̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - worker rights

Legislating labour in the long run – how worker rights help economies

fpjl2 — Thu, 12 Jul 2018 11:09:05 +0000

There’s a familiar story that goes something like this: the post-war consensus was one of heavy regulation, dominant trade unions and the same job for life; then, in the 1980s, free market forces were unleashed, and regulation came to be viewed as a ‘market distortion’ that stifled productivity.

By the start of the 1990s, deregulation was a cornerstone of the emergent ‘Washington Consensus’, and worker protection and unions were in steep decline. Legal reforms to ‘free up’ the labour market were declared a route to prosperity by international bodies such as the OECD and World Bank.

Now, a decade on from a global economic crash, and the mood music may again be changing. Issues of inequality and migrant labour are destabilising politics, while all-conquering technology companies are driving new and more flexible – as well as precarious – ways of working.

Last year, for the first time in a generation, both major UK parties went into an election with manifestos that argued free market forces alone were not sufficient to achieve the desired levels of productivity and social cohesion.

From time limits on working to minimum wages, from dismissal rights for workers to legal support for strikes, the extent to which labour regulations engender flourishing or sclerotic economies is a major policy question that is now firmly back on the table.

Helpfully, a research project compiling the largest ever dataset of employment regulations from countries representing over 95% of world GDP (117 nations) tracked across a 44-year period (from 1970 to 2013) is now beginning to publish findings. ̽��ֱ��team has made the data open access for other researchers to use.

Ten years (with various intermissions) in the making, the project involved around 20 legal, economic and statistical researchers – from senior academics to PhD students and postdocs – pulling together numerous data sources before refining the analysis with sophisticated regression models based on equations created by Cambridge economists in the 1990s.

One constant, however, has been Simon Deakin, Director of the Centre for Business Research, Professor of Law at the Faculty of Law and Co-Chair of the ̽��ֱ��’s Public Policy Strategic Research Initiative.

“What we’ve ended up with is a vast dynamic dataset – a concrete product with implications for big policy debates, not least whether legislating to strengthen worker rights helps or hinders different types of economies,” says Deakin.

“Complex data of this nature may well prove helpful when exploring crucial issues for the future of society, such as how to combine social justice with economic growth. It’s really a question of the kind of global society we want.”

̽��ֱ��datasets tell a story that contrasts to some extent with the familiar political story that most of us recognise.

It goes something like this: despite the massive deregulation that accompanied economic liberalisation in the 1980s – spreading through former Soviet territories as well as into the global South during the 1990s – employment protection laws became gradually stronger over time pretty much everywhere.

“Even during the Thatcher years – while trade union laws were certainly dismantled – we don’t see significant weakening in individual protection laws governing areas such as termination of employment, for example,” says Deakin.

Moreover, after controlling for all other effects, the data suggest that this increase in employment protection that most countries and regions experienced during much of post-war history appeared to have no negative impact on their economies.

In fact, the team found small but positive correlations between stronger protective legislation and beneficial social and economic outcomes. This was seen in overall levels of employment, in increased labour productivity and in the amount of national income going to workforce wages rather than to capital profit.

Some of these positives may be the result of a “virtuous circle” in the long run, argues Deakin. Employment regulations can create short-term shocks: labour costs go up, leading to recruitment freezes or even lay-offs.

In the medium term, however, firms invest in new technologies and in training workers to use them. This improves morale, job security and productivity, while workers and their employers co-invest in learning and sharing knowledge – it’s called a “capital deepening” effect. “Innovation is connected to the way we regulate the labour market,” Deakin suggests.

He offers some important caveats. ̽��ֱ��positive coefficients seen in the data are small, conclusions can’t be drawn about any single nation and empirically it’s not straightforward to infer causation from correlation. “This is the first time anyone’s done this for so many countries over such a long period; much more work is needed to extend the analysis, including studies of individual countries.”

In addition, the bigger picture remains one of widening inequality and shrinking labour share – as illustrated by another time-series dataset the researchers have been working on: the shifting legal protections of shareholders.

“Labour rights are fighting a constant headwind across the decades,” says Deakin. “Worker protections gradually get a bit stronger over time, while shareholder rights start to rocket from the early 1990s – across the West but also in China and Russia.

