Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Ethnic Minority Workers in the Hotel and Catering Industry

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Ethnic Minority Workers in the Hotel and Catering Industry

  1. 1. The Experience of Ethnic Minority Workers in the Hotel and Catering Industry: Routes to Support and Advice on Workplace Problems A Review of the Issues Working Paper 1 Tessa Wright Anna Pollert Working Lives Research Institute London Metropolitan University July 2005
  2. 2. 2 Introduction .......................................................................................................................2 Outline of project methodology .....................................................................................4 1. Ethnic minority employment in the UK ..........................................................................6 1.1 Definitions ...............................................................................................................6 1.2 Ethnic minorities in the population ..........................................................................6 1.3 Labour market participation.....................................................................................7 1.4 Evidence of discrimination ......................................................................................9 1.5 Equal opportunities policies ..................................................................................11 1.6 Government policy ................................................................................................11 2. The employment of migrant workers in the UK...........................................................12 2.1 Definitions .............................................................................................................12 2.2 Migrants in the UK.................................................................................................12 2.3 Labour market participation...................................................................................13 2.4 Evidence of discrimination and exploitation ..........................................................13 2.5 Government policy ................................................................................................15 3. The hotel and catering sector......................................................................................17 3.1 Economic characteristics ......................................................................................17 3.2 Labour market characteristics...............................................................................18 3.2.1 Overview ........................................................................................................18 3.2.2 Gender segregation........................................................................................19 3.2.3 Labour shortages and the Work Permit Scheme ...........................................20 3.2.4 Regional breakdown.......................................................................................21 3.3 Conditions of work.................................................................................................21 3.3.1 Agency work...................................................................................................22 3.3.2 Pay .................................................................................................................23 3.3.3 Working hours ................................................................................................24 3.3.4 Working environment .....................................................................................24 3.3.5 Training ..........................................................................................................25 3.4 Trade unions .........................................................................................................25 3.5 Industry bodies......................................................................................................25 4. Ethnic minority workers in hotels and catering............................................................27 4.1 Participation in the sector......................................................................................27 4.1.1 Migrant workers in the sector in London ........................................................28 4.1.2 Sectoral growth ..............................................................................................29 4.1.3 Age profile ......................................................................................................30 4.1.4 Unionisation....................................................................................................30 4.2 The experiences of ethnic minority workers in Hotels and Catering .....................30 4.2.1 Self-employment ............................................................................................31 5. Knowledge of rights and support and advice for workplace problems........................32 6. Research aims and objectives ....................................................................................34 6.1. Key questions.......................................................................................................35 6.2. The Advisory Group .............................................................................................36 7. Project methodology ...................................................................................................37 7.1 The target communities.........................................................................................37 7.2 Interviews..............................................................................................................37 7.3 Possible recruitment strategy................................................................................38 7.4. Analysis................................................................................................................39 Bibliography ....................................................................................................................40 Appendix 1: Regional distribution of ethnic groups across England ...............................44 Appendix 2: SIC (2003) Section H Hotels and Restaurants............................................47 Appendix 3: Employers in hotels and restaurants with union recognition.......................49 Appendix 4: Provisional Timetable..................................................................................50
  3. 3. 3 Introduction The aims of this research project on the Experience of Ethnic Minority and Migrant Workers in the Hotel and Catering Industry are to identify both positive experiences but also the range of problems encountered and routes to support and advice used to resolve them. The main objective is to inform policy to improve good-practice both in the sector and in areas of high migrant and ethnic minority employment more widely, in order to prevent problems from arising, and to improve the support and advice mechanisms and services available. This paper outlines the terms of reference of this research project, as well as further elaborating of its aims, objectives and methodology. Parts 1 and 2, which distinguish between ethnic minority and migrant workers in Britain, provide an analytic separation of two categories which, in real life, are complex, changing and overlapping. We use the Labour Force Survey definitions of ‘ethnic minorities’ (EM), although what constitutes EM is a politically and socially complex, racialised, and variable concept. It is also worth pointing out that groups that are commonly referred to as ethnic minorities in Britain are often not minority groups in other national contexts. For example, members of EM groups may, or may not be British citizens, and may be first, second or later generations. They may, or may not be migrants. They may be more or less ‘visible’, and this ‘visibility’ is socially constructed. Recently, the perception of EM workers has been coloured by the discourse on migrants, and this in itself has often been conflated with the discourse on ‘refugees’ and ‘asylum seekers’. Many of the latter may not be ‘visible’ in terms of skin colour, in the way black and Asian people are, but are ‘visible’ in terms of language, cultural characteristics, and discrimination. Migrants may, or may not be defined as EM, and may, or may not be discriminated against. White Australian or Canadian migrant workers, for example, would not be. But, Kosovan people may be regarded as EM, and suffer racialisation and discrimination, and Czech or Polish people may, or may not be racialised and discriminated against. From the point of view of a research project on the experience and problems of EM workers in a sectoral study such as this, what is of relevance is less objective definitions, and more, the significance of EM and/or migrant status for their work experience. A key issue is likely to be their relative disadvantage because of racialisation, or their treatment as other than white British. But this may take different forms, depending on labour market context. Some EM groups work in particular sectors, such as restaurants, because this is a sector in which they can set up small businesses and work in relatively autonomous labour market enclaves, as in Asian or Chinese restaurants. Here, labour market exclusion from other sectors creates clusters of work/employment, in which we are likely to explore issues associated with small and family business within ethnic groups. In other parts of Hotels and Catering, such as large, British white-owned hotels or international chains, EM and migrant workers’ experience will be defined by their ‘otherness’ in relation to the ethnicity and nationality of the employer, and there is likely to be a range of experiences, some associated with EM status, some from migrant status, some from a mixture of both. This introduction seeks to address the complexity of the problems of identity and definition, and to signal that
  4. 4. 4 although the analytical distinctions between EM and migrant employment is an important analytical device, the two may merge in reality. For this reason, and for economy of language, the term ‘EM’ workers in this study is used broadly and refers to the whole range of those who are socially defined and who identify themselves as distinct from ‘White British’ workers – both EM and migrant workers. Part 3 briefly outlines the Hotel and Catering sector, and the sub-sectors which we intend to explore. Importantly, much of our subject matter is sectorally based, and sector variables will cut across those of gender, age and ethnicity. Thus, the labour market and employment characteristics of the Hotel and Catering sector will inform our questions regarding the particular experience of EM workers – for example, the prevalence of young workers, of short-term and part-time employment, of low pay and of high rates of dismissal. Part 4 addresses the participation and experience of EM workers in the sector. Statistics from 2001 Census are provided by ethnicity, gender and region for those working in Hotels and Restaurants. However, it is in data such as these that the problems of definition outlined above arise. We do not know who among these groups are settled and who migrant, nor do the categories give us Nationality, although these could be sought elsewhere. The most problematic group is the aggregate group ‘Other White’, which includes many migrants, including those from Eastern Europe, who, as discussed in Part 2, are identified by other means. However, the sectoral and regional distributions shown will at least provide an informed benchmark by which to assess which sub-sectors, EMs and gender compositions we shall try to address in each of the regions. What is also clear from the literature review on the experience of workers in the sector, is the lack of research here, both on the actual sector, and even more so, on the experience of EMs, about which surprisingly little is known. Such literature as exists is mainly over fifteen years old, and although there are pockets of well researched areas, such as on McDonalds and some fast-food chains, it is limited. Part 5 touches on existing research on support and advice mechanisms for workplace problems, but since a key objective of this project is to explore what these are for EM workers, the section asks more questions than it answers. Part 6 outlines the Aims and Objectives of the project, including key research questions and Part 7 addresses project methodology, drawing partly on the lessons of other research projects. Outline of project methodology The scope of this European Social Fund project is confined to England, and this research will focus on three regions: London, the South West and the West Midlands. Ethnic minority populations are concentrated in particular areas of the country (see 1.2), with London having a considerably larger non-white population than the rest of the country. Many Indians and Pakistanis, for example, are also concentrated in the West Midlands, and work in the hotel and restaurant sector. For these reasons, these two regions have been chosen for this research. In addition, initial investigations have shown that the South West – the English
  5. 5. 5 region with the smallest non-white population recorded by the2001 Census – is experiencing a growth in migrant workers. It is also an area where the problems facing EM populations has been less well documented, although where studies have been done, isolation from EM communities emerges as an issue. By looking at three very different regions, this research will therefore include the experiences of workers in large urban areas with significant EM populations who may benefit from community support, as well as those in areas with smaller EM or migrant populations who may be more isolated. In depth interviews will be conducted with around 55 workers: 25 in London, 15 in the Midlands and 15 in the South West. The proportions reflect the fact that there are greater proportions, and also a wider variety of ethnic backgrounds, of EM workers in London. Group interviews may also be conducted with workers to give some indication of the existence of EM and language enclaves, and views from these groups of who are perceived as ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ in a work context. To provide additional contextual information, there will also be interviews with key informants with experience of the sector. Employers will be asked about their employment policies, any problems they may face and support/advice they receive. In addition, employer or trade union representatives, as well as community organisations that represent workers from particular ethnic groups or nationalities, will be interviewed. It could also be useful to interview representatives of organisations providing support and advice, such as Acas, the CRE or CABx.
