Enabling & disabling labour market sectors:
migrants, health and safety and disability
in the
British and Dutch construction sectors
Linda Clarke
University of Westminster
Presentation to ESRC seminar
University of Northumbria, April 2010
educating for professional life
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
educating for professional life
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)
educating for professional life
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%)
educating for professional life
Labour mobility in construction
Survey 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
educating for professional life
• 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
educating for professional life
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
educating for professional life
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
educating for professional life
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
educating for professional life
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.
educating for professional life
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, dropout rates, discrimination, language & gaining work
experience)
educating for professional life
SKILLS
roofer
QUALIFICATIONS
Carpenter
Joiner
Bricklayer
Concrete
worker
UNTRAINED
plumber
architect
Site
Manager
construction
manager
bricklayer
Roofer
quantity
surveyor
site
manager
carpenter
Plumber
Building
engineer
Architect
joiner
educating for professional life
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
educating for professional life
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
educating for professional life
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% women
BUT problems obtaining work experience
educating for professional life
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
educating for professional life
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 harmonisation
e.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
educating for professional life
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
educating for professional life
Conclusions T5
Forces 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/ checks
Results: 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
educating for professional life
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
educating for professional life
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 process
Dutch
• 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
educating for professional life
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 obligation
NL Construction = social model of disability
• state responsible for overcoming barriers,
• increased employer responsibility and emphasis on remaining
capabilities
Certain convergence in policy
• greater concern with employer than individual obligation, with
non-discrimination and ‘reasonable adjustments’
educating for professional life