“When you put these datasets together you can see labour weakening significantly compared with capital. However, we can say that the labour share would have gone down even further were it not for the strengthening in employment protection law.”

̽��ֱ��only dip of real note in the otherwise steady uptick of global employment regulation is found in Europe following the 2008 crash. ̽��ֱ��data show that labour protection laws became entangled in the Eurozone’s austerity drive, particularly in “debtor nations” such as Greece and Portugal.

“A reactionary resurgence of Washington-Consensus-style thinking post-crash resulted in minor rolling back of employment protections in Europe, but this approach is short-termist and I doubt there’s any real economic evidence for its effectiveness,” he says.

While liberalising legislation is often combined with new worker protections, as seen in Italy’s Jobs Act of 2014 or Germany’s controversial Hartz IV in the mid-2000s, reforms such as these loosened rules around ‘nonstandard’ employment: fixed-term and temporary work.

̽��ֱ��rise of this type of work – along with new notions of self-employment through digital platforms – make up the so-called gig economy of often-piecemeal and insecure employment.

How labour relations in this economy are regulated may prove to be a crucible for policymaking in many countries in the future. Deakin sees potential similarities within the dataset and beyond.

“ ̽��ֱ��gig economy is an issue that’s exploded in recent years, but our data show similar debates around labour law when part-time and agency work dramatically expanded 30 years ago and people needed better protection.

“You could even argue similarities to the late 18th century with factory expansion. At various points in history, labour law comes under pressure from technological innovation, an oversupply of labour or a loss of collective power. Traditional forms of regulation start to look worn.

“But the law evolves. We’re starting to see this with the designation of Uber drivers as ‘limb b’ workers: dependent to some extent on an employer, with accompanying rights.” There are parallels between ‘limb b’ and the introduction of part-time and temporary work in the 1980s, argues Deakin – “but the law caught up then and will do so again”.

“ ̽��ֱ��law, society and technology often evolve out of sync. Sometimes the law actually triggers advancement, such as the commercialisation of intellectual property rights contributing to innovation in IT and pharmaceuticals. You need to take a broad historical perspective to gauge these interactions, which is exactly what our research allows.”

Inset image: read more about our research on the topic of work in the ̽��ֱ��'s research magazine; download a pdf; view on Issuu.

Researchers have built the single largest dataset of employment laws – spanning more than 100 countries across much of post-war history – to look at how worker rights affect economies over decades.

Complex data of this nature may well prove helpful when exploring crucial issues for the future of society, such as how to combine social justice with economic growth

Simon Deakin

Unsplash

Steel workers

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright © ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – as here, on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms.

Yes

All in a day’s work

lw355 — Tue, 12 Jun 2018 08:54:24 +0000

READ THE STORY HERE

Researchers at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge are helping to understand the world of work – the good, the bad, the fair and the future.

Christopher Burns on Unsplash

Yes

'Precarious scheduling' at work affects over four million people in UK – far more than just zero-hours

fpjl2 — Wed, 16 Aug 2017 01:44:50 +0000

A new analysis by Cambridge and Oxford sociologists indicates that some 4.6 million people in the UK regularly experience ‘precarious scheduling’: flexible working with limited hours dictated by management, often with little notice, and to the detriment of employees’ home lives and mental health.

Researchers say this damaging approach to flexible work is common among supermarket and care home workers, for example, with precarious scheduling affecting 3.9 million more than just those on zero-hours contracts.

In fact, they describe zero-hours as merely the “tip of the iceberg” of precarious employment practices – as any contract with minimal guaranteed hours subject to last minute changes and reductions offers very little security.

This can leave workers in a degrading relationship with managers: begging for schedule changes to accommodate commitments such as childcare, and competing to become management ‘favourites’ in the hope of additional hours – often hours originally promised to them.

Dr Alex Wood, now at Oxford ̽��ֱ��, embedded himself as a shelf-stacker at a UK supermarket while a researcher at Cambridge’s Department of Sociology. He experienced first-hand the toxic interactions between shop management and the insecure – at times desperate – workers whose lives are controlled through scheduling.

Together with Cambridge collaborator Dr Brendan Burchell, Wood has now interrogated data from three rounds of the European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS) – undertaken across Europe every five years by EU agency EuroFound, most recently in 2015.

