UK: EWCO CAR on Working conditions of nationals with a foreign background

Disclaimer: This information is made available as a service to the public but has not been edited or approved by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. The content is the responsibility of the authors.

In the UK much attention has been paid to the working conditions of ethnic minorities, but, given the “weak” conception of citizenship that characterises the country, this rarely distinguishes between nationals and not nationals. The British situation is characterised by deep differences between white nationals from the former colonies or from the USA/rest of Europe (who tend to have better working conditions that White British nationals), from the Indian subcontinent, and Black British. In this report, in most cases, ‘ethnic minority’ is considered as proxy for nationals with a foreign background, but data are potentially available for more specific investigation.

As nationals with a foreign background are considered:

(1) Nationals having acquired the nationality, born or not in the country of the acquired nationality, and their descendants. Depending on the history of nationality, following groups in bold are relevant: (example for Belgium):

Native Belgians:

Nationals: Native-born with native-born parent(s) (and grand parents) and having the Belgian nationality

Immigrants

Nationals: Foreign-born and Belgian by naturalisation
Non-nationals: Foreign-born and non-national

Second generation

Nationals: Native-born with foreign born parent(s) and Belgian by birth or by naturalisation
Non-nationals: Native-born with foreign-born parent(s) and non-national

Third generation

Nationals: Native-born with native-born parents and foreign born grandparent(s) and Belgian by birth or by naturalisation
Non-nationals: Native-born with native-born parents and with foreign-born grandparent(s) and non-national

(2) Not only nationals with a foreign background but also nationals with a specific ethnic affiliation (different from the typical of the country) need to be taken into consideration because their outcome on the labour market can also be less positive.

The questionnaire focuses on the following topics:

The availability of statistical sources and studies on the labour market situation and working conditions of nationals with a foreign background.
The current debate in the country on the use of ‘ethnic categorisation’ and measuring immigrant origin or immigration-related ethnicity in statistical sources related to work and employment. See for background information on this issue Simon, 2007.
Mapping of the population of nationals with a foreign background in the country, their employment situation and working conditions.
Overview of the key policies related to the employment situation and working conditions of this group and the role anti-discrimination legislation and complaint procedures, social partners and labour inspectorate play in this regard.

The contributions will be light-edited as “national contributions’ and published independently on the web.

1. Sources of information

1.1 Statistical sources

Are there statistical sources (administrative databases, census, survey’s, other administrative reports by for example labour inspectorate) in your country which cover (1) the employment and/or (2) working conditions of nationals with a foreign background/specific ethnic affiliation?

If no data are available, is the basic information available to construct (some categories of) nationals with a foreign background? If so, which categories for which information?

data are available, please specify for each of the key sources if possible:
The type:
The authors
type of body?
The scope
which level these data are available or these studies are carried out (national, sector, regional, other);
The definitions of ‘nationals with a foreign background/ethnic affiliation’ they use and how these definitions are further elaborated in classification rules?
Which method (or combination of methods) is used to make the data classification (history of nationality available in national registers? Self categorisation? Name recognition, …)?
Which kind of comparative tables are usually made, when using the category of ‘nationals with a foreign background
For nationals with a foreign migration background: is it possible to make sub-categories by history of nationality (national by naturalisation of by birth? Immigrants vs. second generation,…)?
Are there problems of sample size or other methodological problems of interpretation/analysis in relation to these groups?
Present briefly the topics on employment and/or working conditions covered
The availability (free or on demand)?
The periodicity?
Please give references and provide links to all relevant websites.

1.2 Debate on measuring immigration-related ethnicity and labour statistics

What is the current debate in your country on the use of ‘ethnic categorisation’ and measuring nationals with immigrant origin or immigration-related ethnicity in statistical sources related to work and employment?

A variety of statistical data on nationals with foreign background are potentially available in the UK, but so far they have been rarely elaborated distinguishing this section of the population.

