From the premise that better work makes for better societies, the challenge, taken up in the introduction to this special issue of , is to explore what makes work better, or worse, and how it can be improved. As a wide variety of experiments shape our economies and communities for the future, a key challenge is to engage in shared learning about these processes in order to stimulate a dialogue between the aspiration for better work and the conditions likely to hinder or facilitate making work better. It is an invitation to move from narrow conceptions of job quality to a broader lens of how world-of-work actors strategise, innovate and incorporate uncertainty into their search for sustainable solutions for better work. Key themes include: why work needs to be better (but is often worse); why better work makes for better societies; how work can be made better; the role of institutions in achieving better work; and, finally, how union strategies are essential to processes of experimentation to make work better.

With the initial context of COVID-19 fuelling Amazon's exponential growth, this article investigates how the pandemic (re)defined labour struggles, i.e., cultivating labour's structural, associational and institutional powers in two case study countries, Germany and the US. By analysing these power resources in its two largest markets, I argue that Amazon's structural conditions by which it organises its warehouse labour, which predate the pandemic, have continued to act as obstacles to collective labour action. While in Germany, ver.di continues to mobilise its workplace power but has been unable to get Amazon to sign a collective agreement, the pandemic triggered unprecedented workplace mobilisations and the pursuit of associational power in the US, albeit with varying outcomes. Despite their different industrial relations systems and labour struggles, these two cases highlight the key role of shop-floor organising to put pressure on Amazon, while Amazon's continued rejection of unions as negotiating partners further underlines the importance of regulating Amazon's union-busting tactics.

As ever more policy-makers, governments and organisations turn to the gig economy and digital labour as an economic development strategy to bring jobs to places that need them, it becomes important to understand better how this might influence the livelihoods of workers. Drawing on a multi-year study with digital workers in Sub-Saharan Africa and South-east Asia, this article highlights four key concerns for workers: bargaining power, economic inclusion, intermediated value chains, and upgrading. The article shows that although there are important and tangible benefits for a range of workers, there are also a range of risks and costs that unduly affect the livelihoods of digital workers. Building on those concerns, it then concludes with a reflection on four broad strategies - certification schemes, organising digital workers, regulatory strategies and democratic control of online labour platforms - that could be employed to improve conditions and livelihoods for digital workers.

This article focuses on the under-researched temporary agency employment in Greece. It shows that the development of the temporary employment agency sector has gone hand in hand with the flow of undocumented and exploitable migrant labour in Greece over the past 25 years, reflecting the segmentation of the Greek labour market along ethnic lines. Using empirical research evidence on the operation of temporary employment agencies in the Greek hospitality and health care sectors, the article highlights the precarious or even illicit nature of agency employment in a context in which labour outsourcing and flexible employment are promoted by policy-makers. Last but not least, it suggests that the segmented landscape of the Greek labour market has become more complex during the economic crisis, with more and more Greeks drawn to agency-mediated precarious employment.