Other Links

You are in: Jobcentre Report > A summary

A summary of

Job Opportunities in 21^st Century Britain

...a report produced by the United Reformed Church and the Greater Manchester Low Pay Unit into the type and quality of work available through Jobcentres.

This report presents the findings of a survey co-ordinated by the United Reformed Church into the type and quality of jobs available in Jobcentres in England, Scotland and Wales. The research was undertaken during September and October 2000, and involved members of United Reformed churches visiting their local Jobcentre and recording details of all the jobs registered there. Researchers noted the kinds of job on offer, rates of pay, hours of work and whether jobs were temporary or permanent. Thirty-nine Jobcentres containing a total of 10,118jobs were surveyed. The Jobcentres, grouped by region, were:

The survey produced a mass of data which were processed by Dr David Luckin at the Greater Manchester Low Pay Unit (GMLPU). David Luckin’s work was supervised by the Co-ordinator of the GMLPU, Gabrielle Cox, then also Convener of the Church and Society Committee of the United Reformed Church. This Committee had overall responsibility for the survey within the United Reformed Church. David Luckin produced reports for each of the participating churches summarising the findings they had produced. He also wrote a generic report which pulled together the information from all the Jobcentres surveyed to provide a picture of the national situation in relation to Jobcentre vacancies. The report also made comparisons between different Jobcentres and between occupations. This is a summary of that report.

Although only about a third of all vacancies are processed through Jobcentres, a survey such as this is important for two reasons:

· it gives information about jobs which are likely to be available to unemployed people in their area, and therefore shows the kind of opportunities which are open to them; and

· it provides a wealth of detail about a part of the labour market which is under-represented in the official statistics on earnings, and can throw light on the likely impact of particular government labour market policies. The government’s annual New Earnings Survey is compiled by tracing through tax records and therefore does not feature jobs where the worker does not earn enough to pay tax: Jobcentre surveys tell us about the kind of jobs which pay low rates and offer part-time work, and give us an idea how numerous these are.

The report set out to

help shed light on the frequently limited opportunities available to unemployed people; · inform debate about policies such as welfare to work, increased ‘targeting’ of benefits and the use of in-work benefits to top up low income employment; and

contribute to debates surrounding the effectiveness and appropriate level of the national minimum wage.

top ^

The survey raised serious doubts about the reliability of official Jobcentre vacancy statistics. In the case of every Jobcentre surveyed the number of vacancies recorded by URC researchers was lower than official statistics had suggested, in some cases by around ten times. Overall the total number of vacancies recorded in the survey was only just over a third (34.7%) of the official figure. It is worrying if such statistics are used in formulating policy since they supply a distorted image of the labour market in which there appear to be far more job vacancies than are recorded in the sort of detailed fieldwork upon which this report is based. Recent government statements that there are about ‘a million vacancies’ in the economy as a whole appear to rely on this image to some extent. This is a particular cause for concern given the government’s increased emphasis on the use of compulsion (such as benefit sanctions) in labour market policy.

Of the 10,118 jobs surveyed, 6,202 (61.3%) were full-time and 3,916 (38.7%) were part-time. Part-time is defined as less than 30 hours per week.

The majority of jobs on offer, both full- and part-time, were low-skilled. The occupation with by far the most vacancies was catering, followed by shop work, cleaning, office work and care work. These five occupations accounted for 59.2% of the total. With the exception of office work, these occupations tend to be both poorly paid, with average hourly pay rates of £4.20 or less. These occupations still also tend to be associated with high levels of female employment, and the survey therefore confirms that the gender pay gap and the traditional under-valuation of ‘women’s work’ are still highly significant in relation to Jobcentre vacancies.

By contrast there were fewer vacancies in occupations that are traditionally regarded as ‘male’ jobs such as skilled work, driving, engineering, the motor trade, security and warehouse work. Some of these jobs are highly skilled and well paid. Other relatively highly-paid occupations such as management, professional work and nursing together represented a small percentage of the jobs on offer.