The population census (the last in 2001 - http://www.ons.gov.uk/census/index.html) does not include data on nationality, but provides information on ethnic minorities’ labour market situation and its change decade after decade (e.g. Clark and Drinkwater 2007).

The Labour Force Survey (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Source.asp?vlnk=358) collects data on nationality, country of birth and (self-declared) ethnic group. By crossing these three variables, it is possible to identify on one side the nationals who are foreign-born (although this would include a large number of foreign-born ethnic White British), and on the other side the nationals who belong to different ethnic groups than White British. Given that the overwhelming majority of the non-White British population arrived to the country after World War 2, the latter definition (ethnic minority nationals) is considered as a good proxy of nationals with foreign background up to the third generation – although the most recent data may already include small numbers of fourth-generation nationals with foreign background and, more importantly, may not include those second and third generation immigrants consider themselves as ethnically British. By contrast, there are no official data specifically distinguishing between first, second and third generations, although some surveys exist. One limit of LFS data on this topic is that the relatively small sample size does not allow to detect statistically significant data on smaller ethnic minority groups.

As it has been denounced by migration experts, such data crossing is very rarely conducted and official data, including from specialised public bodies such as the Migration Advisory Committee, tend to limit themselves to either nationality or country of birth or ethnic group. Also studies on second generations (e.g. Blackaby et al 2002, Algan et al. 2010) tend not to consider the difference between nationals non-nationals, and to use ethnic minority as proxy for foreign background.

This is a major problem in the UK given the specific very high overlapping between these three categories. The post-colonial history of the UK means that there are high numbers of nationals born abroad (mostly in the former colonies, and in large part White British), as well as large numbers of foreign nationals born in the UK. As an apparent paradox, in 2008 the largest single group among the 5.3m foreign-born UK residents, is that of British citizens (41% of the total) – either born abroad by British parents (6% of the total), or, more frequently, foreigners who have taken up British nationality, but may still be part of secondary ethnic segments of the labour market: notably, 62% of UK workers born in Pakistan and Bangladesh are UK citizens. On the other side, 5.3% of foreign national UK residents were born in the UK.

Additional statistical data:

Lifetime Labour Market Database (http://www.ons.gov.uk/about-statistics/user-guidance/lm-guide/sources/compound/llm-db/index.html): longitudinal administrative source, on a large random sample of individuals tracked since the 1970s, covering labour market status and personal characteristics including migration status). Some rare studies have used this source and distinguished ethnic minorities with and without UK nationality (e.g. Dickens and McKnight 2008);
Office of National Statistics Longitudinal Study (https://www.census.ac.uk/guides/Longitudinal_ons.aspx): based on census sample (1971, 1991, 2001, next 2011), it provides detailed data, including on parents and therefore allows to study second-generation immigrants (e.g. Platt 2005);
General Household Survey (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/ssd/surveys/general_household_survey.asp): data on entry into country and detailed socio-economic information (e.g. Schmitt and Wadswarth 2007; Li and Heath 2008);
Public sector employers and private companies applying for public contracts must collect data on ethnicity and nationality of employees and applicants, and some large employers do it as well;
The Workplace Employment relations Survey, conducted at irregular intervals, provides information ton employers’ equal opportunity policies.

In the Census of 2011, two more ethnic group options (“Arab” and “Gypsy or Irish traveller”) will be added, as well as questions on nationality (English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, British or Other) and on knowledge of English, providing a much larger set of data.

The multi-cultural orientation of Great Britain implies that collecting data by ethnicity meets little resistance, unlike in other European countries. A further step in this process, since the census of 2001, has been the collection of data on religion. The attention to such data is shared by public authority, employers (who are often interested in “diversity management” policies) and trade unions (who have stepped up their anti-discrimination commitment in the last decades and already organise larger shares of ethnic minorities than of White British workers). The term BME (Black and Minority Ethnic) is increasingly used. Ethnicity categorizations include “Other White” (i.e. non British) but do not distinguish between, for instance, Europeans and non-Europeans, or between different groups of Europeans (e.g. from West or East).

With regard to question 1.2, nationals with specific ethnic affiliations, British Jews and British Romany are the most important native minorities, but they are relatively small (around 0.1% of the population). White Irish are also considered as a specific ethnic minority in Great Britain (where they account for 1.2% of the population), although they are the typical group in Northern Ireland. Within Northern Ireland, Catholics might be defined as native ethnic minority and detailed data on them are available due to the exceptional Northern Irish regulations, but as the questionnaire does not mention religion, this issue is omitted in this response.

Given the availability, but hitherto scarce exploitation, of data, research projects focusing on nationals with foreign background would be very timely in the UK and could provide important comparative information due to the larger size of this population than in other EU countries. Microdata from census, LFS, ONS, and LLMD are potentially available for research purposes but require special permission and involve some elaboration in order to preserve anonymity.

2. Population

2.1 Main groups of nationals with a foreign background/specific ethnic affiliation

Which are the main groups in your country? Very briefly summarise the key reasons how these groups ended up in your country? What was the role and place of labour market evolutions and policies in this regard?

2.2 Demographic data (including recent trends in the 2000-2010 period)

For the different groups described:

Total number by gender, age, background country/origin, history of nationality (national by naturalisation of by birth? Immigrants vs second generation,…), education level. As a reference, please provide the same relevant information for other groups (nationals with a non-foreign background, non-nationals/foreigners)
As a percentage of total population by gender, age, background country/origin, history of nationality (national by naturalisation of by birth? immigrants vs. second generation, …), education level.

Are there particular reasons for recent trends (recent growth or increase) in the group of nationals with a foreign background (change in law on becoming a country national? / external events?).

2.3 Active population (including recent trends in the 2000-2010 period)

For the different groups described:

Total number by gender, age, history of nationality (national by naturalisation of by birth? Immigrants vs. second generation,…), , origin/background country, education level). As a reference, please provide the same relevant information for other groups (nationals with a non-foreign background, non-nationals/foreigners)
As a percentage of the total (sub)population between 15 and 64 (activity rate) by gender, age, history of nationality (national by naturalisation of by birth? Immigrants vs. second generation,…), origin/background country, education level. As a reference, please provide the same indicators for other groups (nationals with a non-foreign background, non-nationals/foreigners)

Please, briefly comment, if possible, the key factors contributing to recent trends (change in the position of women?; different demographic evolution?; change in policies?)

28% of the UK population has at least one non-UK born parent, and the large majority of them are British nationals, given that foreign nationals are only 7.1% of the population (2010). As mentioned in the previous section, data on ethnic groups, nationality and country of birth are rarely crossed, and therefore a precise counting of nationals with foreign background is not available, although it could be technically possible. By detracting the number of foreign nationals from the numbers of foreign born, we can calculate that the minimum number of foreign-born nationals is 2,568 thousands, or 4.2% of the population (although the actual number must be higher, accounting for UK-born foreign nationals, and it includes foreign-born White British citizens). The largest groups of foreign-born nationals, according to the same calculations, are from the following countries:

India: 350,000
Pakistan: 251,000
Germany: 180,000
Bangladesh: 123,000
Kenya: 119,000
South Africa: 117,000
Jamaica: 95,000
Sri Lanka: 72,000
Ireland: 56,000

According to the 2001 census, 7.9% of the UK population identified with different ethnic groups than White. In England and Wales, by detracting foreign nationals from ethnic groups, we can calculate a similar minimum number of ethnic minority UK nationals at 2.5m, but the total must be higher because many national with foreign background identify themselves as British (it is generally estimated that only 50% of people with foreign background are classified as ethnic minorities). According to 2001 census, the largest ethnic minorities were Asians (4% of the total population, including 1.8% Indians), Blacks (1.95%), Mixed (1.15%), Chinese (0.4%), Irish (1.2%), Other Whites 2.4%), Others (0.4%).