  6. 6. 6 1. Ethnic minority employment in the UK 1.1 Definitions The difficulties of defining or classifying ethnic groups or ethnic minorities are recognised by academics and statisticians (see ONS, 2003) and it is clear that definitions of ethnic groups evolve over time in response to social and political developments. The category “mixed” for example, was only introduced into the Census in 2001. The figures presented in this section use the current Census or Labour Force Survey definitions, while recognising the limitations of these broad categories for this sectoral study in which objective definitions may be less relevant than the significance of overlapping ethnic minority and migrant status for people’s work experience. Definitions of nationality add further complexity and classifications such as, “White other”, encompass a wide range of ethnic and national origins and may include many workers who are relevant to our study. 1.2 Ethnic minorities in the population Table 1 below shows the ethnic composition of each English region, using the ethnicity classification used in the 2001 Census, and shows that two of the regions which are the subject of this study have the highest EM populations: London and the West Midlands The South West had the lowest non-white population at the time of the 2001 Census and is therefore considered interesting for this study as a contrast to the other regions chosen, and to highlight issues of isolation from EM communities. It should be noted that EM and migrant worker populations are likely to have changed since 2001, and there is evidence that these changes are particularly affecting areas such as the South West. Table 1: Ethnic composition of the English regions North East North West Yorks and the Humber East Midlands West Midlands East London South East South West England % % % % % % % % % % White 97.61 94.44 93.48 93.49 88.74 95.12 71.15 95.10 97.70 90.92 Mixed 0.49 0.93 0.91 1.03 1.39 1.08 3.15 1.07 0.76 1.31 Indian 0.40 1.07 1.04 2.93 3.39 0.95 6.09 1.12 0.33 2.09 Pakistani 0.56 1.74 2.95 0.67 2.93 0.72 1.99 0.73 0.14 1.44 Bangladeshi 0.25 0.39 0.25 0.17 0.60 0.34 2.15 0.19 0.10 0.56 Other Asian 0.13 0.22 0.25 0.28 0.40 0.25 1.86 0.29 0.10 0.48 Black Caribbean 0.04 0.30 0.43 0.64 1.56 0.49 4.79 0.34 0.25 1.14 Black African 0.10 0.24 0.19 0.22 0.23 0.31 5.28 0.31 0.13 0.97 Black Other 0.02 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.19 0.10 0.84 0.06 0.05 0.19 Chinese 0.24 0.40 0.25 0.31 0.31 0.38 1.12 0.41 0.26 0.45 Other 0.17 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.27 0.27 1.58 0.37 0.19 0.44 All minority ethnic groups 2.39 5.56 6.52 6.51 11.26 4.88 28.85 4.90 2.30 9.08 All ethnic groups = 100% 2515442 6729764 4964833 4172174 5267308 5388140 71720918000645 4928434 49138831 Source: Census, April 2001, Office for National Statistics
  7. 7. 7 Ethnic minorities have different patterns of settlement across England, with most groups found in greater numbers in London. Appendix 1 shows, using pie charts, how the population of each ethnic group is distributed across the English regions. While the White group is fairly evenly spread across the English regions, almost all ethnic minority groups are most heavily concentrated in London. Pakistanis are an exception to this, with greater proportions in the West Midlands and Yorkshire and the Humber than in London. Black Africans, however, are mostly located in London, where nearly 80% live. 1.3 Labour market participation Ethnic minorities continue to be disadvantaged in the labour market in relation to rates of unemployment, earnings levels, occupational attainment and levels of self-employment. However there are significant differences between and within ethnic groups, with Indians and Chinese doing better than whites in some measures such as proportions in managerial or professional posts (Cabinet Office, 2003). Unemployment rates for some groups have remained higher than average for many years, with the rate for Bangladeshi, Pakistani and black Caribbean men still 10-15 percentage points above that for white men by 2000 (although representing some improvement since the 15-20% difference in 1992). Latest government figures (presented in the Ethnic Minority Employment Task Force Year One Progress Report in November 2004) show an improvement in the employment rate of EM women of 2.2 percentage points between 2001 and 2004, while the rate for EM men has changed little (DWP, 2004). Levels of economic inactivity (defined as those of working age who are neither in work nor seeking work) are particularly high among Bangladeshi and Pakistani groups, with women especially likely to be economically inactive (activity rates were 30% for Pakistani women and 20% for Bangladeshi women, compared to 74% for white women in 1999, Dale et al, 2002). EM workers also fare worse than their white counterparts in earnings, according to the Task Force. The national average wage was found to be £376 a week (£19,552 a year) for white employees, but only £347 a week (£18,044 a year) for EM workers. And Bangladeshi workers do even worse, earning only £235 a week or £12,220 a year - less than two-thirds the average wage of their white counterparts (Labour Research Department, 2005a). The Equal Opportunities Commission recently found that EM women have a lower average weekly income (£118) than white women (£135), despite the fact that they are more likely to enter higher education (58%) than EM men (55%), white women (41%) and white men (34%) (EOC, 2004). However the difference in earnings between white women and men was greater (51% less for women) than for EM women and men (41%), possibly an indication of the lower earnings of EM men. It could also be due to the fact that a greater percentage of EM women work full-time than white women.
  8. 8. 8 Recent figures from the Labour Force Survey for 2004, however, show that while white male workers have higher average hourly pay than black male workers, black women earn more than white women (see table 2 below). As suggested above, this may be due to the greater likelihood of white women to work part- time. Overall, according to the Low Pay Commission, the ethnic pay gap is much smaller than the gaps for gender and disability. It finds that, as the ethnic pay gap was small to begin with, the introduction of the national minimum wage (NMW) has not had a significant impact on it (LPC, 2005, pp.116-117). However it does demonstrate that EM groups benefited disproportionately from the 2004 uprating of the NMW, estimating that some 8% of the beneficiaries belonged to a minority ethnic group, compared to the 6% of the adult working population who belong to EM groups. The largest proportion of EM workers to benefit were of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin (ibid, pp.115-116). Table 2: Median hourly pay by ethnicity and gender for employees over 18, 2004 £ per hour Male Female White 9.31 7.06 Non-white 7.54 7.50 Black 7.00 8.27 Indian 9.56 7.60 Pakistani/Bangladeshi 6.25 6.24 Mixed/other 7.60 7.58 Source: LFS 2004, published in LPC, 2005, p.118 There has been some improvement in the proportions of EM groups in professional or managerial jobs, although again the situation varies according to ethnic group. While Chinese men and women improved their representation among managerial jobs between 1992 and 2000, and are found in greater proportions than white workers, the proportions of black Caribbean and Pakistani managers remain low. Indian men have similar rates to white men (around 25% in professional/managerial posts) and Indian women have seen an increase in such positions, to 16% in 2000 (compared to 15% for white women) from around 6% in 1992 (Cabinet Office, 2003, p. 22). Levels of self-employment in many EM groups is high, particularly among Pakistani, Indian and Chinese men. However self-employment among black Caribbean and black African men is lower than for whites (Cabinet Office, 2003). There is considerable debate as to how far the higher levels of self-employment among some groups can be explained by factors such as cultural disposition and how far it is to do with anticipation and experience of discrimination in the labour market (Cabinet Office, 2003; Wrench and Modood, 2000; Ram et al 2001a). Nevertheless it is a significant and growing form of employment for many groups. While figures on the number of EM firms are not regularly collected, it has been estimated that Asian and black businesses represent almost 7% of all small businesses, and that in Greater London there are at least 15,000 such businesses – around one in five of all privately-owned businesses in the capital -
  9. 9. 9 which employ over 200,000 people in full and part-time work (Bank of England, 1999, P.11). Labour force data show that while EM women are less likely than men in their communities to be self employed, they have higher levels of self employment than white women. However differences exist among women entering self- employment. Dhaliwal (cited in Bradley and Boles, 2003, p.8) identifies two types of entrepreneurs in her study of Asian women in business: “independent women” and “hidden women”. The independent women are entrepreneurs in their own right, seeing their business as a challenge rather than a financial necessity. The hidden women, however, are involved in family businesses in which they work out of financial necessity and tend to be involved in the manual rather than the business or financial operations. The restaurant sector is one of the main areas of self-employment for Pakistani, Indian and Chinese workers and this is explored in more detail in section 4. 1.4 Evidence of discrimination Despite the variety of types and levels of participation in the labour market described above, there is plenty of evidence to show that racism and discrimination in the workplace remains a common experience for many EM workers. Wrench and Modood (2000) identify five ways in which evidence of discrimination against ethnic minorities in the labour market can be assessed: statistical evidence from large scale surveys that can show indirect discrimination; discrimination testing; research into the actions of employers and employment agencies who act as “gatekeepers” to the labour market; research into the experiences of members of EM communities; and through the actions of aggrieved employees. The first of these – statistical evidence from large-scale surveys – has been discussed above in relation to EM workers’ overall position in the labour market, and presents a distinctive picture of labour market differences for ethnic minorities. Another method is discrimination testing, in which testers belonging to majority and minority ethnic groups with the same qualifications etc, apply for the same jobs. Such tests have provided direct evidence of discrimination, for example a CRE study in 1996 that found the white applicants’ chances of getting an interview were nearly three times greater than those of the Asian applicants, and almost five times more than the black applicants (Wrench and Modood, 2000, p.27). More recent evidence from a BBC test which sent CVs using traditionally white, black African or Muslim names found that almost a quarter of applications by candidates given traditionally "white" names resulted in interviews, compared to only 13% for those with black African names and 9% of the "Muslim" applications, and suggested that September 11 was causing considerable difficulties for Muslims (BBC, 2004).