Using data from the last EWCS, the pair found that 14.7% of all surveyed UK workers routinely experienced manager-controlled alterations to their schedules – often at very short notice. They say that, when scaled up, this percentage equates to 4.6 million people experiencing some form of precarious scheduling in the UK.

̽��ֱ��researchers’ EWCS analysis is published today (16 August) in a blog post, as is Wood’s latest Cambridge study of supermarket staff living with precarious scheduling, in the journal Work, Employment & Society.

“Manager-controlled flexible scheduling causes a huge amount of stress and anxiety for workers who are unable to plan their lives socially or financially as a result,” says Burchell, from Cambridge’s Department of Sociology.

“ ̽��ֱ��practice is both toxic and endemic in many UK sectors such as care and retail. Government reviews need to look far beyond just zero-hours contracts.”

“ ̽��ֱ��key issue is not simply the lack of any guaranteed hours. ̽��ֱ��employment contracts of millions offer little security around the hours they will be told to work in a given day, week or month, and how much notice they are given.”

̽��ֱ��EWCS data includes surveys conducted in 2005, 2010 and 2015. ̽��ֱ��recent peak of precarious scheduling in the UK was 2010, with 18.4% of those surveyed. Wood suggests that reduced unemployment since 2010 may mean slightly less pressure to take precarious and unpredictable jobs with limited hours.

“ ̽��ֱ��past decade has seen a fragmenting of working time, as firms have saved costs by increasing shift flexibility through a variety of mechanisms,” says Wood, now at Oxford’s Internet Institute.

“These mechanisms include short- and zero-hour contracts, the emergence of ‘gig economy’ platforms, and flexible contracts that guarantee a minimum number of hours but no fixed scheduling pattern.

“Seven years of austerity have placed the public sector under pressure to contain labour costs through shift flexibility. Those who have challenging schedules imposed on them at short notice are likely to experience worse mental health, typified by anxiety and feeling low,” says Wood.

During his supermarket fieldwork, Wood observed how workers were frequently expected to extend or change shifts with little or no notice – causing the majority to feel negatively about their jobs.

̽��ֱ��latest study, out today, describes how control exerted by managers through flexible scheduling creates an environment where workers must constantly strive to maintain managers’ favour.

In one London store, he witnessed managers encouraging workers to “beg them for additional hours” by making vague promises that more hours would be available.

“Staff were told ‘I always have some overtime so let me know if you want any’. This was despite my entire work team being employed on less than nine hours a week and all desiring more hours or full time work,” says Wood.

One UK worker, Jackie, told Wood: “It’s strange because you speak to the staff and they say their department is short [of staff] but when you ask the manager they say ‘there isn’t any at the moment but keep putting your name down for overtime’. I’m just getting a few hours here and there.”

Wood also observed managers cutting hours – affecting worker income – at short notice and altering schedules to clash with childcare and education. Some staff would often work unpaid overtime just to stay in management good books.

“Managers plead innocence, and that staffing needs are set by head office. This was frequently disbelieved. Many workers felt punished, but it was impossible for them to know for sure – adding to the insecurity,” he says.

Analysis of EU survey data suggests millions in UK may suffer anxiety as a result of unpredictable management-imposed flexible working hours. Research in supermarkets finds workers ‘begging’ for extra hours, and feeling they are being punished with last minute shift changes.

Manager-controlled flexible scheduling causes a huge amount of stress and anxiety for workers who are unable to plan their lives socially or financially as a result

Brendan Burchell

Alex Barth

Eggs. Plenty of them.

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution

Flexible hours 'controlled by management' cause stress and damage home lives of low-paid workers

fpjl2 — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 09:37:31 +0000

A researcher who embedded himself in several London branches of one of the UK's largest supermarkets found that management used a combination of 'flexed-time' contracts and overtime to control worker shifts to meet times of anticipated demand, while ensuring costs are kept to a minimum.

Workers at the supermarket chain were frequently expected to extend or change shifts with little or no notice, often to the detriment of their home and family lives – causing the majority of workers interviewed to feel negatively about their jobs.

Low wages and lack of guaranteed hours, combined with convoluted contractual terms, weak union presence, and pressure from managers that at times bordered on coercion ("...there are plenty of people out there who need jobs") meant that many felt they had no choice but to work when ordered, despite the impact on childcare, work-life balance and, in some cases, health - both physical and mental.

