Ethnic Minority Workers in the Hotel and Catering Industry

The Experience of Ethnic Minority Workers in the
Hotel and Catering Industry: Routes to Support
and Advice on Workplace Problems
A Review of the Issues
Working Paper 1
Tessa Wright
Anna Pollert
Working Lives Research Institute
London Metropolitan University
July 2005

2
Introduction .......................................................................................................................2
Outline of project methodology .....................................................................................4
1. Ethnic minority employment in the UK ..........................................................................6
1.1 Definitions ...............................................................................................................6
1.2 Ethnic minorities in the population ..........................................................................6
1.3 Labour market participation.....................................................................................7
1.4 Evidence of discrimination ......................................................................................9
1.5 Equal opportunities policies ..................................................................................11
1.6 Government policy ................................................................................................11
2. The employment of migrant workers in the UK...........................................................12
2.1 Definitions .............................................................................................................12
2.2 Migrants in the UK.................................................................................................12
2.3 Labour market participation...................................................................................13
2.4 Evidence of discrimination and exploitation ..........................................................13
2.5 Government policy ................................................................................................15
3. The hotel and catering sector......................................................................................17
3.1 Economic characteristics ......................................................................................17
3.2 Labour market characteristics...............................................................................18
3.2.1 Overview ........................................................................................................18
3.2.2 Gender segregation........................................................................................19
3.2.3 Labour shortages and the Work Permit Scheme ...........................................20
3.2.4 Regional breakdown.......................................................................................21
3.3 Conditions of work.................................................................................................21
3.3.1 Agency work...................................................................................................22
3.3.2 Pay .................................................................................................................23
3.3.3 Working hours ................................................................................................24
3.3.4 Working environment .....................................................................................24
3.3.5 Training ..........................................................................................................25
3.4 Trade unions .........................................................................................................25
3.5 Industry bodies......................................................................................................25
4. Ethnic minority workers in hotels and catering............................................................27
4.1 Participation in the sector......................................................................................27
4.1.1 Migrant workers in the sector in London ........................................................28
4.1.2 Sectoral growth ..............................................................................................29
4.1.3 Age profile ......................................................................................................30
4.1.4 Unionisation....................................................................................................30
4.2 The experiences of ethnic minority workers in Hotels and Catering .....................30
4.2.1 Self-employment ............................................................................................31
5. Knowledge of rights and support and advice for workplace problems........................32
6. Research aims and objectives ....................................................................................34
6.1. Key questions.......................................................................................................35
6.2. The Advisory Group .............................................................................................36
7. Project methodology ...................................................................................................37
7.1 The target communities.........................................................................................37
7.2 Interviews..............................................................................................................37
7.3 Possible recruitment strategy................................................................................38
7.4. Analysis................................................................................................................39
Bibliography ....................................................................................................................40
Appendix 1: Regional distribution of ethnic groups across England ...............................44
Appendix 2: SIC (2003) Section H Hotels and Restaurants............................................47
Appendix 3: Employers in hotels and restaurants with union recognition.......................49
Appendix 4: Provisional Timetable..................................................................................50

3
Introduction
The aims of this research project on the Experience of Ethnic Minority and
Migrant Workers in the Hotel and Catering Industry are to identify both positive
experiences but also the range of problems encountered and routes to support
and advice used to resolve them. The main objective is to inform policy to
improve good-practice both in the sector and in areas of high migrant and ethnic
minority employment more widely, in order to prevent problems from arising, and
to improve the support and advice mechanisms and services available.
This paper outlines the terms of reference of this research project, as well as
further elaborating of its aims, objectives and methodology.
Parts 1 and 2, which distinguish between ethnic minority and migrant workers in
Britain, provide an analytic separation of two categories which, in real life, are
complex, changing and overlapping. We use the Labour Force Survey definitions
of ‘ethnic minorities’ (EM), although what constitutes EM is a politically and
socially complex, racialised, and variable concept. It is also worth pointing out
that groups that are commonly referred to as ethnic minorities in Britain are often
not minority groups in other national contexts. For example, members of EM
groups may, or may not be British citizens, and may be first, second or later
generations. They may, or may not be migrants. They may be more or less
‘visible’, and this ‘visibility’ is socially constructed. Recently, the perception of EM
workers has been coloured by the discourse on migrants, and this in itself has
often been conflated with the discourse on ‘refugees’ and ‘asylum seekers’. Many
of the latter may not be ‘visible’ in terms of skin colour, in the way black and
Asian people are, but are ‘visible’ in terms of language, cultural characteristics,
and discrimination. Migrants may, or may not be defined as EM, and may, or may
not be discriminated against. White Australian or Canadian migrant workers, for
example, would not be. But, Kosovan people may be regarded as EM, and suffer
racialisation and discrimination, and Czech or Polish people may, or may not be
racialised and discriminated against.
From the point of view of a research project on the experience and problems of
EM workers in a sectoral study such as this, what is of relevance is less objective
definitions, and more, the significance of EM and/or migrant status for their work
experience. A key issue is likely to be their relative disadvantage because of
racialisation, or their treatment as other than white British. But this may take
different forms, depending on labour market context. Some EM groups work in
particular sectors, such as restaurants, because this is a sector in which they can
set up small businesses and work in relatively autonomous labour market
enclaves, as in Asian or Chinese restaurants. Here, labour market exclusion from
other sectors creates clusters of work/employment, in which we are likely to
explore issues associated with small and family business within ethnic groups. In
other parts of Hotels and Catering, such as large, British white-owned hotels or
international chains, EM and migrant workers’ experience will be defined by their
‘otherness’ in relation to the ethnicity and nationality of the employer, and there is
likely to be a range of experiences, some associated with EM status, some from
migrant status, some from a mixture of both. This introduction seeks to address
the complexity of the problems of identity and definition, and to signal that

