Educating for professional life Enabling & disabling labour market sectors: migrants, health and...

educating for professional life

Enabling & disabling labour market sectors: migrants, health and safety and disability

in the British and Dutch construction sectors

Linda ClarkeUniversity of Westminster

Presentation to ESRC seminarUniversity of Northumbria, April 2010


Approaches to Disability• Functional limitations result of physical condition → changing

individual to fit society• Capabilities model: addresses socio-economic barriers to equality

experienced by individual• Social model = disability as outcome of social barriers restricting

activities of people with impairments→ ‘social disadvantage’• Finkelstein – social relational = society disables→ oppressive

relationship with rest of society• Mabbett : “Different workers should be treated differently to the

extent that is necessary to ensure that they have equal access to employment rights.”

Implications : disadvantage relative to labour market:→(dis)able-bodied in one sector/occupation, not same as another →enabling and disabling factors also sector /occupation-specific


Characteristics of Construction Industry (UK)• 1.9m employees, 9% GDP, importance of public client

• 170,000 firms – 40% 1-person, 11% 13+ employees, few large

• 75% manual workforce; 25% non-manual

• Varied skills: wood trades = 20% manual (esp. C&J); 9.4% bricklayers, 6.7% painters; 6.5% CE operatives; 5.7% plant

• High self-employment (36% manual; only 8% non-manual)

• Many little formal training e.g. 46% NVQ3 or equivalent

• Often casual, long hours, low PT

• TU rate = 17% , collective agreement coverage = 20%

• Often dangerous/poor working conditions (fatal major injuries 3x other industries + ‘safety critical’ jobs)


Diversity in Construction• Ethnic minorities: in construction = 2.8%,

in economically active population = 7%• BAME in London = 30% working population,

only 12.4% in building trades; unemployment = 11.7%, white population 5.2%; modern apprenticeships = 1% in 2000

• Women: 10.2% construction, 0.3% manual trades• Disabled:

6.7% long term limiting illness: architects = 5.2%, skilled manual = 6.7%, labourers = 10.1%

• Migrants in construction: estimated 10%; higher proportions in lower positions (non-UK labourers 8.9%; painters and decorators 8.2%; carpenters and joiners 6.1%)


Labour mobility in constructionSurvey 8,000 London construction workers 2005

• 40% from London & South-East

• 7% from East of England

• 10% from Ireland

• 20% outside Britain

Construction migrants estimates (rising)

• 110,000 foreign nationals 2006

• 7% foreign born

• 4% foreign nationals


Exclusive & disabling characteristics of construction• Employer-based training: but majority trainees in FE (lack of

recognition of qualifications & access to work experience)• Recruitment & promotion: ‘word-of-mouth’, informal, (i.e. of

‘likes’, ‘people who fit in’) +agencies• Poor employment conditions: long hours (av. 45.7); overtime (5

hours av.); ‘hire & fire’ practices; insecurity• Performance-based wage structures/high levels subcontracting:

e.g. difficulties for older workers• Lack of support: ‘macho culture’, little support to vulnerable

groups or employee participation; EO policies rarely actively applied, often overt discrimination

• Hazardous working conditions: – most common injury causes avoidable = struck by moving object;

handling/lifting/carrying; slipping/ tripping/falling from same level/height– 34% with disability in Leics. OH screening of 1,300 construction workers; 1

in 10 bricklayers invalided out


Nature of disability of long-term disabled in UK construction

Construction %

All Sectors %

Problems with arms or hands 7.7 6.0

Problems with legs or feet 13.6 10.7

Problems with back or neck 17.8 16.3

Chest or breathing problems, asthma, bronchitis 14.5 11.1

Heart, blood pressure, or blood circulation problems 15.7 11.7

Stomach, liver, kidney or digestive problems 5.0 5.1

Diabetes 7.5 5.7

Other health problems or difficulties 5.5 8.3

Total 283,189 6,977,097


Potentially enabling/inclusive features of construction • Higher skill demands : reported by 30% firms →imperative to regulate skill supply,

e.g. CSCS, & develop effective & inclusive training system• More training on site: e.g. ‘working well together’ days• Formal methods of recruitment by e.g. public sector & larger firms + targeted • Occupational Health schemes e.g. HSE (‘fitness to work’), T5, Skanska + screening