Dr Alex Wood, who conducted the research while at Cambridge's Department of Sociology, has chosen not to name the retailer in the new study, published today in the journal Human Relations. Having spoken with union representatives from across the retail sector, however, Wood believes the practises he encountered are now endemic across major supermarkets in the UK.

̽��ֱ��Government's website describes flexible working as something that "suits an employee's needs". However, Wood says there is a critical distinction – one overlooked by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) – between workers controlling their own schedules, and management imposing control.

"Control over flexible working enables a better work-life balance. However, such control is the privilege of high-end workers. When low-paid, vulnerable workers experience flexible working time, it is at the whim of managers who alter schedules in order to maximise profits, with little consideration for the work-life balance of employees," said Wood.

̽��ֱ��practice of low core-hour contracts that can be 'flexed up' are most notoriously embodied in zero-hour contracts – recently reported to affect over 800,000 British workers. Last year, then DWP Minister Iain Duncan Smith held up a survey claiming to show "most" workers on such contracts find them to be beneficial.

Wood says this is an example of conflating low-end, hourly-paid workers who have schedules dictated by management - those in supermarkets, for example - with highly paid professionals such as consultants who control their own hours of work. While all are technically on zero-hours contracts, their experiences of work are dramatically different.

"It is misleading to claim that flexibility provided by zero-hour contracts is beneficial for 'most' workers' work-life balance, and it is simply implausible to suggest this is the case for low-paid, vulnerable workers who by definition lack the power to control their working time," said Wood, who contributed evidence to the coalition government's zero-hours policy review in 2014.

For the study, Wood conducted interviews with a number of workers from across four of the UK retailer's stores, ranging from check-out operators to online delivery drivers, as well as interviewing union reps and officials. He also conducted two months of "participatory observation": working as a shelf stacker in one of the larger supermarket stores.

His findings have led Wood to conclude that the problem of precarious contracts goes far beyond just zero-hours, encompassing most management-controlled flexible contracts.

At the time of the research, the UK retailer had a policy of new stores reserving 20% of all payroll costs for short-term changes in shifts, which requires around 45% of all staff to be on flexible contracts, says Wood, although interviews with union representatives indicated this was likely higher.

While contracted for as little as 7.5 core hours, all flexible workers had to provide 48 hours of availability per week at the point of application – with greater availability increasing the chances of being hired.

Officially, 'flexed' hours were not to exceed 60% of workers' core hours. However, despite being contracted for a weekly average of just nine core hours, Wood found that standard flexible workers were working an average of 36 hour weeks.

Management used combinations of 'overtime' – additional hours that are voluntary but can be offered on-the-spot – with 'flexed time' – additional hours that are compulsory but require 24 hours' notice – to ensure staffing levels could be manipulated at short notice to meet expected demand.

Both overtime and flexed time were paid at standard rates, keeping payroll costs down, and Wood found distinctions between the two were frequently blurred - disregarding what little contractual protection existed.

"In reality, the nature of low pay and low hours contracts means these workers can't afford to turn down hours," said Wood.

"Whether zero core hours, or seven, or nine - none provide enough to live on. This precarious situation of not having enough hours to make ends meet is heightened by a perception that refusal to work additional hours meant they would not be offered them again in future, something most workers simply couldn't afford."

̽��ֱ��stress caused by management-controlled flexed time of low hour contracts, and the impact on home and family lives, were frequently raised by the workers that Wood spoke to.

One worker provided what Wood describes as a "characteristic experience". Sara co-habited with her partner Paul, also employed at the UK retailer. "[W]e've set aside Saturday as a day to do something – me, Paul and my son – as a family... She [Sara's manager] now wants me to work Saturdays... it's all up in the air."

Colin, another worker, described the impact of dramatic schedule alterations to his wellbeing: "I had to change hours, or accept another position, or try another store... I felt really sick, it just hit me, it hit all of us..."

Asim, a union rep, made it clear that management bullying occurred: "People have been told, wrongly, that they can be sacked for it if they don't change their hours."

Under Duncan-Smith, the UK government legislated to ban 'exclusive' zero-hours contracts – those that have no guaranteed hours but restrict workers from getting another job – but Wood says this is simply a straw man, and new DWP Minister Stephen Crabb must go much further.

