Flexibility = precarity or flexibility + security? The lost guarantees of social security

The Object of the Study: «Flexicurity Strategy» and Precarious Employment. The Subject of the Study: Profile the Precarious Employment and the Strategy of flexible and non-standard forms of employment (NSFE). The Purpose of the Study: Identifying the characteristics of the “Flexicurity strategy” and the social and economic Impact of the flexible and precarious employment in Europa. The Main Provisions of the Article: Because of the economic and social challenges of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and the profound changes in the labour market processes, the risk of being excluded from work and from social goods divided by work is no longer just among the low-skilled, or manual workers today. As unemployment became commonplace, the basic paradigm of the distribution of social goods and the existence of existential security, based on the share of work carried out, is also jeopardized. Following the turn of the millennium, with the spread of flexible forms of employment, social security has been damaged not only for the unemployed but also for a wide range of workers. The «Flexicurity strategy», designed to tackle the employment crisis of the 1990s - aimed to increase employment by using active labor market instruments and flexibility of work, while strengthening state responsibility in providing social guarantees - it seems to have failed. The pillars of social protection have been weakening among workers in recent years, and the precariat and precarious employment and income insecurity have become more and more widely known phenomenon. After all, the question is right: guaranteeing the social security of workers can only be achieved through the reduction of flexible forms of employment or the creation and guarantee of new forms of social security that fit into the 21st century labor market conditions, dictated by the digitized world.