It is evident from these data that the largest groups are associated to British colonial past. In this sense, the question “how they ended up in the country” is misplaced, as it was rather Britain that ended up in their countries. Until 1962, Commonwealth citizens had unrestricted access to Britain. UK migration and citizenship policies have never been related to labour market conditions (except, in part, for some recent focus on skilled immigrants).

Access to UK nationality is relatively easy. Every child born in the UK to a parent who is permanently settled in the country can acquire British nationality, and multiple nationality is allowed. As a result, it is normal for second-generation migrants to be UK citizens. Such relaxed approach to nationality may partially explain why, in spite of very large research production on ethnicity and migration, so little of it has looked at the difference between nationals and not nationals. The high incidence of double nationality also blurs the distinction between nationals and non-nationals.

The number of foreigners taking British nationality has been increasing, reaching the record of 200,000 (mostly from the Indian subcontinent and Africa) in 2009. Between 1997 and 2009 (during the Labour Party government) 1.5m foreigners acquired British citizenship. The increase was a delayed effect of previous migration waves. In 2005 a new law made naturalization more difficult by introducing language and “Life in the UK” tests.

According to the governmental Labour Force Survey (LFS, http://www.statistics.gov.uk/ssd/surveys/labour_force_survey.asp) , in March 2010 the activity rate for ethnic minorities (whether nationals or not) is, at 68.3%, 8 points below the national figure. This contrasts with a very high activity rate of new migrants from Central and Eastern Europe (84%). According to the Labour Force Survey data of 2008 (Khan and Ker 2008), three distinct groups stand out in the active foreign-born population (an indicator of the groups with foreign backgrounds): workers born in the Commonwealth countries of Africa (excluding South Africa) and of the Indian subcontinent (1.4m, of whom 80% have been in the country for more than 10 years); workers from USA, South Africa and western Europe (1.3m), and workers from the new EU member states (0.6m according to the LFS, but more likely around 1.5m). The first two groups include large numbers of UK citizens but the latter does not.

3. Employment situation

3.1 Labour market participation

If available, present briefly commented statistics on:

Specific rates of labour market participation: employment rate , unemployment rate, level of long-term unemployed (more than 12 months) (by gender, age, history of nationality (national by naturalisation of by birth? Immigrants vs. second generation,…), origin/background country , education level). As a reference, please provide the same indicators for other groups (nationals with a non-foreign background, non-nationals)
Do the abovementioned indicators vary significantly according with the history of nationality (for instance, second generation compared with immigrants first generation) or for some ethnic affiliated groups? If such variations exist, which are the reasons put forward to explain them?
Do the abovementioned indicators vary significantly according with the country background (for instance, a certain nationality or national background is significantly more or less represented in unemployment?) If such variations exist, which are the reasons put forward to explain them?

3.2 Sectoral or occupational statistics

If available, present briefly commented statistics or study results on:

Are nationals with a foreign background/specific ethnic affiliation over- or under-represented in specific sectors or occupations? If so, specify which sectors and occupations. Please distinguish whenever relevant or possible between men and women.
If so, what are the possible reasons of such over- or under-representation? What is the role of segregation and discrimination? Please distinguish whenever relevant or possible between men and women.
Does the presence in the different sectors or occupations vary significantly according to the history of nationality (national by naturalisation of by birth? Immigrants vs. second generation, …) or for some ethnic affiliated groups? If such variations exist, which are the reasons put forward to explain them?
Does the presence in the different sectors or occupations vary significantly according to the country background or ethnic origin)? If such variations exist, which are the reasons put forward to explain them?

3.3 Employment status

If available, present briefly commented statistics or study results on:

Employment status: self-employed with employees, self-employed without employees, employee (men, women). As a reference, please provide the same indicators for other groups (nationals with a non-foreign background, non-nationals/foreigners).
Type of contract: open-ended, fixed-term, temporary agency work (men, women). As a reference, please provide the same indicators for other groups (nationals with a non-foreign background, non-nationals/foreigners).
Working time regime: full-time, part-time, (men, women). As a reference, please provide the same indicators for other groups (nationals with a non-foreign background, non-nationals/foreigners).
Do the abovementioned indicators vary significantly according to the history of nationality (national by naturalisation of by birth? Immigrants vs. second generation, …) or for some ethnic affiliated groups. If such variations exist, which are the reasons put forward to explain them?