'It's imperative that Stephen Crabb breaks from his predecessor and recognises the damage which wider manager-controlled flexible scheduling practices, including all zero hours contracts, do to work-life balance," Wood said.

"Policies are needed which strengthen low-end workers' voice. When alterations to schedules are made solely by managers and driven by cost containment, flexibility is only beneficial for the employer not the employees."

Researcher Alex Wood calls on new DWP Minister Stephen Crabb to acknowledge distinction between flexible scheduling controlled by managers to maximise profit, damaging lives of the low-paid in the process, and high-end professionals who set their own schedules – an issue he says was publicly fudged by Ian Duncan-Smith to justify zero-hour contracts.

I had to change hours, or accept another position, or try another store... I felt really sick, it just hit me, it hit all of us...

Colin, worker at the unnamed supermarket

Tesco PLC

Tesco Linwood

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike

Honeypot Britain? EU migrants’ benefits and the UK referendum

fpjl2 — Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:04:03 +0000

A new Cambridge ̽��ֱ�� research project is gathering “robust empirical evidence” on the experience of EU migrant workers in the UK, exploring everything from hopes and expectations to how they find work and what use EU migrants make of benefits.

̽��ֱ��research is timely, as perceptions of EU migrants undercutting British workers or acting as ‘benefits tourists’ are fuelling much of the debate in the lead-up to June’s EU Referendum.

Some MPs are warning that Britain has become a “honeypot nation” with its social security system acting as a primary pull factor, leading to David Cameron’s negotiation of a so-called ‘emergency brake’ on benefits for EU migrants.

However, critics argue that the government have been consistently unable to provide any evidence that this is the case. For example, last week’s response to a Parliamentary question on the amount spent on benefits to EU migrants was simply: “the information is not available”.

̽��ֱ��EU Migrant Worker Project will aim to fill some of that knowledge gap. By combining interviews and focus groups with new methodologies for analysing available data, the research team hope to build an evidential base for EU migrants’ experiences of and attitudes toward Britain’s employment and social security systems.

̽��ֱ��project, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, is led by Professor Catherine Barnard and Dr Amy Ludlow from Cambridge’s Faculty of Law, and is launched today (Friday 26th February) with a roundtable discussion involving Labour former Home Secretary Charles Clarke and current Conservative MP Heidi Allen among others.

Professor Barnard said: “We hope to shed new light on the big question of how we adequately regulate migration within a socio-economically diverse EU and a post-financial crisis context. This question is central to Brexit and to the outcome of the UK's referendum on EU membership.”

Initial work has already been carried out, and a study published last October in the journal Industrial Law shows that EU migrants are using UK employment tribunals at much lower rates than would be expected relative to population size.

̽��ֱ��study, the only one of its kind, is based on analysis of three years of Employment Tribunal decisions alongside field interviews. It suggests that migrant workers from EU-8 nations use employment tribunals over 85% less than would be expected, given the size of the workforce they represent.

̽��ֱ��researchers identified various factors affecting migrants’ willingness and ability to use tribunals, including: lack of knowledge of their rights, reluctance to engage with the judicial system and, for those in the UK for a short time, a desire to maximise their earnings that is prioritised over complaints about mistreatment.

Under current EU law, EU migrants have rights to equal treatment in their terms and conditions of employment offered to domestic workers.

However, this initial study suggests that when it comes to employment conditions these may be rights that “exist more ‘on paper’ than in practice”, write the researchers.

“While we found good evidence to suggest that EU-8 workers were fairly treated by Employment Tribunal judges, navigating the system and accessing enough advice to understand the basic elements of the rights these workers are due is deeply problematic,” said Dr Ludlow.

“In interviews, we were told that largescale cuts to local authorities have had a negative impact on resources such as Citizen Advice Bureaus. These are important sources of guidance for workers who cannot afford legal advice, including workers from the EU.”

Professor Barnard said that the introduction of Employment Tribunal fees has meant that many workers are now priced out of claiming their employment rights. “If the Government is concerned about migrant workers’ undercutting employment terms and conditions and labour standards for domestic workers, our research suggests that resource needs to be directed to enabling migrant workers to enforce their rights, and to properly resourcing enforcement organisations such as the Gangmasters’ Licencing Authority.”

Unlike some other EU Member States, the UK did not impose restrictions on the admission of workers coming from the so-called EU-8 countries (such as Poland and the Czech Republic), apart from the requirement to register under the Workers’ Registration Scheme.