  10. 10. 10 A number of studies by the CRE and others have revealed the practices of some employers towards the employment of EM workers, highlighting issues such as stereotyped perceptions, informal recruitment practices through family members or word-of-mouth, and “no-go areas” for non-whites in some firms (Wrench and Modood, 2000, p.29). Employment agencies were also revealed to comply with the discriminatory attitudes of employers who requested white staff only. These findings have implications for our study in that employment agencies are used in the hotel and catering sector and anecdotal evidence from one of our contacts suggests that such attitudes and practices persist. Research in the 1990s into the experiences of Afro-Caribbean and Bangladeshi young men uncovered strong perceptions of racial discrimination in looking for work and also confirmed observations about “racism avoiding behaviour”, in particular among Bangladeshi respondents, who gave one reason for getting employment in restaurants as being that they felt that they would not experience racism there (Wrench and Modood, 2000, p.32). Discrimination towards ethnic minorities in access to employment is believed to be a problem by both whites and ethnic minorities. The 1994 PSI study found that 90% of all economically active white people thought that employers refused people jobs for racial or religious reasons. But ethnic minorities were more likely to believe that discrimination was widespread, with one in five believing that most employers discriminate, compared with only one in 20 whites (cited in Wrench and Modood, 2000, p.34). The PSI survey also highlighted the interaction of religious and racial discrimination, showing that a quarter of the EM persons who believed that they had been discriminated against in a job application believed that it was for a mixture of reasons to do with their race and religion. For South Asians it was even higher, with over 40% believing that this combination of factors was the cause (cited in Wrench and Modood, 2000, p.34). Evidence of discrimination and harassment once in work was provided by the TUC in 2000 when they ran a “Root Out Racism” hotline for five days which received nearly 450 calls from workers, revealing “an appalling catalogue of verbal abuse” and some reported being the victims of actual physical violence (TUC, 2000). The racist abuse that they suffered at work often resulted in them taking time off sick with stress, depression and anxiety. Callers also complained about being refused references, not being informed properly about training, overtime or promotion opportunities and being unfairly monitored. If they complained some said they were deliberately isolated at work, ignored, victimised or even sacked. Just over half (53%) of the calls came from African/Afro-Caribbean workers, 26% were from Asian workers and only 0.5% from Chinese workers. EM workers at all levels reported problems, with the greatest number (20%) from professional jobs, 17% were in clerical and secretarial jobs and 14% worked in the personal and protective services (i.e. emergency services, security guards, catering workers and hairdressers). Almost two-thirds (63%) were in the public sector, and a
  11. 11. 11 further 9% were in each of manufacturing, transport and communications and retail, hotels and catering. 1.5 Equal opportunities policies In addition to the legal remedies that workers may have to address, race discrimination (some of the difficulties of which are described in section 5), equal opportunities policies have been introduced by most employers. However, Wrench and Modood’s report (2000) finds a “rather mixed experience of the implementation of equal opportunities and anti-discrimination policies in work organizations” (p. 2). They point out that many major companies have high profile equal opportunities initiatives, which have had a positive impact on the profile of their workforces. However, they also note that “relatively few companies have serious plans for implementing racial equality initiatives” (p.2). And their evidence suggests that such policies may have had very little impact on the majority of workers covered by this research project. They say that: “equal opportunities practices and diversity management are in practice virtually irrelevant for those ethnic minorities who are found in the lowest paid, least protected and most precarious sectors of employment. For this particular group of EM workers, the priority for tackling the ’ethnic inequality’ they experience is not solely via direct measures such as race relations legislation but also through indirect measures such as the introduction of legislation allowing union recognition, and the effective enforcement of a national minimum wage policy” (p. 2). 1.6 Government policy The government has engaged in a number of policy and strategy initiatives to tackle the labour market position of EM workers in the last few years. In March 2001 the Strategy Unit began work on a project on “Improving the labour market achievements of ethnic minorities”, one result of which was a major report by the Cabinet Office in 2003, Ethnic Minorities and the Labour Market. This report contains an objective that “in ten years’ time, ethnic minority groups living in Britain should not face disproportionate barriers to accessing and realizing opportunities for achievement in the labour market” (Cabinet Office, 2003, p. 7). It focuses on 4 key areas to achieve this: education, employment, equal opportunities and delivery. The Ethnic Minority Employment Task Force was also established to improve the labour market position of ethnic minorities and it produced its first report in November 2004, containing a number of recommendations across departments covering education, employment, access to employment etc. A further strategy document was published by the Home Office in January 2005, Improving Opportunity, Strengthening Society: the Government’s strategy to increase race equality and community cohesion, (Home Office, 2005b) which also contains strategies for the labour market, covering connecting people to work, workforce skill development and equal opportunities in the workplace.
  12. 12. 12 2. The employment of migrant workers in the UK 2.1 Definitions The definition of migrants used by the Home Office in a series of recent studies on UK migrants in the UK labour market is “all those who were born outside the UK” (Home Office, 2002a). Other definitions of migrant workers are used, such as that employed by Bell and Jarman (2004, p.3): “An individual who arrives in a host country within the last five years, either with a job to go to or intending to find a job”. For the purposes of this report the Home Office definition will be used as the figures presented mainly come from research done for the Home Office. Migrants, therefore, include both whites and non-whites, as well as those who have been in the UK for some years and have acquired British citizenship. Although many workers are both from an ethnic minority and are migrants, this section presents data relating to migrants, and will, where useful, distinguish between EM and white migrants. It is also worth noting that some white groups, such as Irish and Eastern European workers, suffer worse conditions than other white migrants, and these are sometimes highlighted here. 2.2 Migrants in the UK Using the Home Office definition, migrants account for 8% of the UK population and almost 10% of the working age population (or around 4.8 million people, of whom 3.6 million are of working age). In 2002 almost a quarter (23%) were from the EU (as defined then), 20% from the Indian sub-continent, 19% from Africa, 11% from the Americas, 10% from the rest of Asia, 5% from other Western European states, 4% from Australasia, 3% from Eastern Europe and 3% from the Middle East. Almost half of migrants (47%) have acquired British citizenship. Almost a third (31%), however, arrived in the 1990s, a period when many arrived from Eastern Europe. More than 40% of migrants lived in London in 2001, making up 26% of the population of London. Ethnic minorities accounted for less than half (46%) the migrant population in Great Britain in 1997 (Shields and Wheatley Price, 2002, table 2.1, p. 13). Indians were 13% of all migrants, 7% were Pakistani, 6% black Caribbean and 3% each were Bangladeshi and Chinese. Migrants tend to be of working age and are mainly concentrated in the 25-49 age group (Home Office, 2002a). Educational attainment is polarised for migrants, who are both more likely to be highly qualified than the UK-born population (19% have degrees, compared to 15% among the UK-born) and to be found among those who have no qualifications (19% compared to 16%).
  13. 13. 13 In addition to the migrants identifiable by the Home Office, there are also undocumented migrants working in the UK, although clearly it is very difficult to estimate the numbers. It is also the case that the distinction between lawful and undocumented migrant status is not always clear. For example, an individual on a student visa, who works more than the 20 hours permitted, would be considered to be working unlawfully, as would a migrant worker whose legal status becomes undocumented once she/he overstays what is legally allowed. 2.3 Labour market participation While the statistics show that the employment rate for all migrants is lower than for the UK-born (64% compared to 75%), the labour market performance of white migrants is very similar to that of British-born whites, according to Dustmann et al (2002). They find that EM individuals, and in particular those from the Indian, Caribbean, Pakistani, black African, and Bangladeshi communities, are significantly less likely to find employment than white immigrants. However the exception to this is white individuals from other European countries, who are predominantly from the former Eastern Bloc countries and Turkey (Dustmann et al, 2002, p. 36). Recently arrived migrants have significantly reduced employment and participation rates (Shields and Wheatley Price, 2002). Self-employment is a significant form of employment for many migrant groups, with concentration in some sectors, in particular construction and distribution, hotels and restaurants. Self-employed migrants are twice as likely to work in distribution, hotels and restaurants than the white UK-born population (36% in 2000, compared to 17% of UK-born whites). But for EM migrants the figure rises to 50%, compared to 22% for white migrants (Dustmann et al, 2002, p. 43). In terms of earnings, it has been shown that white migrants are generally more successful than white UK-born workers, with individuals from the Old Commonwealth countries earning on average 20% higher wages than comparable UK-born individuals. However for many EM groups earnings are considerably lower than average: Bangladeshis earn about 40% less than white UK-born and Pakistanis around 20% less (Dustmann et al, 2002, pp. 47-48). Perhaps unsurprisingly, English language proficiency has been shown to improve with time of residence, is higher for the more educated, and is strongly linked to the likelihood of being employed and can significantly reduce the wage gap between UK-born whites and minority migrants. There are also variations in proficiency across ethnic groups, with Bangladeshi and Pakistani groups having the lowest levels of proficiency in English (Dustman et al, 2002). 2.4 Evidence of discrimination and exploitation Migrant workers, particularly those in the low-skill sectors of the economy, are often vulnerable to exploitation in employment. The CAB has collected evidence from clients using their services of the vulnerability of migrant workers in the low- wage sectors: agriculture, care homes, cleaning, food processing and hospitality (CAB, 2004).
