Black Workers

To access the previous chapter, click on the link below.

Trade Unions.

Chapter 9

Black Workers.

You can’t get a good job - the sort of job you are capable of doing -

You have to take what you can get - what other people don’t want.

Being coloured you cannot get a job unless the boss thinks that he cannot get a white man to do it.

W.W. Daniel from Racial Discrimination in England, 1968.

For black workers many of their problems at work are similar to those of their other co-workers. However, research over the last 30 years has shown that there are also problems that are specific to black workers. These specific issues include, getting a job and keeping it, getting promoted, becoming unemployed, becoming self-employed, joining trade unions, and experiencing racism at work in a variety of ways. This is not to suggest that white workers do not have these problems, but that black workers are treated differently when they face these issues.

There have been black workers in Britain since at least the 18^th century. The relatively large numbers came after the Second World War. Since then, there have been inflows from other parts of the world, often as political refugees. As black soldiers had fought for the Allies in the Second World War, there was a belief that Britain was a mother country, where jobs were plentiful. Active recruitment in the West Indies, after the war, reinforced this view. Since then the definition of citizen with the right to settle in Britain has been progressively narrowed. Simply put, the current position is that those born in this country have full citizenship rights, irrespective of skin colour, or the place of birth of their parents. These formal rights, together with the older beliefs of an earlier generation in the mother country, paint a positive picture of life, including work. Further, there has been a series of race relations laws passed to ensure equal treatment in many areas of life, including work.

What, then, does the research reveal? Early research, from the 1960’s and 1970’s, sent similarly qualified applicants for the same job, but one was black and the other white (Modood, 1997). This style of research has continued, and is needed as current government estimates show that the rate of unemployment for ethnic minorities is constantly half as high again as for white workers. Indeed one recent researcher has argued that unemployment for ethnic minorities is hyper cyclical. This means that in periods of economic recession unemployment for ethnic minorities rises faster than for whites. Further, in periods of economic recovery, unemployment falls faster for ethnic minorities. One consequence of this is that having got a job in the first place, it is even more important for black people than white to keep the job in an economic recession.

An example of research in getting jobs was where job application forms were matched exactly, except for ethnic origin. On receipt of these forms employers gave white applicants a 90% positive response; but black applicants got only a 63% positive response (Mason, 59: 1995). Other recent research involved sending two fictitious applications from Evans and Patel to the top 100 British companies. These were mythical MBA students about to graduate, with similar work experience. About half of these companies favoured the white candidate, in terms of an encouraging response and helpful advice. Those with equal opportunities statements in their annual reports were more likely to treat the candidates the same. However, nearly half of these companies discriminated against Patel by not giving helpful advice. This was evidence of widespread discrimination in Britain’s top 100 companies, even amongst some companies with equal opportunities policies in their annual reports (Noon & Blyton, 171: 1997).

So getting a job, though far from impossible, appears relatively more difficult for black people than for white. Once one has a job, a key way to keep it is to be promoted. Where a promotion applied for does not happen, an employer can be accused of discrimination. This is a complicated area. Some forms of discrimination are legitimate. A job may well require an ability to speak another language, from Europe or Japan. Other forms of discrimination are not so legitimate. The requirement for a specific dress code may not be essential for the task, and may well conflict with individual’s religious convictions. Well known examples include Sikh and Muslim head-dress. Less well known examples include short hair for men, and a formal suit, at least when meeting customers. Some of these requirements have recently been relaxed. Some employers now only require ‘smart casual’ clothes on a Friday. All this raises the question are these forms of discrimination fair? Are they intended to focus more on black people?

Other less visible forms of discrimination occur in various forms of training schemes, both in work, and as a preparation for work. Time spent with each trainee differed as between a white or black worker. Some black workers experienced stereotyping of their abilities, and verbal abuse. Finding placements/training for workers also showed differences. Black workers were more likely to be placed in small companies and voluntary organisations than large companies (Noon & Blyton, 171: 1997).

Attempts to deal with unfair discrimination have produced legislation where intention is not the issue, but rather the effect the discrimination has on grounds of race, gender and disability. So if an employer requires certain educational requirements, or wishes to look at the employment history of an individual, this appears to be legitimate; provided it is applied to all workers. If employment/promotion is refused on the grounds of breaks in employment history, or failures in educational history, then this will discriminate against those with this history. As many black people, but excluding Chinese and African Asians, have had in the past fewer educational qualifications than white people, and are more likely to have experienced unemployment, this refusal affected them more than it did white people. This has been called indirect discrimination. Those appealing against a promotion decision have to show that the discrimination was directly related to their race or gender or disability, and not to education or previous unemployment. This is not easy to do!

To complicate the picture further, positive discrimination is illegal, whilst positive action is legal. Positive discrimination is setting a quota of places for employment or promotion. This discriminates against those who are not in the quota; typically white able bodied males. Positive action such as placing advertisements in the ethnic minority press, or providing a company crèche, is encouraged. How effective this is in dealing with unfair discrimination is not clear. This is partly because monitoring these actions with data collection and analysis is voluntary in mainland Britain. It is compulsory in Northern Ireland, where religious affiliation is monitored. The Commission for Racial Equality wanted this extended to all of Britain. So far, this has not happened.