Over a million EU-8 workers, taking advantage of their free movement rights under Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), have arrived in the UK since 2004. They enjoy rights to equal treatment in any social and tax advantages offered to domestic workers – including the payment of child benefit and ‘in-work benefits’ such as tax credits.

Barnard and Ludlow plan to use the research design from their employment enforcement study and apply it to social security tribunals, to help give some sense of the number of EU migrants who claim benefits and the nature of the cases in which they are involved. They will also interview EU migrants and those that work closely with them, to explore migrants’ hopes, expectations and experiences.

I didn’t come to the UK just to work in any kind of job

Early interviews have highlighted the importance of online grass roots communities such as Facebook groups for migrant workers seeking advice, and that stopping child benefit for EU migrants may result in fewer family units making the transition to the UK, and an increase in younger, unattached men working in the UK, who are likely to integrate less permanently within their host community.

While some interviewees are preparing to leave Britain, citing a better quality of life in their home nation (“I'm not interested in staying in the UK just because it's possible”), the researchers also found migrant success stories.

One interviewee spoke of her determination to work in nursing: “I didn’t come to the UK just to work in any kind of job. Either I’m working my way towards nursing or, if that’s not possible, I’m going back.” After struggling through bar work and learning medical English on her days off, the woman is now a nurse in a local hospital.

“Many of the EU migrants we’ve talked to so far don’t understand our complex social security system; their only interest is in finding work,” said Dr Ludlow.

As well as one-to-one interviews and focus groups, the researchers will be making a documentary and providing migrant workers with disposable cameras. “It’s another way of trying to capture the migrant experience that offers an alternative insight to words on paper,” said Professor Barnard.

̽��ֱ��project is a two-way process, she says, with minute-long podcasts summarizing relevant aspects of the law, which will be available on EU Migrant Worker Project later this month.

“What we can offer the migrant community in return is quite detailed knowledge of the law and their rights and how to enforce those rights, both to claim employment rights but also social security benefits.”

Added Dr Ludlow: “Accusations that the UK has become a ‘honeypot nation’ has become a key issue in the debate about the UK’s membership of the EU.

“By gathering empirical evidence about EU migrants' experiences of navigating the labour market and social security system in the UK, we hope to increase our understanding of EU and domestic law as it works in practice and to inform public opinion in anticipation of the referendum on 23 June and beyond.”

If you are interested in learning more about Professor Barnard and Dr Ludlow’s work please email euworker@hermes.cam.ac.uk, tweet @eumigranworker, or contact them on their Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/eu.migrantworker/. Their project website is: www.eumigrantworker.law.cam.ac.uk.

Ahead of Britain’s EU referendum, research will explore the experiences of EU migrants working in the UK, and attitudes to employment and social security – for which there is little empirical evidence, despite intense political rhetoric. An initial study suggests workers from the EU are significantly under-represented in employment tribunals.

Accusations that the UK has become a ‘honeypot nation’ has become a key issue in the debate about the UK’s membership of the EU

Amy Ludlow

Kip Loades

EU migrant workers

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Zero-hours contracts are ‘tip of the iceberg’ of damaging shift work, say researchers

fpjl2 — Fri, 18 Apr 2014 00:12:03 +0000

New research on two supermarket chains, one UK and one US, shows that a range of flexible employment practices – extending far beyond just zero-hours contracts – cause widespread anxiety, stress and ‘depressed mental states’ in workers as a result of financial and social uncertainty, and can block worker access to education as well as much-needed additional income.

̽��ֱ��findings are included in a report submitted to the government consultation on zero-hours contracts at the request of the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills.

̽��ֱ��report’s authors, from the ̽��ֱ��’s Department of Sociology, say the UK government should widen the net in reviewing damaging employment practices, arguing that employees be granted the right to make statutory claims to work additional core hours and have a say in the scheduling of their hours.

“Zero-hours contracts are the tip of the iceberg; just one small manifestation of this much wider problem in our workplaces,” said Dr Brendan Burchell, Head of Department and co-author on the report, compiled with his PhD candidate Alex Wood.

“Workplace flexibility is thought of as helping employees, but it has become completely subverted across much of the service sector to suit the employer – and huge numbers of workers are suffering as a consequence.