‘safety critical’ (e.g. slinger banksmen, steel erectors)• Increasing mechanisation & reduction in health risks e.g. mechanical lifting kerbs

& flags, replacement ladders by stairs, safety nets, provision of eye/foot /hand/head protection & clothing

• EO policies & schemes e.g. DLOs, CITB diversity pilot• Initiatives for change: awareness of need + impetus

– e.g. M41, ‘Respect for People’, Construction Best Practice Programme– KPIs & targets (e.g. Skanska reported accidents 28:1,000 in 2001 →7:1,000 in 2005);– Constructing Better Health campaign →OH screening and integrated model (social not

technical solutions + managing risks)


Nature of Construction Training • c35, 000 first year construction trainees• 11% construction trainees = Level 3, 60%; Level 2, 17%;

Level 1, 12% technical• Only c45% construction trainees apprentices (83% Level

2), remainder college-based (16 hours per week) → then if work experience NVQ (only 20% succeed)

• High drop out rates c 40%• 5x more apprentice applicants than places• CITB apprentice grant partly through levy • Very variable standard & narrow, especially private


Skills Development in the sector

“[…] a lack of serious and sustained commitment to education, training, safety and research and in particular the low levels of commitment to serious skills development […] leading to consistently low levels of performance in areas such as cost, time, quality, running costs and fitness for the end user.”

Source: Comptroller and Auditor General (2001) Modernising construction: report by the Comptroller and Auditor General. London: National Audit Office. http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/00-01/000187.pdf accessed 10 May 2008.

http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/00-01/000187.pdf


Craft vs Industrialised systems

• Craft systems: - access to on-the-job training/experience depends on networking and mentoring clear ethnic and gender obstacle & means of exclusion from ‘good jobs’ intense vertical segregation

• Industrialised systems (e.g. NL): - access dependant on formal training/qualifications: college-based VET has higher % EM and women than work-based route (but problem of entry, drop-out rates, discrimination, language & gaining work experience)


plumber

quantity surveyor

bricklayer

joiner

construction manager

site manager

roofer

architect

Carpenter Joiner

BricklayerConcrete worker

Plumber

Site

ManagerRoofer

Building engineer

Architect

UNTRAINEDUNTRAINED

SKILLS QUALIFICATIONS

carpenter


Case Study: Heathrow Terminal 5• Employment: 8,000 at peak

• Assessments: OH = 1,000+ per month 2005, c400 H&S inductions per week

• Laing O’Rourke: 2,500+ at peak (down to 600)

• AMEC (M&E): 400 white collar, 600 blue collar

• 2006: 1,800 electricians, plumbers, heating & ventilating engineers


T5 Local vs Migrant labour• Few women e.g. electricians, welder• BAME: c 10% (e.g. 200 Punjabi carpenters, Gravesend)• Disability: 7,000 screened in ‘safety critical’ occupations

– 25% medical problem (especially hypertension)– 2,000 lifestyle-related problems

• Local Labour strategy: BAA commitment, but only 150 over 3 years (13 weeks+ in employment)→limited impact

• Itinerant labour force: – ‘Travellers’ (75+km): mechanical & electrical = c50%,

construction = c70% (Wales, Scotland, north, Midlands)– Migrants = e.g. German, Polish, Portuguese, Czech, Croatian


T5 Training problems• CITB Skills centre: BAA support,

– traditional apprentices c 50 capacity (planned 80 local, p.a.); NVQ2• On-site training:

– e.g. language & numeracy, OSAT– Construction Learning World: accredits standards, OSAT– Actual apprenticeships: e.g. T5 major contractor = 1:250/1000