  14. 14. 14 Evidence of exploitation by gangmasters and employment agencies in agriculture has been recognised by the government and the media (see for example, The Guardian newspaper 10 and 11 January 2005). But the CAB report found “similar problems arising from the activities of gangmasters in the hospitality and cleaning sectors, especially in relation to motorway service stations” (CAB, 2004, p. 4). A number of common themes emerged from the experiences of migrant workers in all the sectors studied by the CAB including: misleading recruitment of workers in their own country on false promises of good pay, conditions, and housing; extremely long hours, low gross rates of pay and sub-standard accommodation; excessive deductions from pay for accommodation, transport to work, utilities, and repayment of the cost of travel to the UK; failure to provide a contract of employment and/or proper pay slips, and denial of other basic employment rights; uncertainty and confusion about who is actually the worker’s employer, and a frequent failure to ensure that the worker had a National Insurance number, with the apparent non-payment (by the employer) of tax and National Insurance contributions; and the summary dismissal, and immediate eviction from any associated accommodation, of workers who assert their legal rights or ‘rock the boat’ (CAB, 2004, p. 5). Experiences from the hospitality sector reported by the CAB include: - a Thai man in Bristol who had entered the UK on a five-year work permit some two years previously to work as a chef in a local Thai restaurant and was being paid only £150 for a 60-hour week (just £2.50 per hour – i.e. £1.70 less than the then National Minimum Wage of £4.20 per hour). He had received only two weeks’ paid holiday per year and no Statutory Sick Pay in respect of a two-week period of (certificated) illness; - a Ukrainian man and woman in London who had both been working at a local branch of a national restaurant chain for four years, during which time they had received no paid holiday; and - a Portuguese man in Nottinghamshire who had been working as manager of a local fish-and-chips shop for seven months without receiving a contract of employment, pay slips or paid holiday, and was being paid £200 for a 60-hour week (i.e. some £1.20 per hour less than the then National Minimum Wage) (CAB, 2004, p. 8). Further evidence of the exploitation of migrant workers is shown by a recent report, Forced labour and migration to the UK (Anderson and Rogaly, 2005), which shows how even those with work permits find it difficult to enforce their rights, and for irregular workers the situation is much worse. Although the report focuses on workers in care, construction, agriculture and contract cleaning, many of their findings will apply to the hotel and catering sector. The government’s 2002 White Paper Secure Borders, Safe Haven (Home Office, 2002b) notes that the problems connected to the employment of irregular migrants are particularly severe in catering and hospitality as well (Anderson and Rogaly, 2005, p.20). The research establishes four indicators of forced labour: - Violence: including physical or sexual violence, and threats of violence; - Other forms of coercion, such as debt bondage, retention of identity documents, threats etc.;
  15. 15. 15 - Excessive dependence on employers or third parties; and - Other practices including excessive working hours and the provision of sub- standard living conditions. Sub-standard working conditions documented in the report include the failure to pay workers, excessive working hours, lack of concern for health and safety standards, and the provision of poor accommodation, which in turn adds to the dependency of many migrant workers. It is common for migrant workers to face deductions from wages by employers and agencies, which are often illegal or excessive. The report identified four broad categories of deductions from wages: (i) deductions to “repay” migration debt including travel, visa and documentation costs, and the interest accrued; (ii) deductions for the opportunity to work; (iii) deductions for accommodation, and; (iv) deductions for work related costs such as uniforms, transportation or safety gear (ibid, p. 42). Workers’ immigration status, even when legal, is often used to keep them in forced labour. The retention of identity documents, as well as threats to denounce the worker to the authorities, keep them tied to the employer (ibid, p.39). Furthermore, legal controls on the worker’s right to work create a dependence on the employer, as work permits are obtained by the employer not the worker, who is therefore tied to that particular employer. Permit holders are also barred from claiming state benefits, including statutory sick pay (ibid, pp.47- 8). 2.5 Government policy In February 2005 the government published its five year strategy on asylum and immigration, Controlling our borders (Home Office, 2005a), which included the intention to phase out low skilled migration schemes in the light of new labour available from the European Union (in addition to other controversial proposals such as only granting refugees temporary leave to be reviewed after five years). The plans to allow only skilled migration into the UK will remove schemes such as the Sectors Based Scheme, which granted work permits to certain numbers of workers in skills shortage sectors such as hospitality (see 3.2.3). On 23 June 2005 the Minister of State for Immigration announced that the Sectors Based Scheme would cease operating in the hospitality sector from 31 July, or from when the 2004-5 quota was exhausted, whichever was sooner. As the quota was said to be nearing its limit, it was announced that no new applications submitted after 1 July 2005 would be considered. This will certainly be opposed by many employers in the industry who were instrumental in setting up the schemes. The Chief Executive of the trade association for the industry, the British Hospitality Association, has said: “The government is saying that the industry will create 500,000 new jobs by 2010. It will be impossible to fill these vacancies without a more sympathetic approach to immigration”.1 1 BHA Press release 7 March 2005
  16. 16. 16 Trade unions have also criticised the proposals for failing to deal with the well- documented exploitation of migrants workers, and some are calling for an amnesty for illegal migrant workers currently in the UK, along the lines of that granted by the Spanish government to up to 800,000 undocumented immigrants (Labour Research Department, 2005b). Government policy is concerned to appear tough on illegal immigration. One strand of this was the 2004 Gangmasters Act, which created a compulsory licensing system for gangmasters and employment agencies supplying or using workers in agriculture, gathering shellfish and related processing and packaging activities. However it will not extend to other sectors, such as hospitality, where there is known to be exploitation of migrant workers.
  17. 17. 3. The hotel and catering sector The hotel and restaurant sector, using the Standard Industry Classification (SIC) H 55, is made up of five sub sectors (see Appendix 2): - hotels (H 55.1); - camping sites and other short-stay accommodation (55.2); - restaurants (including take-away food shops) (55.3); - bars (55.4); and - canteens and catering (55.5). Within the sector there are significant variations in the proportions of ethnic minorities employed (see section 4). Whereas EM workers are found in greater proportions than white workers in the labour market as a whole in the hotel, restaurant and canteens and catering sub sectors, they are underrepresented in camping sites etc. and bars. It therefore seems clear that our research should focus on the three sub sectors where ethnic minorities are most likely to work: hotels; restaurants; and canteens and catering. For this reason, the following sections will pay particular attention to the characteristics of these sub sectors, although some of the figures will refer to the sector as a whole. 3.1 Economic characteristics A report prepared by Smith and Carroll (2003) for the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Klein Hesselink et al, 2004), provides a detailed picture of the UK hotel and restaurant sector. It shows that the hotel and restaurant sector: - represented 3.4% of GDP in 2001 (an increase from 2.7% in 1993); - is one of the most significant in terms of employment, accounting for more than 4% of all employment (1.2 million jobs), with a growth during the 1990s; - is characterised by small establishments, with 82% of restaurants and 79% of contract catering firms having 10 or fewer employees. But for hotels the figure is 55%, with a significant decline in smaller hotels in recent years and a trend towards larger chains (HtF, 2002); - the canteen and catering sector has grown as a result of contracting out of services, with public and private sector organisations now less likely to provide catering in-house (26% of contract catering outlets were in education, 5% in healthcare and 49% in business and industry, BHA, 2002). The sector has witnessed a 7% growth rate over the past five years – more than the economy overall. This growth is set to continue, with an additional 15,000 new jobs predicted to be needed between 2002 and 2012 - in addition to the 846,000 replacement jobs lost through labour turnover. Over the past four years there has been a growth of 6% in the number of new establishments (People 1st, 2005, p.6).
  18. 18. 3.2 Labour market characteristics 3.2.1 Overview In summary, Smith and Carroll (2003) show that work in the sector is dominated by the following types of workers and contracts: - women account for 61% of those working in the sector overall (compared to 47% in employment), but are more likely to be in canteens and catering (73% of employees) than hotels (58%) or restaurants (54%); - young workers aged under 25 years account for 37% or those employed in the sector (compared to national figure of 13%); by sub sector, 44% of workers in restaurants are under 25, compared to 34% in hotels and 9% in canteens and catering; - short-term employment/high turnover: 36% in 2002 had been with their employer for less than 12 months (compared to 19% average in the labour market) (38% in restaurants, 34% hotels and 22% canteens and catering), with the effect of excluding these workers from a number of employment rights that require a year’s service; - temporary employment is slightly more prevalent in hotels (8%), restaurants (9%) and canteens and catering (7%) than the national rate of 6%; - more than half of all employees (52%) work part-time compared to the national average of 26%; - the above average rate of part-time work applies to both men and women: whereas only 10% of all men work part-time, 39% of those in restaurants do so, as do 30% of male hotel workers and 15% in canteens and catering; 45% of all women work part-time, rising to 65% in restaurants, 61% in canteens and catering and 53% in hotels; - most part-time workers in the sector are either students (54% of part- timers in restaurants and 45% in hotels) or do not want a full-time job (81% of those in canteens and catering); - men and women working in restaurants are slightly more likely to be self-employed than the national average (16.4% of men in restaurants, compared to 15.8% nationally and 9.7% of women, compared to 6.5% nationally) and the last decade has seen an increase; levels of self-employment for men and women are lower in hotels (which has seen a decrease in numbers) and canteens and catering than the average; - high proportions of workers in the sector have either no educational qualifications (17% in restaurants and 15% in hotels, compared to 12% nationally) or compulsory level education only (23%, compared to 19%). Smith and Carroll are unable to provide figures, but point to anecdotal information that informal or unrecorded work exists in the sector, with some employers taking advantage of people who do not have the right to work legally in the UK to employ them under poor terms and conditions. 18