“So-called ‘flexi-contracts’, whether that’s zero, eight or ten hours – none of which can provide a living – allow low-level management unaccountable power to dictate workers’ hours and consequent income to a damaging extent that is open to incompetency and abuse.”

̽��ֱ��research – based on interviews with UK and US supermarket workers and union officials, as well as months of shop-floor observation – found that strategies such as extreme part-time contracts, key-time contracts and frequent labour matching, as well as ‘at will’ zero-hours employment, are all experienced as a form of job insecurity that causes untold stress for thousands of employees and their families.

Extreme part-time contracts guarantee such low hours of work that many workers must work overtime as a matter of necessity. Labour matching involves management rearranging shifts to meet predicted future shopping demand.

With key-time contracts, workers are given limited core hours and asked to state additional times they can work. Managers can demand they work any hours falling during these times with just 24 hours’ notice.

Previously, these contracts were reserved for roles where matching demand was most critical – such as fulfilling online orders. ̽��ֱ��UK supermarket’s policy is now that all new stores aim for 45 per cent of staff to be on ‘key-time’.

As one UK worker interviewed by the researchers put it: “I’ve got two kids and a mortgage and I’m gonna be out of a job because I can’t do these hours”. Another said: “They put a lot of stress on people… I used to be in tears”.

It’s not just financial insecurities, psychological well-being and blocks to additional earning that impact workers, say researchers. These contracts also reduce access to education and training programmes, and mean that those with children and other caring responsibilities are often forced to put the burden on others with very little notice. Burchell describes the problem as a “combination of individual and social impact”.

In the report, the authors note that even informal employee input into work schedules has been shown to significantly reduce negative consequences of unpredictable working hours. They write that there is a need for the policy debate surrounding zero-hours contracts to be better informed by evidence.

Previous research cited by the government doesn’t make the important distinction between high and low wage workers on zero-hours contracts, say the researchers. For example, many consultants work on a zero hour basis.

“It is the invidious way that vulnerable people at the low end of the labour market – such as in supermarket retail – are forced to live their lives that requires scrutiny,” said Wood

“High unemployment and tough economic times, combined with ever-increasing flexible working practices that favour corporations, is creating a culture of servitude – trapping people in vicious cycles of instability, stress and a struggle to make ends meet.

“ ̽��ֱ��policies the government is looking at completely misunderstand the nature and scale of the problem.”

While California is an ‘At Will Employment’ State, meaning that all the US supermarket workers are on de-facto zero-hours contracts, the UK supermarket does not make use of zero-hours contracts. However, the researchers say that through a combination of extreme part-time and key-time contracts it achieves similar worker flexibility.

They found that all these employment strategies contribute to employee anxieties as workers try to juggle these demands with social and family responsibilities – as well as the enduring financial worry if next week’s hours drop.

During fieldwork, Wood interviewed a number of current UK and US employees on flexi-contracts.

One UK worker said: “Nobody can possibly survive on three and a half hours’ pay a week. And then it boils down to you’ve got your three and a half hours plus you’ve got flexed-time which they will give you if they need you.

“But once your face doesn’t fit you don’t get any more hours and you might as well stay on the dole really.”

Burchell adds that some employers use these contracts because they have genuinely unpredictable staffing needs – such as salad production that is weather dependent. But in the case of supermarkets, employers are using flexi-contracts because they are convenient for management, and the impact on the lives of workers isn’t being considered.

“There is plenty of guidance for managers about good practice for health and safety, for example, but almost nothing about scheduling worker hours – and there could and should be,” he said.

“Much of the misery caused is probably through incompetent scheduling, and management not realising the way they are controlling workers’ lives. If employees have a right to request more predictable hours enshrined in legislation that the management would have to justify refusing, it would at least help redress the balance slightly.”

New report shows that zero-hours contracts are only one of a wide number of flexible employment practices that are abused by managers - leading to financial insecurity, anxiety and stress in the workforce. Researchers say the Government consultation was too narrow and call for legislation requiring employers to defend scheduling decisions.

So-called ‘flexi-contracts’, whether that’s zero, eight or ten hours – none of which can provide a living – allow low-level management unaccountable power to dictate workers’ hours

Brendan Burchell

Markus Schopke

̽��ֱ��consumer society is happy (for a while)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike