less educated individuals, migrants, and ethnic minorities were disproportionately bore the brunt (England, 2023; Hancock & Tyler, 2024; Martinez Dy & Jayawarna, 2020; Andrejuk, 2022).

The crisis took a heavy psychological toll. Financial uncertainty was the universal driver of distress for all non-standard workers (May et al., 2022; Warran et al., 2023). For the self-employed, income reductions were directly linked to a decline in well-being compared to regularly employed peers (Yue & Cowling, 2021). For freelancers, chronic anxiety and loneliness stemming from the constant search for work led to drops in mental health (Lu et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2022). This was especially true for mid-career artists and performers, where the inability to work in physical spaces created a profound crisis of identity, jeopardizing their professional self (Cohen & Ginsborg, 2021; Cohen & Ginsborg, 2022; Hancock et al., 2021; Dinardi et al., 2024).

A Net with Many Holes: The Policy Gaps

While the UK government’s response was substantial, it missed the mark with the precarious workforce (Spasova & Regazzoni, 2022). The flagship measure, the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, prioritized standard employment, automatically excluding most non-traditional workers.

To compensate, the government launched targeted schemes like the Self-Employed Income Support Scheme and bolstered Universal Credit. However, these turned out to be a ‘net with many holes’ (Curran-Troop, 2024) – as strict eligibility criteria blocked countless workers. For example, portfolio workers (who combine employment and self-employment) and the newly self-employed were often unqualified: they could not meet the test requiring at least 50% of their income to come from self-employment (Duggan et al., 2024; England, 2023). For those who qualified, aid was significantly less generous than the Job Retention Scheme support for the standard employees (Yue & Cowling, 2021). Self-employed workers historically traded tax flexibility for state social protection, a choice that left them exposed when the crisis hit (Antonucci, 2024).

Beyond financial gaps, the social protection net for insecure workers was inadequate. Alarmingly, these workers were nearly ten times more likely to report receiving no sick pay (TUC, 2021). In fact, platform workers, like delivery drivers, faced severe hurdles accessing social protection due to restrictive eligibility (Antonucci, 2024). This exclusion was particularly galling given the vital roles many of these individuals played during lockdowns, delivering food and sanitizing key spaces. The crisis consequently prompted unions to engage in strategic litigation to challenge the workers’ legal status and demand structural protections (Duggan, O’Sullivan, & O’Sullivan, 2024).

Survival Mode: Individual Strategies and Collective Action

Lacking state support, non-standard workers shifted to individual survival mode. They relied on partner and family support, using psychological strategies like structuring the day and positive self-talk (Cohen & Ginsborg, 2021; Hancock et al., 2021; Antonucci, 2024; May et al., 2022). The crisis drove a push to develop entrepreneurial skills ‘beyond simply being a performer,’ (Hancock et al., 2021), forcing many to ‘live with paradox’ (Ellis et al., 2023) and actively diversify their income.

Over two-thirds of freelance orchestral musicians sought new earnings streams (Cohen & Ginsborg, 2022). Creative professionals rapidly pivoted to digital platforms, self-branding, and ‘tip-jars’ to ‘survive in a capitalist world’ (Curran-Troop, 2024). However, this self-reliance often exacerbated pre-existing disadvantages for marginalized women entrepreneurs, increasing their domestic workload while limiting time for digital upskilling (Martinez Dy & Jayawarna, 2020). Crucially, this environment also fuelled collective action: high financial precarity galvanized platform workers and unions to use strategic litigation—bringing targeted lawsuits to force courts to reclassify them as employees—to challenge their legal status and secure basic protections (Wang et al., 2022; Lu et al., 2023; Duggan et al., 2024).

The Mandate for Change

The pandemic served as a ‘shock to the system’ (Bell & Blanchflower, 2020), exposing fundamental flaws in the UK labor market where a lack of a safety net for millions of non-standard workers leaves the entire economy vulnerable. Moving forward, this crisis—which sparked a public conversation about the need for ‘decent work’ (Duggan, O’Sullivan, & O’Sullivan, 2024)— must compel policymakers to prioritize worker security, not just flexibility. This requires models that ensure universal access to benefits like sick pay and pensions, and ‘more adequate ‘extraordinary’ income protection’ for non-standard workers in times of crisis (Spasova & Regazzoni, 2022).