Arguments against collecting such data include the belief that it is an unnecessary invasion of an individual’s privacy; that the collection and use of the data is open to abuse; and that it would be too expensive. Responding to these arguments are counter arguments to make positive discrimination legal; to have quotas. This can produce a reaction from those not in the quota, especially if quota places are not filled. Also, some employers may object. They still need workers, but must wait until a suitable black candidate is recruited. Meanwhile suitably qualified white workers remain unemployment.

A more telling objection to positive discrimination is that those promoted/employed because they are in the quota may well feel that their achievement was less to do with their ability or suitability for the job, and more to do with meeting the number of black employees as specified in the quota. Evidence for the existence of this concern, with respect to gender, comes from a recent study in the North East of England (Bradley, 99: 1999). Here 42% of women were opposed to a quota of seats on trade union committees reserved for women. One opposing woman argued that it should be the best person for the job. She also argued for some assertiveness training for women, which comes close to positive discrimination. This mix of attitudes illustrates well a widespread ambivalence about dealing with unfair discrimination by quota.

The research of the 1960’s and 1970’s was influenced by the American experience with civil rights. The practical issues here were access for black Americans to public transport, education and restaurants. In Britain, the practical issues were access to housing and jobs; and discrimination was quite overt. Having got a job, there was the issue of promotion for black people. Research done in 1984 found that 11% of West Indians, and 8% of Asians, were refused promotion on racial grounds (Modood, 1997). Further it was found that West Indians do more shift work than white workers; and so have less opportunity for supervising others. This partly explains why there is little promotion. Two main areas of employment were transport and manufacturing. In the case of transport, a service industry, basic fluency in spoken English is required. In manufacturing, there was low fluency in spoken English. The low fluency in manufacturing might explain the lack of promotion there, but the basic fluency in transport does not explain poor promotion prospects there. Indeed the researchers argued that West Indian workers in manufacturing were trapped in these low skill, low paid, jobs. Further, there was evidence of upward job mobility for white workers in the 1950’s and 1960’s. The black workers took up the low skill, low paying jobs, left behind by the white workers (Modood, 1997).

Evidence form the 1980’s began to show the obvious response to this trap, which was more education. More black children began staying on at school beyond the minimum legal requirement of 16 years of age. However, marked differences between different ethnic minorities began to appear. The latest evidence, from research done in 1994, showed that for all ethnic minorities, qualifications gained at school were similar to white candidates. However, African Asian and Chinese candidates did significantly better than white candidates; Bangladeshi and Pakistani did worse; and Caribbean and Indian performed similarly to white candidates (Modood, 1997). It is too early to say that these changes in level of qualification will result in jobs with higher skill and pay levels for those with more qualifications. For those not getting these improvements in qualifications, the Pakistani and Bangladeshi groups, there is little prospect of better paid jobs.

Which produces more despair in the individual, not getting a job in the first place; or the experience of unemployment having already got a job? Arguably, it is the experience of employment followed by unemployment, as one knows what one has lost. It is obviously the loss of earnings, and the consequent demeaning dependency on state benefits. However, more is involved than this. The conviviality of the work group, joking relationships in the office and factory, possible trade union membership, pension rights, holiday pay, and even the possibility of promotion are all lost.

Probably the most reliable study of unemployment, and the most recent, is the fourth Policy Study Institute survey of ethnic minorities in Britain (Modood, 1997). The results are summarised in the following table:

Looking at unemployment for men, real differences emerge.

Table 9.1

Percentage of unemployed males.

Although ethnic minorities, men and women, as a whole experienced unemployment more than whites, the thrust of this study was to claim that within ethnic minorities the were significant differences. In particular, Chinese and African Asian men had much less experience of unemployment than other ethnic minorities. Indeed they argue that in these two cases their experience is returning to the levels that existed prior to their entry into Britain. The experience indeed was quite similar to white workers, who were at 15%.

However there was a sharp contrast with Caribbean, Pakistani and Bangladeshi men. Their experience of unemploymentxe "unemployment" was three to four times greater than that of the Chinese and African Asian men. This difference is partly explained by the largely professional occupations of the African Asian men, and the largely self-employed Chinese men. Another important difference, especially amongst younger men, was the relative successxe "success" in the British educational system. Looking firstly at degree holders amongst men aged 16 to 64, the differences stand out from the next table.

Chinese, African/Asian, and Indian men are better qualified than other ethnic groups and white people. In the case of older African Asian and Indian men some of these qualifications were achieved pre-migration to Britain. Looking at ‘A’ level passes for younger men, yet more differences emerge.

Here, Chinese and African Asian young students are doing significantly better than Pakistani and Bangladeshi groups, and slightly better than Indian, Caribbean and white students. The first point to make is that many of the Chinese and African Asian students are very likely to proceed to degree level. Indeed they may well have the encouragement of their parents, about a quarter of whom already have degrees. So the current Chinese and African Asian students will not only be as well qualified as white graduates in future, their qualifications will be British, unlike many of their parents.