The average hourly pay for all the jobs surveyed, full- and part-time, was £4.80. The average for full-time jobs was £5.16 and for part-time jobs £4.30. The large difference between the full- and part-time averages is partly explained by the high proportion of part-time jobs in low-paying occupations. However, full-time jobs are often better paid than part-time jobs even in the same occupation.

Nearly nine in ten of all jobs surveyed were paying more than the minimum wage, suggesting that fears that employers would struggle to meet its requirements, or that it could act in some cases as a maximum wage in some low-paying sectors, were unfounded. The rise from £3.60 to £3.70 per hour in October 2000 did not present problems to many employers since 84.3% of the jobs in the survey were paying more than this amount already. However, since 27.4% of jobs surveyed were paying less than the inflation-adjusted threshold of £4 per hour, the increase in the minimum wage to £4.10 in October 2001 would have had wider implications.

The total proportion of jobs for which no hourly rate was known was 17.7%, and for which no weekly rate was given, 26.7%. These include the relatively small percentage of jobs which were negotiable or which paid commission only, piecework or union rates. Half of the jobs where no hourly rate was specified indicated that the minimum wage would be satisfied or exceeded.

Taking the survey as a whole, average weekly pay was £152.36. The average for full-time jobs was £209.27 and for part-time jobs £70.10. Over a quarter of the part-time jobs paid below £50 per week, 84.8% below £100 a week, and 98.2% below £150. Over a third of all jobs paid less than £100 and over half paid less than £150. Even amongst full-time jobs 17.3% paid below £150 and 54.3% paid below £200. In the whole survey only 14% of jobs paid £250 or above per week.

Only 5.7% of the part-time vacancies in the survey paid below £30, so the vast majority of jobs would enable a woman to at least qualify for Maternity Allowance.

Over a fifth of the jobs in the survey paid less than the Lower Earnings Limit. This means that someone taking one of these jobs could not claim any contributory benefits (except Maternity Allowance). This could mean short-term problems if the worker fell sick, and poverty in retirement since there would be no entitlement to a state pension. The person would most likely have to turn to means-tested benefits such as Income Support to meet their needs if they fell sick, became unemployed, or when they retired.

29.7% of jobs in the survey paid below the Employers’ National Insurance Threshold, the level at which an employer starts to pay National Insurance contributions. These jobs would bring in very little income for the government (only what a worker pays in National Insurance, if anything). They would also be unlikely to take a worker off dependence on means-tested benefits. Although Jobcentre vacancies only represent a certain section of the labour market, it seems clear that the finding that around three in ten of such vacancies fall below the Employers’ NI threshold indicates that fiscal problems are being stored up for the future, as more people are having to claim benefits to top up low-paid work and the government is getting less income from new jobs because they are low-paid.

An increase in the Employers’ NI threshold since this survey was conducted has raised the fear that some employers will create only part-time jobs or will cut full-time jobs into two part-time jobs in order to avoid paying NI. 33.7% of the (full-time) jobs surveyed are now vulnerable to such splitting, whereas at the time of the survey the figure was only 8.1%.

More than half of the jobs in the survey, nearly a quarter of full-time jobs and virtually all the part-time jobs, paid less than a couple with two children under 11 would get on Income Support or Jobseeker’s Allowance (even before housing costs are considered). This does not mean that the family would not consider such a job, because they may be able to claim an in-work benefit, but it shows how many jobs are paying less than might be considered a ‘living wage’ for a small family. For some people it may be hard to have to face the fact that even working full-time they cannot earn a living wage.

98.3% of jobs in the survey would pay weekly earnings which entitled a two-child family to claim Working Families Tax Credit. Only a tiny proportion of jobs, therefore, would pay a wage which was more than the amount where a top-up could be claimed for a family with two young children. Most jobs would either require a family with children to make a claim for WFTC or require both parents to work. Three-quarters of all people in work live in multiple-earner households, and this is in part due to the fact that it is increasingly difficult for people with children to find jobs which cover their living and housing costs.