Action Plan: Building Your Personal Shock Absorber

The analysis of the UK crisis offers a clear mandate for students entering any market-driven economy: personal resilience is the new job security. You must plan your career assuming the flexibility—and volatility—of the system will be directed at you.

Know your legal status. Understand the core difference between a traditional employee (e.g., W-2 in the US or PAYE in the UK) and any non-standard worker—a diverse group that includes self-employed/independent contractors (or 1099 workers in the US), gig workers, zero-hours contract staff and fixed-term contractors in the UK, and casual employees in Australia. The traditional employee grants access to foundational social protections (state benefits, unemployment insurance, sick pay); the non-standard worker shifts the burden of taxes, insurance, and retirement planning entirely onto you. Choose the status that aligns with your risk tolerance but never confuse them.

Once you know the risks, create your own safety net. Don’t rely on the state or future employers to catch you. Instead, build a financial runway (an emergency fund covering several months of expenses) designed to cover periods of under- or unemployment. For non-standard work, this is not a luxury; it is a core business expense.

Finally, embrace the portfolio mindset.Accelerate the development of entrepreneurial skills to intentionally build a diversified career. By diversifying both your income and skills, you become your own personal shock absorber, building resilience against volatility in any single industry or client.

References

Andrejuk, K. (2022) ‘Pandemic transformations in migrant spaces: Migrant entrepreneurship between super-digitalization and the new precarity’, Population, Space and Place, 28(6), p. e2564. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2564 .

Antonucci, L. (2024) ‘The lived experiences of the welfare state of platform workers: The barriers to accessing social protection in Italy, Sweden and the United Kingdom’, International Journal of Social Welfare. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsw.12708.

Bell, D. N. F. and Blanchflower, D. G. (2020) ‘US and UK labour markets before and during the COVID-19 crash’, National Institute Economic Review, 252, pp. R52–R69. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/nie.2020.14.

Castel, R. (1997) Les métamorphoses de la question sociale (The Metamorphoses of the Social Question). Fayard.

Cohen, S. and Ginsborg, J. (2021) ‘The Experiences of Mid-career and Seasoned Orchestral Musicians in the UK During the First COVID-19 Lockdown’, Frontiers in Psychology, 12. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.645967.

Cohen, S. and Ginsborg, J. (2022) ‘One Year on: The Impact of COVID-19 on the Lives of Freelance Orchestral Musicians in the United Kingdom’, Frontiers in Psychology, 13. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.885606.

Curran-Troop, H. (2024) ‘‘We live in a capitalist world, we need to survive!’: Feminist cultural work, platform capitalism, and pandemic precarity’, European Journal of Cultural Studies, 27(3), pp. 371–388. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/13675494231193821.

Dinardi, C., Wortman, A. and Muñoz Hernández, M. (2024) ‘“It’s been a roller coaster”: insights from performing artists on the COVID-19 pandemic and cultural policy’, Cultural Trends, 33(5), pp. 525-541. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09548963.2023.2227865.

Duggan, J., O’Sullivan, M. and O’Sullivan, M. (2024) ‘Essential or excluded? Union pressures and state responses to platform work in three liberal market economies’, Transfer, 29(4), pp. 491-505. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/10242589241231731 .

Ellis, S., McLelland, R. and Kostic Cisneros, R. (2023) ‘Dance After Lockdown: Living with Paradox’, Kritika Kultura, 40. Available at: https://dancelifeafterlockdown.files.wordpress.com/2023/12/kritika_kultura_issue_40_ellis_et_al.pdf.

England, L. (2024) ‘Rethinking creative freelancers and structures of care in cultural policy and organisational practice: A case study of Dundee during the Covid-19 pandemic’, International Journal of Cultural Studies, 27(4), pp. 492–509. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/13678779231210883.

Hall, P. A. (2015) Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford University Press.