4
although the analytical distinctions between EM and migrant employment is an
important analytical device, the two may merge in reality. For this reason, and for
economy of language, the term ‘EM’ workers in this study is used broadly and
refers to the whole range of those who are socially defined and who identify
themselves as distinct from ‘White British’ workers – both EM and migrant
workers.
Part 3 briefly outlines the Hotel and Catering sector, and the sub-sectors which
we intend to explore. Importantly, much of our subject matter is sectorally based,
and sector variables will cut across those of gender, age and ethnicity. Thus, the
labour market and employment characteristics of the Hotel and Catering sector
will inform our questions regarding the particular experience of EM workers – for
example, the prevalence of young workers, of short-term and part-time
employment, of low pay and of high rates of dismissal.
Part 4 addresses the participation and experience of EM workers in the sector.
Statistics from 2001 Census are provided by ethnicity, gender and region for
those working in Hotels and Restaurants. However, it is in data such as these
that the problems of definition outlined above arise. We do not know who among
these groups are settled and who migrant, nor do the categories give us
Nationality, although these could be sought elsewhere. The most problematic
group is the aggregate group ‘Other White’, which includes many migrants,
including those from Eastern Europe, who, as discussed in Part 2, are identified
by other means. However, the sectoral and regional distributions shown will at
least provide an informed benchmark by which to assess which sub-sectors, EMs
and gender compositions we shall try to address in each of the regions. What is
also clear from the literature review on the experience of workers in the sector, is
the lack of research here, both on the actual sector, and even more so, on the
experience of EMs, about which surprisingly little is known. Such literature as
exists is mainly over fifteen years old, and although there are pockets of well
researched areas, such as on McDonalds and some fast-food chains, it is limited.
Part 5 touches on existing research on support and advice mechanisms for
workplace problems, but since a key objective of this project is to explore what
these are for EM workers, the section asks more questions than it answers.
Part 6 outlines the Aims and Objectives of the project, including key research
questions and Part 7 addresses project methodology, drawing partly on the
lessons of other research projects.
Outline of project methodology
The scope of this European Social Fund project is confined to England, and this
research will focus on three regions: London, the South West and the West
Midlands. Ethnic minority populations are concentrated in particular areas of the
country (see 1.2), with London having a considerably larger non-white population
than the rest of the country. Many Indians and Pakistanis, for example, are also
concentrated in the West Midlands, and work in the hotel and restaurant sector.
For these reasons, these two regions have been chosen for this research. In
addition, initial investigations have shown that the South West – the English

5
region with the smallest non-white population recorded by the2001 Census – is
experiencing a growth in migrant workers. It is also an area where the problems
facing EM populations has been less well documented, although where studies
have been done, isolation from EM communities emerges as an issue. By looking
at three very different regions, this research will therefore include the experiences
of workers in large urban areas with significant EM populations who may benefit
from community support, as well as those in areas with smaller EM or migrant
populations who may be more isolated.
In depth interviews will be conducted with around 55 workers: 25 in London, 15 in
the Midlands and 15 in the South West. The proportions reflect the fact that there
are greater proportions, and also a wider variety of ethnic backgrounds, of EM
workers in London.
Group interviews may also be conducted with workers to give some indication of
the existence of EM and language enclaves, and views from these groups of who
are perceived as ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ in a work context.
To provide additional contextual information, there will also be interviews with key
informants with experience of the sector. Employers will be asked about their
employment policies, any problems they may face and support/advice they
receive. In addition, employer or trade union representatives, as well as
community organisations that represent workers from particular ethnic groups or
nationalities, will be interviewed. It could also be useful to interview
representatives of organisations providing support and advice, such as Acas, the
CRE or CABx.