  19. 19. 3.2.2 Gender segregation Smith and Carroll’s report (2003) clearly shows the extent of occupational segregation by gender within the hotel and catering industry. The table below shows that in hotels, for example, almost a quarter of female workers are cleaners or domestics, nearly a fifth are waitresses and almost one in ten are receptionists. Men are most likely to be chefs or cooks, waiters, managers or porters. Similarly in restaurants, women are much less likely to work as chefs or cooks (9%, compared to 25% of male workers), and are most likely to be waitresses. And in canteens and catering, half of women are kitchen and catering assistants (compared with 16% of male workers), and are less likely to be chefs or cooks or managers than men. Table 3: Occupations of men and women in hotels and catering Occupation 55.1 Hotels %* 55.3 Restaurants %* 55.5 Canteens and catering %* Male Female Male Female Male Female Bar staff 8% 5% 3% 2% Chefs, cooks 18% 5% 25% 9% 27% 16% Cleaners, domestics 3% 24% 2% 2% Hotel and accom- modation managers 9% 7% Hotel porters 9% Housekeepers 6% Kitchen and catering assistants 8% 5% 24% 22% 16% 50% Receptionists 9% Restaurant and catering managers 3% 2% 22% 14% 18% 12% Sales and retail assistants 4% 12% Waiters, waitresses 16% 18% 12% 30% 3% Source: Labour Force Survey 2002, taken from tables 11 (b) and (c) in Smith and Carroll (2003, p.19) * Columns do not add up to 100% as occupations with small numbers are not included Other studies (for example, Lucas, 1995; Purcell 1993) confirm the segregated nature of work in the sector on gender lines. Adib and Guerrier (2003) note that the domestic nature of hotel work means that it is commonly perceived as “quintessentially women’s work” (p.419). However, they break this down further, saying that “hotels are structured around a range of work roles that carry different expectations about gender, race, ethnicity and class” (p. 414). They suggest that some jobs may be seen as only suitable for white women (for example, receptionists) as they need to be seen as sexually attractive to white men. They also find EM and migrant workers to be clustered in lowest graded work, noting that: “It is common to find that all the chambermaids in a hotel are drawn from the same ethnic minority or migrant group” (p. 420). 19
  20. 20. 3.2.3 Labour shortages and the Work Permit Scheme Labour shortages have been a feature of the sector, with 33% of vacancies unfilled in 2002 (compared to 24% nationally) and particularly acute shortages in the more skilled occupations such as chefs (Smith and Carroll, 2003). However, recent reports from the sector suggest that labour shortages are less of a problem currently due to the availability of workers from the new EU states, although this could be a short-term solution, particularly as the economies of those states grow and workers may in future have more opportunities at home.2 One attempt to address these staff shortages has been through the Home Office’s Work Permits system. One particular Sectors Based Scheme (SBS) aimed to address skills shortages in lower skilled occupations in two sectors: food processing and hospitality (hotels and catering) by making available a quota of 10,000 work permits from May 2003 to January 2004 for each sector (Clarke and Salt, 2003). It was extended for a further year to 31 January 2005, with a comprehensive review, due to report shortly. Such unskilled schemes will, however, be ended under the Government’s recent immigration plans (see 2.5). Further analysis of the SBS for hospitality (see table 4) shows a total of 21,334 applications for work permits between 31/05/2003 to 30/09/2004 (Kofman et al, 2005, p.42). While only 16.1% of these went to female workers, if the Bangladeshi workers, who make up the overwhelming majority of applicants for male workers in the sector, are excluded, the female proportion rises to 35%. It should also be noted that many of these applications, particularly from Bangladeshi workers, did not result in permits being issued. Table 4 shows the countries from which workers applied, and it is clear that Eastern European countries feature prominently, with women often applying in larger numbers than men. Kofman et al also point out that the number of permits granted to students is much larger than those granted for work, with education forming a significant route of entry for migrants, and possibly also a significant source of migrant labour (ibid, p.20). As has already been shown (3.2.1), young workers and students make up a large proportion of workers in the sector so it is to be assumed that overseas workers are also included among this number. Table 4: Applications to the Sectors-Based Scheme for Hospitality 31/05/2003- 30/09/2004 Nationality Number % female Bangladesh 11,684 0.5% Bulgaria 864 44.7% India 965 8.4% Latvia 242 60.3% Lithuania 184 57.1% Moldova 242 38.4% Philippines 357 61.6% 2 Interview with Chief Executive of British Hospitality Association, 6 April 2005 20
  21. 21. Poland 756 50.9% Romania 452 42.9% Russia 396 55.3% Slovakia 113 59.3% Thailand 140 55.0% Ukraine 939 37.9% Others 4,000 26.3% TOTAL 21,334 16.1% Source: Kofman et al, 2005 3.2.4 Regional breakdown The chart below shows the distribution of workers in the Hotel and Catering sector across England. It is interesting to note that women outnumber men in all regions except London. Further analysis by ethnicity (see section 4) provides further details on this. Chart 1: Workers in the Hotels and Catering by region Workers in the Hotel and Catering sector in England 60,280 42,117 33,580 41,759 42,799 84,278 73,714 51,966 88577 68048 52840 65764 64619 69079 93420 76071 33505 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000 N orth East N orth W est Yorkshire and H um berside EastM idlandsW estM idlands East London South East South W est Region Numberofworkersaged16-64 Male Female Source: Census 2001, table KS11a 3.3 Conditions of work Many studies have characterised the sector as one of low pay, low status work, exploitation of employees, low levels of unionisation and poor employment relations practices (for example, Gabriel, 1988; Price, 1994; Head and Lucas, 2004 to name just some). While Price (1994) found some examples of good personnel practice among the larger employers and contract caterers, she concluded that “the industry’s poor image is generally justified”. Head and Lucas (2004) also recognise the diversity within the sector, but confirm that: “The structural characteristics of 21
  22. 22. the hospitality industry still allow ruthless employers to persist with arbitrary management practices in spite of the increase in statutory employment protection rights” (p.708). High levels of disciplinary sanctions (3.6 per 100 employees, compared to an average of 2.9 across all sectors) and dismissals (5.9 per 100 employees, compared to 1.5 across all sectors) were identified in the hospitality sector by the Workplace Employee Relations Survey 1998 (Head and Lucas, 2004). The sector is also known to generate substantial numbers of Employment Tribunal (formerly Industrial Tribunal or IT) claims, according to Earnshaw et al (1998). Their examination of unfair dismissal claims taken to tribunals focuses on hotels and catering, transport and communication and engineering. Of the 11 case study companies in hotels and catering, five had had recent IT cases taken against them. None of the 11 organisations had either a trade union presence or other formal mechanism for representing employees. The report comments on the use of informal channels of recruitment and internal labour markets (Earnshaw et al, 1998, p.18), including the use of schoolchildren on work placements. 3.3.1 Agency work Many workers in hotels and catering are recruited through employment agencies, and as a result can suffer inferior terms and conditions than directly- employed workers. There are currently over 300 recruitment agencies servicing the sector in London alone, according to People 1st, the Sector Skills Council for the industry (see 3.5). A recent report from the TUC cites evidence of apparently widespread continuing abuse of agency workers, in particular migrant workers, by some employment agencies (TUC, 2005). One particular problem, that is likely to affect workers in this sector, is the deduction of payments for items including transport, equipment, uniforms and meals. They have also been told of unlawful deductions for health and safety equipment. The TUC accuses some employment agencies of circumventing legislation that requires the worker’s express agreement to deductions, by including general clauses in the contracts to the effect that “the Company shall be entitled to deduct from salary or any other payments due to you in respect of your employment, any monies due from you to the Company”. The TUC is calling for the Government to implement the European Temporary Workers Directive to remedy these abuses. Differences in treatment between temporary and permanent employees in hotels were conceptualised as a distinction between “core” and “peripheral” employees by Guerrier and Lockwood (1989). Core employees experience better conditions of employment whereas peripheral workers tend to enjoy less job security and fewer job opportunities and may act as a buffer to protect core workers from shifts in demand. Head and Lucas (2004) found that core workers often experience a more “soft” form of employee relations, where managers stress communication, commitment, training, job satisfaction or career progression. In contrast, the casual workers who are not covered by employment rights are subject to a more “hard” form of employee relations than others within the same organisation (p. 706). It is likely that EM workers 22
  23. 23. are overrepresented among the peripheral group and will be subject to harsher employment conditions. 3.3.2 Pay Pay levels in hotels and catering are low. Data from the New Earnings Survey (which excludes part timers earning less than the threshold for paying National Insurance contributions) for 2001 showed that male full-time manual employees in hotels and restaurants earned only 73% of the gross hourly rate for full-time manual males nationally. For women the average was slightly higher at 82%, but this reflects women’s lower pay generally (Smith and Carroll, 2003). As more than half of employees in the sector work part-time (see above) and part-time hourly earnings are generally lower than full-time, these figures will underestimate the extent of low pay in the sector. Large numbers of workers in the hotel and catering sector earn less than the lower earnings limit for paying National Insurance contributions (£79 per week in 2004/05), therefore losing out on entitlement to many state benefits such as sick pay, maternity pay, retirement pension etc. Research for the Equal Opportunities Commission (Purcell et al, 1999) found that in 1995/96 45% of women in the sector earned below the lower earnings limit, as did just over a quarter of men. Another indication of the extent of low pay in the sector is the impact the National Minimum Wage (NMW) has had. Brown and Crossman (2000) found that the majority of small hotels would be affected by the introduction of the NMW in April 1999 (set at £3.60 an hour at the time). Of the 177 hotels in their sample (mainly small establishments) 86% had at least some employees that were affected by the introduction of the National Minimum Wage. The latest report by the Low Pay Commission (2005) found that 55% of employers in the hospitality sector responding to their survey were affected by the October 2003 uprating, up 7% compared to the 2001 survey (p.69), and around 20% of employees (over 200,000 workers)in the sector stood to benefit (p.22). A survey of pay and conditions for hotel workers found that the uprating of the NMW in October 2003 affected nearly half of respondents, with a third increasing the pay rates of more experienced or supervisory staff to maintain pay differentials (IDS, 2004). Further evidence is provided by recent estimates of low pay from the National Statistics Office for spring 2004 which found that the hotel and restaurant sector had the highest percentage of jobs with pay below minimum wage levels, at 4.3% of jobs in the sector (42,000 jobs) (Milton, 2004, plus supplementary table). This does not necessarily indicate non-compliance with NMW legislation as it is not possible to identify apprentices who are exempt, for example, or where pay rates may be reduced to account for the provision of free accommodation. Employers who provide workers with accommodation may offset part of the cost of this against wages – currently £3.75 a day (from 1 October 2004). The 23
  24. 24. Low Pay Commission has rejected calls to increase this to reflect the actual costs of providing accommodation, arguing that a balance needs to be struck between costs, the advantages to the employer of having workers so near to their work, and the need to ensure a minimum level of cash wages. It is recommending an increase to £3.90 a day from October 2005 and £4.15 a day from 2006 (LPC, 2005, p.72). The LPC points out that tips can only count towards minimum wage pay if they are collected centrally by the employer and distributed to staff through the payroll. However, their research suggests that some employers choose to put tips through the payroll to make up minimum wage pay, while others prefer not to get involved in the collection or distribution of tips (LPC, 2005, p. 72). 3.3.3 Working hours While the high numbers of part-time workers in hotels and catering mean that average weekly working hours are lower than for other sectors of the UK economy, there are also higher proportions working more than 65 hours a week than average (3.4% in the hotel and restaurant sector, compared to the national average of 2.7%, rising to 4.3% in the restaurant sub sector). However short hours are much more common, with 36% of those in restaurants working less than 20 hours a week (27% in canteens and catering and 25% in hotels) (Smith and Carroll, 2003). In line with the general pattern of male and female work, women were more likely to work shorter hours than men (43% in restaurants, 34% in canteens and catering and 30% in hotels worked less than 20 hours a week, compared to 22% nationally). But for men too short hours were more common than the average (26% in restaurants, 18% in hotels and 8% in canteens and catering worked less than 20 hours, compared to 6% nationally). 3.3.4 Working environment The working environment in the hotel and catering sector is often very poor, commonly featuring physical hazards such as the risk of exposure to smoke, noise and extremes of temperature (Smith and Carroll, 2003). According to the Health and Safety Executive website there are many serious accidents in the industry, with over 1,600 reported in 2003, despite some improvement in recent years. The main causes of injury are: slips,trips and falls on wet or contaminated floors; manual handling/ musculoskeletal injuries; exposure to hot or harmful substances (e.g. hot oil , or cleaning chemicals); and being struck by something (e.g. sharp knives or falling objects). The main causes of occupational ill health continue to be: dermatitis; chronic ill health effects from manual handling; and work-related upper limb disorders. Health and safety is not viewed as a high priority by most employers in the sector, according to an HSE report on small firms (2002). It states that: “The risks are perceived to be low because they are similar to those encountered in a domestic situation. Many small firms feel their business is too small for health and safety to be a problem.” 24
  25. 25. 3.3.5 Training There is a relatively low level of training in the hotel sector in the UK (Smith and Carroll, 2003) and also among managers and personnel professionals (Price, 1994). Price notes that there is a particular concern about the lack of management qualifications among proprietors in smaller establishments, which make up a large part of the sector. Stemming in part from the labour shortages described above (3.2.3), increasing attention is being paid by the industry to training, with national standards and greater emphasis on qualifications being introduced. People 1st , the Sector Skills Council for hospitality, leisure, travel and tourism (see 3.5), is responsible for reviewing the national occupational standards and rationalising the number of qualifications in the sector (there are currently around 240 different qualifications from 13 awarding bodies). The British Hospitality Association (see 3.5) has set up “Excellence Through People” to help organisations in the industry attract staff and improve jobs and service. It allows employers to assess their employment practices against good practice. 3.4 Trade unions The proportion of workers in the hotel and catering sector that are members of trade unions has traditionally been low, and in 2001 union density in the sector was just 5% (compared to 29% among all employees). Among full-time employees the figure is 8% and for part-time employees it is only 3%. Only in the public sector (presumably mainly catering workers) are levels of membership higher (32%), but this is still significantly lower than union density for the public sector as a whole (59%) (Smith and Carroll, 2003). Wood (1997) classifies the main reasons for the low levels of union density as: the isolation and ethos of hotel and catering work; the structure of the workforce with high levels of part-timers, women, seasonal and casual workers and high staff turnover; management attitudes towards trade unions; and the role of trade unions themselves in the sector, often not seeming to make the sector a priority. Research by Macaulay and Wood (1992) found fairly widespread ignorance by employees of union activity in hotels and catering, as well as employer and management hostility towards unions. However, there are some unionised employers within the sector. Appendix 3 lists 29 employers in the hotels, restaurant and hospitality sector with union recognition, taken from the TUC database. Some of these are catering companies organised by public services union UNISON. A number of hotels are also included, organised by the GMB and T&G and there have been campaigns by both these unions to organise in the sector, such as the T&G in the Dorchester in London (Wills, 2005) and the GMB London region with a focus on ethnic minority workers recruitment (see Holgate, 2004). 3.5 Industry bodies The main trade organisation for the sector is the British Hospitality Association, with over 40,000 member organisations in the hotel, restaurant 25
  26. 26. and catering trade, from major quoted groups to family-run businesses, including ethnic minority restaurant associations and businesses. It has established the Best Practice Forum, which is an alliance of the industry’s principal trade associations and other industry partners to improve employment practice and industry standards. The Hotel and Catering International Management Association (HCIMA) is the professional body for managers and potential managers in the hospitality, leisure, travel and tourism industries, with 27 UK regional branches and 17 international groups. It provides accreditation for courses, as well as membership for managers, as well as research and information for the industry. Springboard UK is an organisation that promotes careers in hospitality, leisure, tourism and travel to potential recruits through a network of centres across the UK. It has also devised an educational programme to support the curriculum in schools and colleges. People 1st is the Sector Skills Council (SSC) for hospitality, leisure, travel and tourism. SSCs are employer-led and licensed by the government to promote skills in the UK. A key element of their work is the drawing up of a Sector Skills Agreement (SSA), a contract between employers and the supply side to ensure that provision meets employer needs. The SSA for the hospitality, leisure, travel and tourism sector is due to be published in December 2006. 26
  27. 27. 4. Ethnic minority workers in hotels and catering 4.1 Participation in the sector Table 5 shows the proportions of workers in hotels and restaurants by ethnic group, broken down by region to allow us to see where particular ethnic groups are most commonly found in the sector (taken from the Census 2001). It includes only the three regions chosen for this study: London, the South West and the West Midlands. Although the research is not guided entirely by statistical considerations, the table is helpful for the purposes of identifying where we might try to locate workers to participate. One particularly striking feature is the difference in ethnicity of workers in London in the sector, with only 34.8% of male workers in London classifying themselves as White British, compared to the West Midlands, where 74.2% of male workers in the sector are White British. London also has particularly high proportions of workers who define themselves as White Other (21.3% of men in the sector and 16.7% of women). Pakistani workers appear in similar proportions in London and the West Midlands (1.6% and 1.7% respectively). In the South West it is notable that White Other constitutes the largest minority group (3.5%), followed by Chinese (1.9%). The table also allows us to see gender differences in the sector according to ethnicity, with White British women more likely than White men to work in the sector in all regions. London Black Caribbean women are more likely to work in hotels and restaurants than their male counterparts, although outside London the rate is more similar. Black African women in London are also more likely than Black African men to work in the sector (6.6% compared to 4.9%). Significant differences are also observable between Pakistani and Bangladeshi women in all regions, with women much less likely to work in the sector. Bangladeshi women, for example, account for only 0.7% of women workers in the industry in London, compared to 9.5% of Bangladeshi men, and 0.1% in the South West, compared to 1.7% of men. Table 5: Employment in hotels and restaurants by ethnic group and region London no. % South West no. % West Midlands no. % All White - British 63,189 41.2 116,529 91.0 89,744 83.5 White - Irish 5,065 3.3 881 0.7 1,470 1.4 White - Other 29,566 19.3 4,542 3.5 3,069 2.9 Mixed - White and Black Caribbean 824 0.5 276 0.2 629 0.6 Mixed - White and Black African 844 0.6 112 0.1 80 0.1 Mixed - White and Asian 1,052 0.7 283 0.2 272 0.3 Mixed - Other 1,349 0.9 285 0.2 232 0.2 Asian - Indian 8,179 5.3 336 0.3 2,342 2.2 Asian - Pakistani 2,499 1.6 160 0.1 1,823 1.7 Asian - Bangladeshi 8,465 5.5 952 0.7 2,490 2.3 Asian - Other 3,964 2.6 223 0.2 339 0.3 Black or Black British - Black Caribbean 5,464 3.6 281 0.2 1,598 1.5 Black or Black British - Black African 8,754 5.7 145 0.1 230 0.2 27
  28. 28. Black or Black British - Other 901 0.6 48 0.0 252 0.2 Chinese or Other Ethnic Group - Chinese 7,335 4.8 2,419 1.9 2,500 2.3 Chinese or Other Ethnic Group - Other 5,907 3.9 565 0.4 453 0.4 All 153,357 100.0 128,037 100.0 107,523 100.0 Males White - British 29,341 34.8 45,476 87.5 30,998 74.2 White - Irish 2,277 2.7 349 0.7 458 1.1 White - Other 17,996 21.4 2,463 4.7 1,725 4.1 Mixed - White and Black Caribbean 395 0.5 118 0.2 258 0.6 Mixed - White and Black African 510 0.6 65 0.1 38 0.1 Mixed - White and Asian 654 0.8 138 0.3 123 0.3 Mixed - Other 795 0.9 139 0.3 97 0.2 Asian - Indian 4,479 5.3 226 0.4 1,288 3.1 Asian - Pakistani 1,939 2.3 114 0.2 1,607 3.8 Asian - Bangladeshi 7,983 9.5 865 1.7 2,395 5.7 Asian - Other 3,011 3.6 175 0.3 249 0.6 Black or Black British - Black Caribbean 2,313 2.7 142 0.3 608 1.5 Black or Black British - Black African 4,161 4.9 76 0.1 136 0.3 Black or Black British - Other 459 0.5 26 0.1 100 0.2 Chinese or Other Ethnic Group - Chinese 4,591 5.4 1,359 2.6 1,456 3.5 Chinese or Other Ethnic Group - Other 3,374 4.0 235 0.5 223 0.5 All 84,278 100.0 51,966 100.0 41,759 100.0 Females White - British 33,848 49.0 71,053 93.4 58,746 89.3 White - Irish 2,788 4.0 532 0.7 1,012 1.5 White - Other 11,570 16.7 2,079 2.7 1,344 2.0 Mixed - White and Black Caribbean 429 0.6 158 0.2 371 0.6 Mixed - White and Black African 334 0.5 47 0.1 42 0.1 Mixed - White and Asian 398 0.6 145 0.2 149 0.2 Mixed - Other 554 0.8 146 0.2 135 0.2 Asian - Indian 3,700 5.4 110 0.1 1,054 1.6 Asian - Pakistani 560 0.8 46 0.1 216 0.3 Asian - Bangladeshi 482 0.7 87 0.1 95 0.1 Asian - Other 953 1.4 48 0.1 90 0.1 Black or Black British - Black Caribbean 3,151 4.6 139 0.2 990 1.5 Black or Black British - Black African 4,593 6.6 69 0.1 94 0.1 Black or Black British - Other 442 0.6 22 0.0 152 0.2 Chinese or Other Ethnic Group - Chinese 2,744 4.0 1,060 1.4 1,044 1.6 Chinese or Other Ethnic Group - Other 2,533 3.7 330 0.4 230 0.3 All 69,079 100.0 76,071 100.0 65,764 100.0 Source: Census 2001, Table S110, from Nomis The sector is a particularly important source of employment for some groups: 52% of male Bangladeshi workers are employed in restaurants, compared to only 1% of white males (Holgate, 2004, p.21). 4.1.1 Migrant workers in the sector in London Migrant workers (those born outside the UK) represent 60% of all Londoners employed in the hotel and restaurant sector (GLA, 2005a, p.68). Overall 31% of London’s workers were born outside the UK. An analysis of the 2001 28
