In-work poverty, ethnicity and workplace cultures JRF Poverty & Ethnicity Programme Dr Maria Hudson, Hudson Research Dr Gina Netto, Heriot Watt University on behalf of research team November 1st 2013, Phase One launch event

Research aims  Relationship between in-work poverty, ethnicity, and workplace cultures  How are workplace opportunities shaped?  Who are the winners and losers?  Role of ethnicity?  Engage with  employer attitudes/ behaviour, including discrimination  Employees’ attitudes/actions vs employers’ attitudes/actions  Facilitation of constructive change

Large employer sample supporting exploration of cultures of progression SECTORTYPE OF ORGANISATIONGEOGRAPHICAL AREA Private sector1 company in the Hospitality industry 2 Facilities management companies In urban area 1 in urban area and 1 in semi- rural areas Public sector2 Councils 2 NHS Trusts 1 NHS good practice case study 1 in Urban and 1 in semi-rural area In urban/semi-rural areas Social enterprise sector 2 large voluntary sector organisations (housing associations) 1 in semi-rural area and 1 in urban area

Low paid worker sample IDENTITIESOCCUPATIONAL ROLESINCOMES including benefits 65 in totalTypical jobs: Domestics, Cleaners, Catering Staff, Support staff, Carers, Clerical roles Individual income: 5-25K Largest number: 10-15K 25 households income less than 25K per year Migrant workers (31), BME (17) White British/Scottish/Irish (17) 31 ethnicities: Central + Eastern Europeans Black British, British Asian, African Slightly more females than males 38 full-time workers and 26 part-time workers (17 women, 9 men) 19 claiming at least one benefit (excluding child benefit) Under claiming: especially migrant workers Majority aged % Muslim, 26% Catholics Three self identified as disabled

Key points I  Lack of low paid worker progression opportunities ↔ dynamics of low wage traps  Lack of stepping stones for vertical progression  Rigidity of progression requirements; insistence on formal qualifications  Little scope for horizontal movement  Lack of investment in training for the next step  Lack of advice, mentoring, coaching  Unsupportive line managers  Ineffective performance development reviews

Key points II  Workplace opportunities also shaped by ethnicity:  Access to developmental opportunities  Access to networks, flows of information  Extent to which skills and potential are recognised  Unequal treatment – stereotyping, prejudice & favoritism Low wage traps fuelled by Informal practices & Power imbalances

Key points III Positive dispositions to some employees Management mindsets, behaviours and conscious and unconscious bias Negative bias to other employees Closer links Better development opportunities Progression Lower morale, trust and aspiration Progression ceilings reinforced Lack of transparency around progression opportunities

Way forward – Towards countering In-work poverty  A multi-stakeholder approach  Strategic policy and organisational responses led by Government  Leadership and organisational commitment of employers in public, private and voluntary sector  Involvement of trade unions and community organisations

Actions for Government As Policy leader  Close the gap between the anti-poverty agenda and the equality agenda  Over-representation of ethnic minorities in the lowest income decile should have high relevance in any anti- poverty strategy  Need for greater recognition of the limitations of universalist approaches in tackling poverty  Anti-poverty strategies should recognise the relevance of equality of opportunity in employment as a route out of poverty

Actions for Government - As Investor in Employability Schemes  Working with partner organisations, government can..  Pay more attention to the range and nature of Modern Apprenticeship Schemes and the organisations involved  Strengthen requirements for diversity monitoring and review of the apprenticeship schemes, eg. make this a condition for funding  Target disadvantaged geographical areas/groups to supplement more universalist approaches

Actions for Employers I  Employers can take measures to ensure that:  Workforces are ethnically representative at all levels -Monitoring (development/progression/retention) -Access to opportunities -Positive action  Informal groups and dynamics do not undermine equal opportunities -Training/ tool-kits -Management accountability

Actions for Employers II  Employers (including public sector bodies) can encourage subcontractors to:  Comply with equal opportunities policies through procurement of services through supply chains  Demonstrate opportunities for progression among its workforce  Ensure compliance with equal opportunities policies through requiring diversity reports of workforce data  Pay a living wage

Questions for workshop discussion 1.How can employers be encouraged to support development and progression for low-paid workers from all ethnicities? 2.What are the best ways to spread good practice? 3.Our research has focused on large employers, how far do the findings also relate to SMEs? 4.What kind of support and encouragement do SMEs need in order to make progression for low paid workers a reality?