3.4 Possible determinants

If employment inequalities and labour market disadvantages are existing for the groups considered, which determinants are considered in recent studies and reports as key in your country to explain these positions? The following list of barriers can be of help in this regard, please tick off if relevant.

□ No major inequalities:

□ Lack of education and training

□ Lack of language skills

□ Lack of recognition of skills and qualifications

□ Lack of access to professions

□ Lack of integration policies

□ Stereotypes, prejudices and negative attitudes

□ Disincentives through welfare systems

□ Discrimination

□ Lack of information/network

□ Labour market competition

□ Undeclared work

□ Other: please specify

Describe very briefly the main result/topic and give references and other useful links.

Given the longer immigration history of the UK, the population with foreign background is particularly heterogeneous. On one side, those with European, North American or Australian backgrounds show average employment rates, qualifications and income above the national average, with a very high representation in particular the financial sector. On the other side, those with Black-African, Chinese and, especially, Pakistani/Bangladeshi origins display significant disadvantages (Li and Heath 2008).

The employment gap between White British population and ethnic minorities, after reaching a record 20% in 1994, has been slowly declining, to about 14% in 2009. Since 2008, the economic crisis has hit new immigrants’ employment but does not seem to have impacted over-proportionally nationals with foreign backgrounds. The group with the lowest employment rate is that of Pakistani and Bangladeshi women (27% and 22%, Census 2001).

In terms of occupation, foreign-born who have been in the country for more than 10 years (as a proxy of foreign-born nationals) display a similar occupational distribution to UK-born workers, except a slight underrepresentation among skilled trade occupations and an overrepresentation at the top of the hierarchy (managers and professionals). Similar figures emerge in terms of ethnic minorities from the 2001 Census. More in-depth comparative analysis suggests that the labour market assimilation of people with foreign backgrounds in the UK is faster than in Southern Europe (Rendall et al 2008). This however hides a bipolar distribution, as mentioned, between privileged groups from the ‘First world’ and disadvantaged groups from the ‘Third’ one: for instance, 50% of male Other White employees are professionals or managers, but only 19% of male Bangladeshi; for women, the gap is similar: 40% Other White women and 10% Bangladeshi female employees are managers or professionals (Census 2001).

In terms of sector, a British specificity is the under-representation of ethnic minorities in manufacturing, with the only exception of Indian female employees, who are over-represented, for instance in the textile industry. Ethnic minorities are concentrated in retail (especially Asians), hospitality (especially Chinese), finance (Other Whites), public sector (black women), construction (Irish men) (source: Census 2001).

A recent comparative study of second-generation immigrants (again, whether nationals or not, but likely overwhelmingly nationals) found that the second generation has a much lower employment rate than the first generation, but only because of their younger average age; moreover, this gap is smaller for women (just 2%) than for men (13%) (Algan et al 2010). This is an effect of second generation female immigrants from Muslim countries displaying a much higher activity rate than their mothers. As more in-depth research has shown, the higher employment participation of second-generation Pakistani and Bangladeshi women is directly related to their better education and knowledge of English, and is not due to a lower adherence to the Islamic faith (Dale et al. 2002). According to that research, their barriers to employment are more related to employers’ stereotypes and discrimination, and not to a lower commitment to work or to any other cultural factor.

According to the 2001 census, male ethnic minority workers (especially Bangladeshi) were more likely to hold part-time jobs than male white British counterparts, but the opposite was true for women, an effect of Bangladeshis’ over-representation in the catering industry but also an indication that for ethnic minorities part-time may be more frequently imposed than chosen. The same source indicates that Pakistani, Indian and especially Chinese are more likely than Whites to be self-employed, while the opposite is the case for Bangladeshi and Blacks.