More than three-fifths of the jobs surveyed would pay too little to enable the holder to benefit from the stakeholder pension scheme. This was introduced by the government in April 2001 to enable people unable to afford a private scheme to save for a pension. Many of the jobs coming onto the labour market now will obviously not provide pension security for workers in the future.

Taking all the jobs in the survey where hours could be calculated, average hours of work per week were 29.5. The full-time average was 39.0 and the part-time 16.4. This compares with national average figures of 37.8 hours for full-time work and 15.5 hours for part-time work. Hours of work for jobs in the survey were therefore longer than the national averages for both full- and part-time employment. Among the full-time jobs in the survey the tendency was for longer rather than shorter hours: 74.2% were for 36 hours or more, 53.9% for 38 hours or more and 19.5% for 40 hours or more. Working hours in Britain are longer on average than elsewhere in Europe.

Almost a fifth of the jobs surveyed were for below 16 hours per week, and a person on Income Support or Jobseeker’s Allowance taking one of these would only be able to increase their household income by between £5 and £15 (and travel and other work expenses would have to come from that). These jobs might attract people not on benefits looking for a small amount of part-time work, such as students and people in a household where someone was already working and extra income was needed. (Since the present government came to power the number of people taking work while at school or college has risen by 93,000.) It has been clear for some time that the country is manly split into ‘work-rich’ households (where two or more people are in work) and ‘work-poor’ households where nobody is in work. Thus although part-time jobs can be very attractive to households looking for extra income, many of them would not help ‘work-poor’ households break out of unemployment.

Significant numbers of both full- and part-time jobs were not permanent – 14.3% and 14.0% respectively. Many of the temporary jobs lasted only a few weeks, and could not therefore offer an effective route back into work for unemployed people. Moving back and forth between work and benefits is unattractive to unemployed people for a variety of reasons.

Temporary jobs often pay higher rates than permanent ones. Average hourly pay for jobs in this survey was 1.7% lower when temporary and casual jobs were excluded, and average weekly pay was 2.8% lower when only permanent jobs were considered.

15.1% of the jobs in the survey specified a lower age limit, more than half of these placing it at 18. Looking at the cumulative figures in terms of proportions of all the jobs on offer, around 14% excluded workers aged 17 and under, but only 5.8% excluded 18 year-olds and under and only 3% of jobs excluded workers under 26.

Only 30 jobs in the survey (0.3%) specified an upper age limit. This low overall number confirms findings from other sources that employers are becoming less likely to set upper age limits. They suggest that the overwhelming majority of employers are aware of the need to avoid appearing actively to discriminate against older workers.

It had been anticipated that the introduction of the minimum wage might prompt employers to restrict jobs to workers under 22 in order to avoid paying the adult minimum wage. The figures give no indication that such a trend has developed.

A small proportion of jobs (3.5%) specified variable pay rates according to age rather than age restrictions. As the full minimum wage is not paid until the age of 22 it might have been expected that employers using age-related rates would pay the adult rate at the same age. A significant proportion of those using age-related rates (35.4%) did use 22 as the threshold for the adult rate, but far more jobs specified 18 as the age at which the adult rate would be paid (46.5%), and a significant number (12.3%) also used the threshold of 21. This suggests that the government’s insistence on a lower rate for younger workers, and especially the choice of 22 as the age considered ‘adult’ under the regulations, does not reflect employer practice on the ground.

It also undermines the government’s case for refusing to set the adult rate at 21, as suggested by the Low Pay Commission. The government’s argument that, had it applied the adult minimum wage rate to 21 year-olds from October 2001 – the date youth and development rates were increased from £3.20 to £3.50 – it would have resulted in a 28% increase in the hourly cost of employing someone of that age, assumes that all employers of younger workers pay them less than other employees. The survey shows this not to be the case. It is therefore disappointing that the government continues to ignore the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission on this issue.

top ^

Average hourly pay rates in the survey varied from £5.62 at London Bridge to £4.13 in Ryde, a difference of £1.49. However, if the two highest averages, London Bridge and Coventry, are excluded, the difference shrinks to £1.08. Ten of the thirty-nine Jobcentres had average rates of £5 or above, and six fell below £4.40. In the case of some Jobcentres with particularly low averages it would be relatively easy for jobseekers to travel to larger conurbations nearby.

Average weekly pay also varied considerably from Jobcentre to Jobcentre. There was a difference of nearly £95 between the highest and lowest figures for all jobs, although if the highest average, for London Bridge, is excluded, this figure falls to just over £75. The difference between the highest and lowest full-time averages was £71.83, although there was again an outlying figure at the top of the scale (Pontlottyn, with an average of £243.97) and if this is excluded the difference falls to just over £60. For part-time jobs the difference between the highest and the lowest averages was £72.18, though after removing the three outlying figures all other Jobcentres fell within a range of £58.19 to £81.63, a far more modest difference of £23.44.

Very few Jobcentres had more than a tiny proportion of jobs falling below the minimum wage. Pontlottyn, with 14.3%, had by far the highest proportion, and only three others, Sidmouth, St Helens and Shipley, had more than 3%. Pontlottyn also had the largest number of vacancies paying exactly the minimum wage (35.7%), and more than one in five jobs also fell into this category in six other Jobcentres.

The proportion of jobs paying below the Maternity Allowance threshold of £30 ranged from 8.3% in Pontlottyn to none in five others. More than 33% of jobs paid less than the Lower Earnings Limit in Beeston, Coventry, Clydebank and Pontlottyn, while all the jobs in London and all but a tiny proportion of those in Hyson Green paid above this threshold. In relation to the Employers’ National Insurance threshold at least 17% of jobs would be unlikely to bring in any income for the government in all but two Jobcentres, and over 40% of jobs in ten of the Jobcentres.

The varying proportions of jobs falling below thresholds such as the Lower Earnings Limit, with its crucial significance in relation to entitlement to contributory benefits, can be seen as reinforcing inequalities between different areas of the country.

There was massive variation in the proportion of jobs paying less than income support levels, with more than 70% of jobs paying less than this basic benefit level in five Jobcentres, but less than 20% in London Bridge and less than 30% in Hyson Green. Considerable variation was also evident in relation to government estimates of the level of income required to make a stakeholder pension worthwhile, with less than 33% of jobs falling below this threshold in Hyson Green, but 88% doing so in Ryde and more than 75% doing so in five other Jobcentres. There was less variation in the proportions of jobs paying at levels which would entitle a couple with two children to claim the Working Families Tax Credit.

There was a striking variation between Jobcentres in terms of proportions of vacancies with weekly rates unknown: In Spalding and Helensburgh it was more than 50%, in London Bridge less than 10%. It should be noted that the weekly ‘rate unknown’ figure was more than one in five in all but ten of the Jobcentres in the survey. Similarly there was considerable variation between Jobcentres in the proportions of jobs where the hours were unclear, with Tunbridge Wells providing information on hours to be worked in only just over 33% of full-time jobs and three other Jobcentres in which around 40% of all jobs did not specify hours. This lack of information can be highly problematic for jobseekers.

All Jobcentres bar one had between 0 and 1.2% of vacancies in the ‘union rates’ category, the exception being Falkirk with a staggering 14%.

Less than half the jobs were full-time in Sunderland, Kidderminster, Helensburgh and Beeston, while more than 84% were full time in Hyson Green and London Bridge. With the exception of the top two Jobcentres there was a fairly even distribution of Jobcentres in the range of 46% to 75% of full-time jobs. The high proportions of full-time jobs in Hyson Green and London Bridge go a long way towards explaining the favourable outcomes for these Jobcentres in relation to weekly pay and other variables.