  29. 29. Census by the Greater London Authority (GLA, 2005a and 2005b) allows us to see which groups of migrant workers have the greatest proportions working in the hotel and restaurant sector. Table 3 below lists the countries where the percentage of workers born in that country working in the sector is 20% or more (only 4.6% of all those living in London work in the sector). Actual numbers are also shown as these are small in some cases. The table provides an indication of the diversity within the sector, in London at least, showing that workers come from Europe, East and West, Asia and North Africa. Other countries with significant proportions of workers in the sector include Brazil (17.7%), Spain (17.6%) Colombia (15.8%) and the Philippines (15.1%). Table 6: Employment in hotels and restaurants by country of birth, Greater London 2001 Country of birth % (persons in employment aged 16-64) employed in sector No. employed in sector Thailand 40.8 962 Nepal 34.8 296 Bangladesh 30.8 7,928 Algeria 27.5 809 Vietnam 27.5 1,386 China 26.6 1,576 Portugal 25.8 2,874 Hong Kong 25.7 3,241 Morocco 23.7 839 Kosovo, Serbia and Montenegro 23.6 480 Turkey 21.7 2,322 Italy 20.0 4,486 Source: 2001 Census 4.1.2 Sectoral growth Growth in employment in the sector has been largely among EM workers, at least in London. Holgate (2004, p.18) shows that between 1993-2000 the number of black and minority ethnic workers (BME) in distribution, hotels and restaurants in London increased by 98,000, whereas the number of white workers decreased by 2,000. In a period of relatively low unemployment the sector has found it difficult to fill vacancies (see above, section 3.2.3.) and employers are turning to migrant workers who are prepared to accept the conditions that are unattractive to the indigenous workforce (Dobson, et al, 2001, cited in Holgate, 2004, p.18). Holgate cites Allen at al (1998) who note that an ethnic division of labour has developed in London, particularly in cleaning, but also in hotels, retail and catering, where workers are in these jobs “primarily because of their ethnicity – regardless of their skill capabilities” (p.19), with many in fact having high levels of skills and education. 29
  30. 30. 4.1.3 Age profile Section 3 of this paper showed that large numbers of young people work in hotels and catering. This is particularly true for EM workers in London. Holgate shows that 67% of all BME workers aged 16-19 are employed in the sector (as are 54% of white workers in this age group). While there is a significant decline in employment in the sector for all workers in older age groups, BME males tend to remain in the sector for a longer period (2004, p.19). 4.1.4 Unionisation Holgate also shows that, despite the low density of trade union membership in hotels and catering, in London “trade union membership figures among BME workers are growing in this sector, with a doubling of membership among women, although overall numbers are still very low (7,500)” (2004, p. 25). 4.2 The experiences of ethnic minority workers in Hotels and Catering Little research exists on the experiences of EM workers in the hotel and catering sector. Much of the existing literature on the sector focuses on management behaviour and strategy (Hoque, 1999a, b, c; Rowley and Richardson, 2000; Brown and Crossman, 2000; Price, 1994; Ram et al 2001b), but not in terms of ethnic minorities’ experiences. Adib and Guerrier (2003) agree that the fact that the modern hotel has a diverse workforce in terms of ethnic and national backgrounds has been “relatively neglected by researchers” (p.414). Their study, based on the narratives of four women in hotel work, looks at how gender intersects with nationality, race, ethnicity and class. . Around 15 years ago the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) undertook a formal investigation into recruitment and selection in hotels (CRE, 1991) in response to concern that the sector was failing to consider equal opportunities in employment practices. Its main interest was in jobs that provided a career, so the investigation focused on certain job categories with management responsibilities, or trainee management roles. It found that EM staff were disproportionately concentrated in unskilled jobs, and found only one EM manager out of 117 hotels investigated. It made a number of recommendations about how hotels should improve their practices in relation to recruitment, monitoring, positive action and training taking account of equal opportunities issues. It also made recommendations for colleges on how they should improve conditions for EM students of catering and hotel management courses. Price (1994) noted that as a result the CRE organised meetings with major employers in the industry to develop plans to tackle racial discrimination. However, she commented that “to date nothing concrete has come from the meetings and it seems unlikely that personnel practice in hotels has changed very significantly” (p.46). Clearly this investigation was undertaken some time ago, and it is to be hoped that at least some employers have improved their 30
  31. 31. recruitment and monitoring practices since, and that colleges have acted on their recommendations too3 . 4.2.1 Self-employment As has been shown (section 1.3), self-employment is a significant form of employment for ethnic minority workers in this sector. However, the growing body of research on EM small businesses has focused largely on owners’ accounts, with the effect that “little is known of ethnic minority workers’ backgrounds, motivations and aspirations” (Ram et al, 2001a, p.356). Ram et al’s research on the experiences of 86 EM restaurant workers in Birmingham attempts to address this gap in knowledge, as well as challenging the presumption that working in a co-ethnic firm serves as an “apprenticeship” for self-employment. Instead, they find that: “Immigrants and second- generation ethnic minorities often found themselves working in co-ethnic restaurants because of a lack of opportunity rather than a particular desire to work in such places” (2001a, p.367). In the study only a small number of workers wished to enter self-employment, and this was matched by those who have had their own businesses in the past and have returned to employee status. It was observed that many did not have the necessary “class resources” (i.e capital, high earnings and occupational status, qualifications, together with intangibles such as self-confidence and articulacy) to establish their own firms. In contrast to the high levels of labour turnover found generally in the hotel and restaurant sector (see section 3.2.1), Ram et al’s research found an uncharacteristic longevity of many workers in their current jobs, which they explain in terms of: “Paternalist working arrangements, the social aspects of the job, and embeddedness within localised familial and co-ethnic networks” (2001a, p.367). 3 To follow up with CRE, could also find out what has been done re monitoring of students on courses such as Hospitality BA at LMU. 31
  32. 32. 5. Knowledge of rights and support and advice for workplace problems There is evidence of a lack of knowledge of employment rights in general and by ethnic minorities and the low paid in particular. A recent random survey of 476 people’s awareness of general employment rights in shopping centres in the West Midlands found that women, ethnic minorities, young people and the low paid were the least likely to be aware. Amongst established rights, only 59 per cent overall were aware of the right to a written statement of terms and conditions, and of new rights, only 66 per cent were aware of the right to a paid holiday, 52 per cent of the right to refuse to work over 48 hours and 32 per cent of the rights for emergency time-off to care for dependents. Only the National Minimum Wage (NMW) stood out with 97 per cent aware of this right (WMLPU, 2001: 15). Awareness of some areas of rights differed by the gender, ethnic and pay background of respondents. Men and women were equally aware of the NMW and right to an itemised pay slip, but women were less aware than men of the right to a written statement of terms and conditions within two months of starting a job; to be paid when off sick; and to be able to claim unfair dismissal after a year (57, 53 and 35 per cent compared with 62, 67 and 44 per cent) (WMLPU, 2001: 10). Ethnic minorities were less aware than white respondents of the right to an itemised pay slip (74 per cent of black, 82 per cent of Asian and 91 per cent of white respondents) and to be paid when off sick (53, 45 and 61 per cent of the same groups). The lowest paid were least aware: while 78 per cent of those earning over £6 per hour were aware of the right to a written statement, only 48 per cent of those earning under £4.50 were. The contrast between these wage groups was demonstrated in awareness of unfair dismissal rights (49 per cent and 30 per cent respectively), and rights to sick pay (75 per cent compared with 42 per cent) (ibid. 2001: 12). The problems for migrant workers can be more extreme, as they often face isolation and language problems. Anderson and Rogaly’s report (see above, 2.4) on forced labour in the UK documents these difficulties. “Whatever their legal status, not knowing where to go for advice and support, being unable to consult with co-workers and not having access to basic information on rights and procedures can have a serious impact on employment conditions. The isolation of migrants and lack of information about their rights give employers and agents more control, and in some cases this isolation is deliberately created” (Anderson and Rogaly, 2005, p. 49). The provision of support and advice for workplace problems is fragmented in the UK, involving both statutory and voluntary-sector institutions, as well as trade unions. The range has been summarised in Burkitt (2001). Research on problems in accessing these for workers without collective trade union support, as well as the increase in both the spread and complexity of individual legal rights at work, is being undertaken by a project running in tandem with this one (Pollert, 2005). In spite of the advice offered by organisations such as Acas and the Citizens Advice Bureaux, problems highlighted in the research are the difficulty of access to support, and problems of enforcement of rights. The Citizens Advice Bureaux and other advice organisations, as well as industrial relations academics, have proposed 32
  33. 33. that a need for a Labour Inspectorate, which unifies inspection and enforcement, is becoming increasing relevant (Burkitt, 2001:18, Brown, 2004). This project will contribute to the body of research on support and advice in the area of EM employment, and will focus on how far those resources used by the majority white working population are also used by EM workers, how far these are trusted/distrusted or regarded as useful, and how far other resources, whether ethnically/nationally or otherwise culturally based are preferred. 33