Among the determinants of the disadvantaged labour market position of ethnic minority UK nationals, discrimination appears to be the strongest: 2001 census data show that individuals’ characteristics and human capital explain only a small part of ethnic minorities’ disadvantaged position (Clark and Drinkwater 2007). A matter of concern is that while between 1991 and 2001 the human capital characteristics of ethnic minority workers have largely improved, discrimination effects have remained substantially unaltered. Discrimination at the stage of recruitment was illustrated in 2009 by a research test by the Department for Work and Pensions (www.dwp.gov.uk), which sent nearly 3,000 applications for 987 vacancies in nine occupations under false identities, using the names Nazia Mahmood, Mariam Namagembe and Alison Taylor, each with similar experience and qualifications, and British education and work histories (Wood et al. 2009). It resulted that applicants with the white sounding name had to send nine applications before receiving a positive reply, while candidates with the "foreign" sounding names had to send 16 applications before receiving a similar response. There are also indications of postcode discrimination. Although in the UK it is already common practice to avoid any personal information (age, gender, nationality, marital status and family situation, picture) in job applications, it is now suggested that also names and addresses should be submitted separately from the application forms so that these can be considered anonymously.

Education disadvantage is also a major factor, especially for Blacks but not for Chinese and Indians, as it is geographic segregation in the areas with highest unemployment, deepened by privatisation of social housing since the 1980s. As mentioned, no research indicates clear direct negative effects of the minorities’ culture or religion.

4. Working conditions

If available and where possible, present briefly commented statistics or key study results for your country on the position of nationals with a foreign background/specific ethnic affiliation:

4.1 Training, skills and employability

Level of education and occupational position: over-qualification and under-qualification (including recent trends in the 2000-2010 period)
Participation in training and possibilities for competence development; Is the access to and quality of training or other possibilities of competence development (such as apprenticeship) of nationals with a foreign background/specific ethnic affiliation equivalent to that of other population groups (nationals not with a foreign background, non-nationals/foreigners)

4.2 Working hours

Working hours, compared with other groups : (nationals not with a foreign background, non-nationals/foreigners)

average hours usually worked per week, including overtime;
overtime;
diffusion of work at unsocial hours (night, weekend);
diffusion of shift work;

4.3 Health & safety

Exposure to risks and accidents at work; Are the groups considered over-represented in sectors/occupations with higher risks?
Possible studies or statistics on differences in physical working conditions (vibration, noise, high/low temperatures etc.) or psycho-social well-being between the group(s) of nationals with a foreign background/specific ethnic affiliation compared to other groups in employment.
Health outcomes, work-related health problems and occupational illnesses

There is no detailed systematic information on working conditions of nationals with foreign background. Some information can be inferred from research on ethnic minorities.

A study on education and training of ethnic minorities (Bhattacharyya et al 2003) showed in 2003 that ethnic minority youth – likely to be nationals in the majority –are more likely to stay in education or training after the age of 16, but at the same time they are less likely to achieve a qualification and to find employment. An important cause may be that fewer of them, in comparison to White British, attend a work-based training route. In the case of adults, there is a difference between Blacks, more likely than average to participate in further education and training, and Asians, who are less likely.

According to the 2001 census, ethnic minority workers born in the UK (and therefore likely to be UK citizens) worked slightly fewer hours than White British workers, with the exception of Indians and Chinese self-employed, who worked much longer hours (3-4 hours longer in the case of men, 9-10 hours longer in case of women).

There is some evidence of higher Health and Safety risk for ethnic minorities, for instance in the construction industry, but it is not sufficiently systematic to distinguish the foreign background factor from migration in general and from segregation in the most dangerous positions (McKay et al. 2006).