Over 20% of jobs were either temporary or casual in eight Jobcentres, while less than one in twenty jobs were not permanent in four. It would appear that the chances of finding permanent work are much higher in some areas than in others.

There was substantial variation between Jobcentres in terms of the proportion of jobs giving lower age limits, with three – Shipley, Clydebank and Sidmouth – standing out from the others with more than half of jobs advertised employing lower age limits. There was also a significant variation in the extent to which vacancies gave age-dependent rates, with 8.4% of jobs in Lewes giving such rates while in four Jobcentres none of the jobs fell into this category.

top ^

Average hourly pay varied widely between the different occupations. The highest average in the survey was for professional jobs, followed by nursing, management, engineering and skilled work. Although average hourly pay for all jobs was £4.80, there were five occupations (hairdressing, shop work, catering, care work and cleaning) in which it was £4.20 or below. These occupations are all in traditionally low-paying sectors and tend to be characterised by high levels of female employment. By contrast, many of the occupations towards the top of the table are among those generally associated with male employment (engineering, skilled work and the motor trade).

Although the law now requires that part-time workers should receive the same pay as comparable full-time workers in the same establishment, full-time averages were, in general, higher than part-time averages. The highest differentials were in engineering, sales, driving, production and office work. Occupations in which part-time averages were higher than those for full-time employment were security, nursing, management, machining and hairdressing.

The proportion of jobs paying below the minimum wage was substantially higher in hairdressing than in any other occupation. This reflects the comparatively widespread use of very low pay rates for younger workers in this occupation. More than one in five jobs in hairdressing and machining and more than one in eight in care work, catering and cleaning paid exactly the legal minimum.

In relation to the October 2001 increase in the minimum wage, the proportions of jobs falling below the inflation-adjusted figure of £4 were around two in five in catering, care work, shop work and hairdressing, and over a third in cleaning and machining. None of the professional, nursing or management jobs in the survey stood to be affected by the increase, and very few skilled and engineering jobs were paying less than £4.

Lower paid occupations tended to have lower proportions of jobs for which rates were not known, although hairdressing is an exception. More than one in five jobs had pay rates which were unclear in professional, management, hairdressing and the motor trade. The occupations which used indications of minimum wage compliance rather than supplying an actual rate most frequently were hairdressing and the motor trade.

Since hourly pay is a key determinant of weekly pay there were distinct similarities between tables drawn up to show these rates of pay in relation to all occupations. The number of hours to be worked is also an important factor, however, and led to some differences. The high level of part-time employment in nursing earned it sixth place in the weekly pay table despite having the second highest hourly average. The high proportion of cleaning jobs with short part-time hours results in this category having the lowest weekly average by almost £30.

In general there were large variations in weekly pay between occupations. For all jobs, the difference between the highest and lowest rates was £241.56. However, if the outlying figures at the top (for professional jobs) and bottom (for cleaning jobs) are excluded, all other occupations fall within the range of 290.10 (engineering) to £102.68 (shop work), a smaller but still striking gap of £187.51. Professional jobs had the highest full-time average (346.91), more than £40 greater than the next figure. Nursing had the highest part-time weekly average, over £100 higher than that for cleaning.

The occupation with by far the most jobs paying below £50, £100 and £150 per week thresholds was cleaning, a factor which can be explained by reference to the high numbers of part-time jobs with short working hours in this occupation. Almost two-thirds of cleaning jobs paid below £50. Other occupations towards the top of the list were shop work, care work, catering and hairdressing. The occupations with the most jobs paying more than £250 were professional (79.3%), engineering (68.0%), skilled work (65.2%) and management (60%). The occupation with the next highest proportion of jobs surpassing this threshold was nursing with 35.1%. This figure is low given the relatively high hourly pay rates available in nursing, but can be explained by reference to the high levels of part-time employment in this occupation.