The second point is one of the most striking in the whole study. It is the number of Caribbean students taking ‘A’ levels, viz. 45%. This goes against earlier evidence of underachievement in this group. This should translate into a higher proportion of Caribbeans getting degrees in the future, certainly higher than the current 6%.

Looking at unemployment rates for women, the figures are much lower than for men, reflecting the increased participation of women in the workforce.

The differences between the groups are similar to the differences seen for men. The relatively high figures for Pakistani and Bangladeshi women reflect their poor fluency in English relative to African Asian and Indian women. However, there is little reliable evidence in this study of home working. So the relatively high figures for Bangladeshi unemployment may hide this paid work.

Another response to unemployment is to start one’s own business. Chinese, African Asians, and Indian men have higher self-employment rates than white men. Pakistanis have the same rate as whites; and Caribbeans and Bangladeshis have half the rate of whites. Further, all ethnics, except Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, earn more from self-employment than white workers do. Other earlier researchers have claimed that self-employment for ethnic workers are a form of survival, a last resort strategy. They have been seen to be earning less in self-employment than when they were employees in large firms. They have been described as a “lumpen bourgeoisie” (Phizacklea, 5: 1990). They are formally capitalists but earning less than some workers.

The success of ethnic groups other than Pakistani and Bangladeshi in self-employment was seen as being due to thrift and enterprise. This view contrasts with the earlier studies, which argued that being an ethnic entrepreneur was merely surviving. It may be that the passage of time has allowed profits to be reinvested as capital; and this explains the higher earnings relative to white self-employed. If this is the case, then self-employment has been a success for most ethnic groups. This is not the case for Pakistani and Bangladeshis who were counted at 640,000 in the 1991 census. They are a significant minority of all ethnic groups, at nearly 27% of the total ethnic population. The question then arises are they less thrifty and enterprising than all the other ethnic groups? Or are there other explanations for the relative failure of these two groups? One possible explanation was the difficulty in getting employment in large companies, referred to earlier.

An important aspect of being an employee is having the right to belong to a trade union, which will fight for wages, safety at work, and fighting unemployment. Currently, the Policy Studies Institute research shows that membership has fallen for all groups, including whites, since 1982. About 40% of all ethnic minorities are still members, and this is a higher figure than that for white workers. Only Pakistani and Bangladeshi workers had a lower membership than white workers did. This shows a continuing commitment to trade unions, although this is skewed to older workers. Other evidence of commitment is being elected to a role within the union. About 8% of ethnic minorities had such roles, roughly similar to the number of white workers also in these roles.

This figure of 8% is the same figure as was found in a study done in 1979 (Miles & Phizacklea, 1979). There it was argued that many black workers had little or no experience of trade unions prior to their current job. Therefore similar levels of membership and active taking of roles is surprising. This suggests that for those smaller numbers still in trade unions their positive commitment has not changed over about 20 years.

A last measure by the Policy Studies Institute of the place of ethnic workers was an analysis of their position in the occupational structure of society. Looking at the top jobs, described as professional/managerial/employers, the changes for men and women from 1982 to 1994 are shown in the tables below.

Note: The figures in the left-hand side of the cell are for 1982. The figures on the right hand side are for 1994.

Men in all ethnic groups, except Bangladeshi, have increased membership of the top jobs. The most successful group is the Chinese, although there is no figure for 1982. The figures for women show a similar movement over time to men, albeit with much lower percentages. The relative success of Chinese and African Asian men show that they are returning to occupations, and a place in the class structure, that is probably similar to the occupations they had prior to their emigration to Britain. Researchers go further, and argue that it is no longer accurate to see these two groups of men as being disadvantaged. However, their success is based on self-employment, and not working in large corporations. Until their success is based on both self employment and employment at a senior level, it seems premature to claim that they are not disadvantaged. It may be that some of them have been unsuccessful in job interviews. Indeed 65% of all ethnic minorities, and 51% of African Asians, saw race as being a reason for being refused a job.

Looking more closely at the basis of the success of self employment, an earlier study showed many conflicts and evidence of racism (Ram, 1992). Here the whole extended family was involved in the running of the "business". This meant that long hours were worked, and that the family had managerial control over the employees. These employees were often of the same ethnic group, but not kin. A family with 7 brothers opened 7 shops. They would not open more.

The size of the business was thus limited. Also, decision making amongst family members had some tensions. The family often lacked skills for credit control, design, production, and quality issues. A solution to these problems, and the related problem of breaking out of the ethnic market and selling to white people, was to employ white managers and sales staff. This would increase the wage bill, and remove opportunities of ethnic workers moving into these managerial jobs, at least in the short term. All this and difficult relations with the local Chamber of Commerce, were part of the hidden problems of ethnic self-employment. This research was so successful partly because it was amongst the researcher’s own ethnic group.

“I’m only talking to you because I know your family. If you were white I wouldn’t talk to you!”