5. Policies of workplace promotion and combating discrimination

5.1 Anti-discrimination rules in practice: the field of work

If available, provide commented statistics in relation to the anti-discrimination procedures of your country, namely:

the number of work-related complaints by nationals with a foreign background/specific ethnic affiliation received and identified as discriminatory by the competent institutions;
number of these complaints resulting in legal action.
percentage of these complaints resulting in sanctions.

Please provide, if possible, a recent notable example of the latter (work-related complaint resulting in sanction).

5.2 Public policies

Please indicate whether there are in your country specific public policies to tackle the employment inequalities or to foster workplace promotion of the nationals with a foreign background/specific ethnic affiliation and specifically

Improving of the working conditions or health & safety
Enhancing access to quality jobs
Enhancing progression and well-being in the workplace
Addressing the issues of quality of employment and precarious job
Addressing the lack of skills, in particular language problems
Tackling discrimination in recruitment
Promoting diversity in the workplace

5.3. Role of the social partners

Please indicate the (most) important actual roles and real contributions social partners (employers’ organisations and trade unions at national, sector, or regional level) play in regard to the complaints procedures of point 5.1. and the policies of point 5.2.

5.4. Role of the labour inspectorate

Please indicate whether and how the labour inspectorate plays an actual role in especially the monitoring and the control of the anti-discrimination laws.

Policies for nationals with foreign backgrounds in the UK are framed within the general race equality policies. An important starting point was the Ethnic Minorities in the Labour Market Final Report published by the Cabinet Office in 2003, which focussed on education, housing, transport, health care, childcare, entrepreneurship, information and public procurement as public policies that could promote ethnic minorities’ employment opportunities. The report led to the establishment of an Ethnic Minority Employment Task Force (www.emetaskforce.gov.uk), in collaboration with local authorities and with the Commission for Equality and Human Rights, to provide information necessary to remove barriers to ethnic minorities’ participation in the labour market.

In addition, a Business Commission on Race Equality in the Workplace was created in 2007 by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and it provided recommendations including a call for legislation if the situation is not improved by 2012 (this recommendation was not accepted by the government).

Public procurement, through the so-called contractual approach consisting in including targets and policies for ethnic minorities in public procurement contracts, is a prominent way in which the government promotes ethnic minorities’ employment. A particularly advanced case is that of the Olympic Delivery Authority, which includes employment targets for ethnic minorities and for local residents. The public sector already employs a large number of ethnic minority workers, especially women.

In addition, better reporting is being promoted. In October 2010, the Department of Work and Pensions, in collaboration with the University of Oxford, published a research report on the feasibility of a Race Equality Index (research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2009-2010/rrep695.pdf) that would combine data from the Citizenship Survey, the Labour Force Survey and the Workplace Employment Relations Survey, to monitor employers’ progress on ethnic minorities. Public authorities also promote better standards through voluntary schemes, such as the Investors in People standard that contains a measure of equality policies.

Race discrimination constitutes a major area of work for Employment Tribunals, but no data are available on the share of complaints coming from British nationals.

According to the Workplace Employment Relations Survey (2004) (http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/employment-matters/research/wers/wers2004), only 1/5 of employers have a race equality policy, and according to a survey by the Business Commission confirmed a lack of interest in a majority of companies. It is likely that the interest specifically on nationals with foreign backgrounds is even lower. There are cases of best practices, though, such as a Diversity Equality Assessment Review at Ford (http://www.sfbn-equality-diversity.org.uk/Files/case-studies/Diversity%20teams,Ford_casestudy.doc), and a number of initiatives in the finance sector, largely oriented to ‘diversity management’ policies. Some large employers, and even more the public sector, have made an effort to advertise their vacancies more among ethnic minorities (the police is a prominent example).

Services for employers include the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/), the Race Relations Employment Advisory Service and Equality Direct , provided by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (www.acas.gov.uk). Services for employees include Law Centres (www.lawcentres.org.uk) and Citizen Advice Bureaux (www.citizenadvice.org.uk).