• Company training generally:– 2005 London survey → less ⅓ firms training plans, c30% construction

workers qualified to NVQ2;– BAME apprentices nationally = 1% in 2000

• Local Further Education colleges: – BAA support e.g. 18 week training courses for locals– Nearby FE college:c300 construction trainees (ICA), 6% women, 17% BAME– London FE college construction trainees: 35% BAME; 9% womenBUT problems obtaining work experience


T5 Recruitment & Skills Problems• Skill requirements = e.g. groundworks, fitting out • Wider occupational profiles (‘multi-skilling’)

→facilitating mobility/relocation & reduced turnover e.g. groundworks = steel-fixing, plant operation, scaffolding, paving, drainage, banking, concreting

• Recruitment criteria = skills & security (not qualifications), in practice often ‘word-of-mouth’ + agency i.e. not proactive EO

• CSCS test centre 28 days, 3 attempts, geared to skilled migrant recruitment


T5 Employment conditions• Direct employment: no self-employment

– e.g. main contractor 70% DE; – M&E contractor 60% DE, 40% contract workers (agency)

• Long hours: – site hours 7am-7pm weekdays, 7am-4pm Sats; – normal = 50+ (WTD opt out) + travel time (min. 2 hours)

• Different rates: lack pay harmonisatione.g. lower wages for E. European, ‘multi-skilled’ German;

• Collective agreements: major projects agreement, few disputes/days lost

• High employee/TU involvement high membership & presence e.g. important for H&S


T5 Working Conditions• Diversity policy: no positive discrimination; awareness &

diversity training• Health & safety: great effort, testing & training

e.g. Incident & Injury Free programme• Occupational Health Scheme:

– identify & treat problems (e.g. stress)– change behaviours cf. ‘disability’ wide meaning e.g. obesity,

hypertension;– lower status = worse problems (esp. itinerant life-style); – safety critical work = face-to-face assessment + training gang members to

spot problems

• Less ‘disabling’ site .e.g. 1 fatality + injuries (e.g. eye, hand), many preventive measures e.g. pausing, tool checking, redesigning work


Conclusions T5Forces of inclusion :

– encouraging diverse workforce, training local labour, regulating & developing skills;– good employment/working conditions e.g. direct employment, collective agreements,

TU role, OH, H&S controls/ checksResults: disappointing

– poor apprentice/training & local labour record, – lack work experience for college-based trainees– predominantly white male ‘travelling’ & migrant workforce, few ‘locals’– high levels disability

Obstacles : structured for itinerant workforce:– inappropriate training, lack of work experience places; – recruitment means; – working hours

Alternatives: – training sites, multi-skilled training– targeted recruitment – WTD hours– integration


Dutch construction sector in contrast• 1980: the sector was ‘extremely ill’, welfare without work • Similar working conditions as in the UK • Higher qualification requirement, less occupational risk• FE as key means of entry• VET more comprehensive, group-based• Greater social partner involvement: establishment of sectoral

funds (ARBOUW)• Regulated collective bargaining (including disability risks)• Greater productivity, firm cooperation• Competing employment contract forms: some are more

vulnerable than others


British and Dutch Construction

British• Overwhelming capabilities approach• ‘safety critical’ areas + ‘fitness to practise’• Emphasis on OH, i.e. preventing disability/ eliminating risk in

first place, not on enabling• Life-styles at odds with modern labour processDutch• More social model• Strong unions pressing government for hard regulation on

working conditions and working hours• Soft covenants failed • Employers face individual hazards when hiring employees:

incentive to subcontracting and outsourcing


Overall conclusions UK Construction: above all disabling; little effort to be enabling: • Nature of exclusion differs sectorally

→ necessity to monitor sectorally→ need for sector-specific policies e.g. disability (dyslexia, colour blindness)

• Change from individual self-reliance to social obligationNL Construction = social model of disability• state responsible for overcoming barriers, • increased employer responsibility and emphasis on remaining

capabilitiesCertain convergence in policy• greater concern with employer than individual obligation, with

non-discrimination and ‘reasonable adjustments’

Educating for professional life Enabling & disabling labour market sectors: migrants, health and...

Documents

Transcript of Educating for professional life Enabling & disabling labour market sectors: migrants, health and...