Five occupations – cleaning, shop work, catering, care work and hairdressing – have higher proportions than that for the whole survey falling below the Maternity Allowance threshold, with the figure for cleaning being particularly high. All other occupations had either negligible proportions or no jobs at all falling below this threshold. It is ironic that the vast majority of jobs in the survey falling below the Maternity Allowance threshold are among those traditionally associated with female employment.

In relation to the Lower Earnings limit, over three-fifths of cleaning jobs, a third of shop jobs and a quarter of jobs in both catering and care work would not entitle workers to contributory benefits (with the exception of Maternity Allowance) if they became ill or unemployed, or when they retired. The same occupations accounted for many of the jobs falling below the Employers’ NI threshold.

Following the increase in the Employers NI threshold, more than half of full-time jobs would be vulnerable to splitting in seven occupations. Under the previous threshold only three occupations had more than one in five full-time jobs vulnerable to splitting. The percentage increases in the number of full-time jobs vulnerable to splitting were more than a third in eight occupations which are, of course, among the lowest paid in the survey. The policy of increasing the Employers’ NI threshold therefore has the unfortunate effect of increasing the likelihood of high levels of part-time unemployment in low-paid occupations and thus increasing polarisation in the labour market between high skilled occupations with predominantly full-time employment and low skilled, poorly paid part-time employment.

Even when only full-time jobs are considered, more than half the jobs in hairdressing machining and care work did not pay as much as Income Support. Although workers in such jobs would be able to claim in work benefits, it is a cause for concern that so many employers are offering weekly pay below basic benefit levels.

The occupation with most jobs falling below the stakeholder pension threshold was cleaning, with 93.3% of all jobs, and more than four-fifths of jobs fell into this category in four other occupations (care work, shops, machining and catering). It is notable that jobs traditionally done by women, or with a predominance of women workers, are those least likely to offer a level of income above the stakeholder pension threshold. This reinforces concern about women’s access to any form of pension.

In relation to the Working Families Tax Credit ceiling, all jobs paid at a level which would entitle a worker to this in-work benefit in eight of the occupations, and only a tiny proportion of jobs (less than 3%) exceeded the ceiling in six other occupations.

All occupations had a mix of full and part-time employment, although there were very few part-time vacancies in the motor trade, skilled work and engineering. In all other occupations, with the exception of production and management jobs, at least 17.8% of the jobs were part-time. More than half the jobs were full-time in most of the occupations, the exceptions being cleaning, shop work, nursing and care work. The occupations with high proportions of part-time employment also tend to be low-paying jobs and jobs in which there are high proportions of female workers.

The longest average hours for all jobs were in security and the shortest were in cleaning. For full-time hours, security had by far the highest average. For part-time jobs, management, cleaning and professional stand out as having particularly low hours. There are, even in occupations with relatively high hourly pay rates, jobs with very short working hours which, as a result would bring in fairly minimal weekly income. Cleaning has the highest proportion of jobs in the ‘under 8’ and ‘8-16’ hours bands. At the other extreme, in security 57.2% of all jobs were for more than 40 hours. More than half the jobs in nursing did not specify the hours to be worked, and around a third in care work, hairdressing, professional and driving.

The highest overall proportions of non-permanent jobs were in warehouse, skilled and professional work, with the vast majority of these being accounted for by temporary rather than casual vacancies. Thus, while high wages are available in professional work, the sector has not been immune from the increasing insecurity of employment which has been a feature of the last twenty years. The highest proportion of casual work was in nursing.

Security and driving were the occupations making the greatest use of lower age limits, followed by catering and shop work. Only in hairdressing did more than 1% of vacancies specify an upper age limit (17 or 18). In general employers are not using upper age limits in order to avoid paying the minimum wage.

top