Hancock, P. and Tyler, M. (2024) ‘Live Performers’ Experiences of Precarity and Recognition during COVID-19 and Beyond’, Work, Employment and Society, 38(6), pp. 1569–1590. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/09500170231218677.

Hancock, P., Tyler, M. and Godiva, M. (2021) ‘Thursday Night and a Sing-along ‘Sung Alone’: The Experiences of a Self-employed Performer During the Pandemic’, Work, Employment and Society, 35(6), pp. 1155–1166. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/09500170211045830.

HM Treasury. (2025) Spending Review 2025(CP 1336). Presented to Parliament by the Chancellor of the Exchequer by Command of His Majesty. HM Treasury. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/spending-review-2025-document/spending-review-2025-html.

Kolb, A. and Haitzinger, N. (2023) ‘“Brexit put us in the fridge, Covid in the freezer”: The impact of Covid-19 and Brexit on UK freelance dance artists’, Dance Research, 41(1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.3366/drs.2023.0389.

Lu, Z., Wang, S., Ling, W. and Guo, Y. (2023) ‘Gig work and mental health during the Covid-19 pandemic: A gendered examination of comparisons with regular employment and unemployment’, Social Science & Medicine, 337. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116281.

Martinez Dy, A. and Jayawarna, D. (2020) ‘Bios, mythoi and women entrepreneurs: A Wynterian analysis of the intersectional impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on self-employed women and women-owned businesses’, International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 38(5), pp. 391–403. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242620939935.

May, T., Warran, K., Burton, A. and Fancourt, D. (2022) ‘Socioeconomic and Psychosocial Adversities Experienced by Freelancers Working in the UK Cultural Sector During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study’, Frontiers in Psychology, 12. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.672694.

National Audit Office (NAO). (2025) ‘NAO guidance: Government exits and redundancies’ (Press Release). National Audit Office. Available at: https://www.nao.org.uk/press-releases/nao-guidance-government-exits-and-redundancies/.

Office for National Statistics (ONS). (2018) ‘Trends in self-employment in the UK’. ONS. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/articles/trendsinselfemploymentintheuk/2018-02-07.

Office for National Statistics (ONS). (2020) ‘Labour market overview, UK: March 2020’. ONS. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/uklabourmarket/march2020.

Schmidt, F. A. (2017) Digital Labour Markets in the Platform Economy: Mapping the Political Challenges of Crowd Work and Gig Work. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.

Schneider, M. R. (2021) Labor-Management Relations and Varieties of Capitalism. GLO Discussion Paper, No. 934. Available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/240929.

Spasova, S. and Regazzoni, P. (2022) ‘Income protection for self-employed and non-standard workers during the COVID-19 pandemic’, International Social Security Review, 75(2). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/issr.12292.

Standing, G. (2011) The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class. Bloomsbury.

Swords, J. and Johns, J. (2024) ‘Deepening precarity – the impact of COVID-19 on freelancers in the UK television industry’, Cultural Trends, 33(5), pp. 624–640. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09548963.2023.2247375.

TUC (Trades Union Congress) (2021) ‘Covid-19 and Insecure Work’. Available at: https://www.tuc.org.uk/research-analysis/reports/covid-19-and-insecure-work.

Wang, S., Li, L. Z. and Coutts, A. (2022) ‘National survey of mental health and life satisfaction of gig workers: the role of loneliness and financial precarity’, BMJ Open, 12. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066389.

Warran, K., May, T., Fancourt, D. and Burton, A. (2023) ‘Understanding changes to perceived socioeconomic and psychosocial adversities during COVID-19 for UK freelance cultural workers’, Cultural Trends, 32(5), pp. 449–473. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09548963.2022.2082270.

Work Foundation (Lancaster University). (2022) The UK Insecure Work Index 2022. Lancaster University. Available at: https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/media/lancaster-university/content-assets/documents/lums/work-foundation/UKInsecureWorkIndex.pdf.

Yue, W. and Cowling, M. (2021) ‘The Covid-19 lockdown in the United Kingdom and subjective well-being: Have the self-employed suffered more due to hours and income reductions?’, International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 39(2), pp. 93–108. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242620986763.