  34. 34. 6. Research aims and objectives This is a qualitative research project to probe the experiences and problems at work of migrant and EM workers in the Hotel and Catering industry. Its aims are both to identify the range of experiences and problems encountered and to gain a greater understanding of access to and use of support and advice to resolve these problems. The main objective is to inform policy to improve good-practice both in the sector and in areas of high EM employment more widely, in order to prevent problems from arising, and to improve the support and advice mechanisms available. The key target groups for these research findings and policy objectives are thus employers, statutory bodies, the voluntary sector, trade unions and community groups. Among employers’ organisations, we will liaise with both sector-based organisations, such as the British Hospitality Association, and EM business bodies, such as the Asian Business Forum, in order to learn from their experience, and provide evidence which illustrates how best to improve practice. Statutory bodies include the CRE and the Acas Equality Service, which has expanded the role of the former Race Relations Employment Advisory Service to deal with all issues of equality and discrimination, in response to the progressive unification of the legislation in this area. This project will inform the private-sector advice work of the CRE and that of Acas’s Equality Service, in providing free advice to organisations with 150 or more employees to develop equality and diversity policies. In the voluntary sector, the Citizens Advice Bureaux deal with all areas of employment problems and rights, but also those associated with immigration and migrant workers, and this research will contribute to its support role, as well as contributing to and drawing from its growing research in this area. There are many other bodies in the not-for-profit sector assisting workers with problems at work, and part of the project’s aims are to identify these bodies, and explore ways of disseminating findings with them. Many are also part of community support groups, and the project will play a role in transmitting experiences and information between these. The trade union movement has also been actively involved in support and organisation among EM and migrant workers, as well as commissioning research, and this project will both benefit from, and feed into this activity. The aim of providing evidence to these organisation based on qualitative interviews across a range of workers is to gain in-depth insight into their experiences of, and aspirations for, support and advice. While survey research may quantify types of experiences, types of problems, types of advice, and types of outcomes to problems, it cannot enter the evolution of and inter-connections between issues. Yet understanding how experiences develop and how they are perceived is vital to policy-making, and it is here that this project will make an important contribution. Its strength in assisting policy formation is in not only identifying tangible issues (the problems themselves, for example), but also more elusive, subjective issues, such as motivation, perceptions of opportunities and of rights, sense of inclusion, integration and fairness – or their opposites – sense of frustration, alienation and barriers to obtaining support and fairness at work. Policy needs to address such issues, and needs to be based on real experiences. Qualitative 34
  35. 35. interviews are also best for examining complex processes, such as the links between biography and work history and between residence, community, migration or immigration experience and work issues. 6.1. Key questions As well as exploring residence, migration and work histories, there are 12 key research questions which are important to the aims of the project: 1. What type of problems do ethnic minority and migrant workers have working in hotels and restaurants? 2. How do these compare to the problems generally affecting workers in the sector and to what extent are they associated with particular labour-market niches within the sector to which these workers are confined? If this is so, to what extent is the insecurity of migrant status relevant, or is racial discrimination relevant? 3. How much do ethnic minority and migrant workers in this sector know about their rights at work, and how important is the enforcement of rights to them? 4. How much do migrant workers know about their migration and employment status and rights? 5. To what extent do ethnic minority and migrant workers in this sector attempt to enforce their legal rights at work, or instead try to find ways to achieve a sufficient income and manageable working conditions, even if this means colluding with illegal employment practices? 6. How much do ethnic minority and migrant workers in this sector know about where to get advice and support for problems at work? 7. How much do ethnic minority and migrant workers in this sector know about where to get advice on migration/immigration status and work permits? 8. Who do workers turn to for advice and support? To what extent do ethnic minority and migrant workers in this sector use statutory (ie Acas, CRE), voluntary (CABx, local advice agencies), trade union, community (groups or informal contacts through ethnic networks) or informal (friends, family) sources of support and advice? 9. What are the experiences of ethnic minority and migrant workers in this sector of using all these sources of support and advice? 10.What barriers are there for ethnic minority and migrant workers in this sector to accessing support and advice for workplace problems, and what support and advice would they like? 35
  36. 36. 11.What information is available to ethnic minority and migrant workers in this sector when they start work about their rights at work and where to get advice and support? 12.What other help are they given during their induction and first few weeks in a job to enable them to remain successfully in the organisation? The research will cover a range of experiences and highlight any differences according to a range of variables which will add further insights for the providers of support and advice. These are: - gender - ethnicity - nationality - age - length of time in UK - migration or immigration status - location - whether part of an ethnic community or isolated - characteristics of employer, ie. o sector (hotel/restaurant) o small, medium or large business o ethnicity o family or other business o workplace unionised or covered by collective bargaining o workplace having formal consultation, disciplinary and grievance procedures. - type of employment, ie. o permanent/fixed-term/temporary/casual o length of service in work history o self-employed/employee o employed through agency or directly o relationship to employer (i.e. family?) o full-time/part-time o occupation - union membership - experience of and attitudes towards unions. 6.2. The Advisory Group The project will have an Advisory Group comprising key actors both from the sector and from policy and advice bodies in the area of equality, diversity and rights at work and citizens’ and human rights. The composition and terms of reference of the Advisory Group can be found in the Appendix. A key role of the Advisory Group is to provide advice on how the research can best achieve its aims and objectives in improving support and advice. It will meet approximately twice a year, and can thus assess progress. In addition, it will help to establish key contacts in the selected EM, sub-sector and regions who can provide entry into communities. 36
  37. 37. 7. Project methodology The project aims to capture a range of different experiences and examine these in depth. The regional terms of reference for this European Social Fund project confine this study to England. This still poses a major challenge in terms of sample selection, since, as this paper shows, there are major concentrations of EM population across the country. The criteria for selection are outlined below. 7.1 The target communities The fieldwork will be conducted in three English regions, London, the West Midlands and the South West. This is to ensure that the research includes the experiences of workers in large urban areas with significant ethnic minority populations who may benefit from community support, as well as those in areas with smaller ethnic minority or migrant populations who may be more isolated. Initial contact with key actors and researchers in these areas include: • County or Borough Council Equality Officers • Regional Race Equality Councils • National and local trade unions • Ethnic Minority business forums • Contacts through the Advisory Group. 7.2 Interviews 7.2.1 Individual worker interviews Just over 50 interviews will be conducted: 25 in London, 15 in the Midlands and 15 in the South West. We will establish a semi-structured interview schedule, which will allow broad scope for work-history narrative, while probing the key questions outlined above (6.1). This will be developed and refined incrementally, with experience. Where language permits, it is proposed that the key researcher on this project will conduct the major part of the interviewing, to maintain control over content. However, issues of trust will probably mean that key community contacts will also be involved, at least initially4 . Where interviews are conducted in the native language, we shall be experimental. One approach is for a member of the core team plus a native speaker to interview together, with interpretation, although checking meanings remains a problem. In all cases, interviews will be taped and notes taken. Translation and transcription will be conducted as the research develops. Whether or not transcription, or simply listening to and writing up the tapes, is best assessed as the project proceeds. Experience shows that the fresher the interview when it is written up, the better. 4 Research by Turnstone Research and Consultancy for ACAS on ethnic minority small businesses used community based recruiters – advice workers, youth workers, welfare officers etc. Research by UNL on the Minimum Wage in North London in 2001 included interviews with 12 community organisations, identified by the local authority and Voluntary Action Councils. 37
  38. 38. 7.2.2. Group interviews Where feasible and where the opportunity arises, we will conduct Group Interviews with employees. These will provide some indication of group dynamics, the existence of EM and language enclaves, and views from these groups of who are perceived as ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ in a work context. 7.2.3. Employer and key informant interviews To provide additional contextual information, there will also be interviews with key informants with experience of the sector. Employers will be interviewed wherever possible, regarding their employment policies, any problems they may face and support/advice they receive. In particular, problems in accessing support and advice on employment rights and equality and diversity policies will be examined. Equal opportunities polices and practice will also be addressed. In addition, employer or trade union representatives, as well as community organisations that represent workers from particular ethnic groups or nationalities will be interviewed. It could also be useful to interview representatives of organisations providing support and advice, such as Acas, the CRE or CABx, and Equality Officers. 7.3 Possible recruitment strategy As noted in 6 above, the research design does not include a representative sample of workers in the sector, but rather aims to provide in-depth accounts of experience that reflect significant issues for workers in the sector. However, in order to ensure that a range of experience is included, the interview participants could be selected using some of the following criteria: Gender – approx 50/50 male/female split Ethnicity – define key groups in each region, and compare with LFS figs for sector, and highlight any possible interesting/emerging groups Time in UK – include British-born EM, recent migrants and settled migrants Age – include older and young workers Size of employer – include large employers/chains and small independent/family run businesses Sector – hotels and restaurants (including fast food/sandwich shops, if appropriate) Employment status – casual and permanent workers (also agency and directly employed?), and full-time/part-time Unionisation – possibly set maximum who are in unions? (only 5% of sector overall) 38
  39. 39. Occupation – range of jobs, ie. managers, chefs, hotel receptionists, kitchen and catering assistants, waiting staff, cleaners, administration 7.4. Analysis The qualitative interviews will be analysed thematically. At present, it is not envisaged that qualitative computer packages will be used, as experience shows that ‘conventional’ analysis of qualitative material, in which the themes are explored both in terms of those which have been introduced as the design stage of the project, as well as those which emerge as the interviews evolved, seems most sensitive and successful. 39