British unions have developed a particularly strong commitment to ethnic minorities, including specific services and specific organising techniques. The public sector Unison (www.unison.org.uk) is a frontrunner in many of these activities, including self-organising of Black and Minority Ethnic workers.

The UK does not have a Labour Inspectorate.

Commentary by the NC

Please provide your own comments on:

how clear the current statistical picture is on the employment and working conditions of nationals with a foreign background in your country and if the possible lack is a big problem or not.
the success or not of the current policies in your country to promote the working conditions, combat employment inequalities or prevent discrimination at the workplace of nationals with a foreign background/specific ethnic affiliation.

The multicultural political tradition of the UK means that while there are extensive data on ethnic minorities (whose disadvantaged employment position is well documented), these rarely distinguish between nationals and not nationals. This may be changing, though: after the 7/7 bombings in 2005 there has been a clear policy change towards a stronger meaning of citizenship (with stricter criteria and more stress on citizenship tests for naturalisation). As some data are available through surveys such as the Labour Force Survey, and more will be provided by the census 2011, more research should be carried out on this specific and increasingly relevant category, which could be interesting in a comparative perspective.

While the UK government, unions and many large employers have a relatively strong awareness of ethnic diversity issues and a number of equal opportunities policies exist, it is debatable whether these can compensate the effects of structural inequality and deregulation that characterise the UK labour market, to close the employment and working conditions gaps between White British and ethnic minority British workers.

References

Algan, Y, Dustmann, C., Glitz, A. and Manning, A. “The Economic Situation of First- and Second-Generation Immigrants in France, Germany and the United Kingdom”, CEP Discussion Paper No 951. London: LSE (2009)
Bhattacharyya, G., Izon, L., Blair, M., Minority Ethnic Attainment and Participation in Education and Training: The Evidence. Department for Education and Skills, Research Paper RTP 01-03 (2003)
Blackaby, D., Leslie, D., Murphy, P., and N. O’Leary, “White/Ethnic Minority Earnings and Employment Differentials in Britain: Evidence from the LFS”, Oxford Economic Papers, Vol. 54, 270-297 (2002).
Clark, K. and Drinkwater, S. Ethnic Minorities in the Labour Market. Bristol: Policy Press (2007)
Dale, A., N Shaheen, Kalra, V., Fieldhouse, E A. "The Labour Market Prospects for Pakistani and Bangladeshi Women." Work, Employment & Society (2002): 5-25.
Dickens, R. and McKnight, A. Assimilation of migrants into the British labour market. Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics and Political Science, London (2008).
Li, Y. and Heath, A. “Minority Ethnic Men in British Labour Market, 1972-2005”, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 5-6 (2008)
McKay, S., Craw, M. and Chopra, D. “Migrant Workers in England and Wales. An Assessment of Migrant Worker Health and Safety Risk”, London: Health and Safety Executive (2006)
Platt, L. ‘The intergenerational social mobility of minority ethnic groups’, Sociology 39 (3): 445-461 (2005)
Rendall, M., Rabinovich, L., Janta, B., Rubin, J. and Tsang, F. “Contrasting Trajectories of Labor Market Assimilation between Migrant Women in Western and Southern Europe”, RAND Working Paper 622 (2008).
Schmitt, J. and Wadswarth, J. “Changes in the Relative Economic Performance of Immigrants to Great Britain and the United States, 1980–2000”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 4, 659-686 (2007)
Wood, M., Hales, J., Purdon, S., Sejersen, T. and Hayllar, O., “A Test for Racial Discrimination in Recruitment Practice in UK Cities”, Research Report No. 607, Department for Work and Pensions (2009) (http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2009-2010/rrep607.pdf)

Guglielmo Meardi, Industrial Relations Research Unit, University of Warwick

Page last updated: 28 July, 2011

^Back to top of page

About this document

ID: UK1012019Q
Author: Guglielmo Meardi
Institution: Industrial Relations Research Unit, University of Warwick
Country: United Kingdom
Language: EN
Publication date: 28-07-2011