6
1. Ethnic minority employment in the UK
1.1 Definitions
The difficulties of defining or classifying ethnic groups or ethnic minorities are
recognised by academics and statisticians (see ONS, 2003) and it is clear that
definitions of ethnic groups evolve over time in response to social and political
developments. The category “mixed” for example, was only introduced into the
Census in 2001. The figures presented in this section use the current Census or
Labour Force Survey definitions, while recognising the limitations of these broad
categories for this sectoral study in which objective definitions may be less
relevant than the significance of overlapping ethnic minority and migrant status
for people’s work experience. Definitions of nationality add further complexity and
classifications such as, “White other”, encompass a wide range of ethnic and
national origins and may include many workers who are relevant to our study.
1.2 Ethnic minorities in the population
Table 1 below shows the ethnic composition of each English region, using the
ethnicity classification used in the 2001 Census, and shows that two of the
regions which are the subject of this study have the highest EM populations:
London and the West Midlands The South West had the lowest non-white
population at the time of the 2001 Census and is therefore considered interesting
for this study as a contrast to the other regions chosen, and to highlight issues of
isolation from EM communities. It should be noted that EM and migrant worker
populations are likely to have changed since 2001, and there is evidence that
these changes are particularly affecting areas such as the South West.
Table 1: Ethnic composition of the English regions
North
East
North
West
Yorks
and the
Humber
East
Midlands
West
Midlands East London
South
East
South
West England
% % % % % % % % % %
White 97.61 94.44 93.48 93.49 88.74 95.12 71.15 95.10 97.70 90.92
Mixed 0.49 0.93 0.91 1.03 1.39 1.08 3.15 1.07 0.76 1.31
Indian 0.40 1.07 1.04 2.93 3.39 0.95 6.09 1.12 0.33 2.09
Pakistani 0.56 1.74 2.95 0.67 2.93 0.72 1.99 0.73 0.14 1.44
Bangladeshi 0.25 0.39 0.25 0.17 0.60 0.34 2.15 0.19 0.10 0.56
Other Asian 0.13 0.22 0.25 0.28 0.40 0.25 1.86 0.29 0.10 0.48
Black Caribbean 0.04 0.30 0.43 0.64 1.56 0.49 4.79 0.34 0.25 1.14
Black African 0.10 0.24 0.19 0.22 0.23 0.31 5.28 0.31 0.13 0.97
Black Other 0.02 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.19 0.10 0.84 0.06 0.05 0.19
Chinese 0.24 0.40 0.25 0.31 0.31 0.38 1.12 0.41 0.26 0.45
Other 0.17 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.27 0.27 1.58 0.37 0.19 0.44
All minority
ethnic groups 2.39 5.56 6.52 6.51 11.26 4.88 28.85 4.90 2.30 9.08
All ethnic groups
= 100% 2515442 6729764 4964833 4172174 5267308 5388140 71720918000645 4928434 49138831
Source: Census, April 2001, Office for National Statistics

7
Ethnic minorities have different patterns of settlement across England, with most
groups found in greater numbers in London. Appendix 1 shows, using pie charts,
how the population of each ethnic group is distributed across the English regions.
While the White group is fairly evenly spread across the English regions, almost
all ethnic minority groups are most heavily concentrated in London. Pakistanis
are an exception to this, with greater proportions in the West Midlands and
Yorkshire and the Humber than in London. Black Africans, however, are mostly
located in London, where nearly 80% live.
1.3 Labour market participation
Ethnic minorities continue to be disadvantaged in the labour market in relation to
rates of unemployment, earnings levels, occupational attainment and levels of
self-employment. However there are significant differences between and within
ethnic groups, with Indians and Chinese doing better than whites in some
measures such as proportions in managerial or professional posts (Cabinet
Office, 2003).
Unemployment rates for some groups have remained higher than average for
many years, with the rate for Bangladeshi, Pakistani and black Caribbean men
still 10-15 percentage points above that for white men by 2000 (although
representing some improvement since the 15-20% difference in 1992).
Latest government figures (presented in the Ethnic Minority Employment Task
Force Year One Progress Report in November 2004) show an improvement in
the employment rate of EM women of 2.2 percentage points between 2001 and
2004, while the rate for EM men has changed little (DWP, 2004).
Levels of economic inactivity (defined as those of working age who are neither in
work nor seeking work) are particularly high among Bangladeshi and Pakistani
groups, with women especially likely to be economically inactive (activity rates
were 30% for Pakistani women and 20% for Bangladeshi women, compared to
74% for white women in 1999, Dale et al, 2002).
EM workers also fare worse than their white counterparts in earnings, according
to the Task Force. The national average wage was found to be £376 a week
(£19,552 a year) for white employees, but only £347 a week (£18,044 a year) for
EM workers. And Bangladeshi workers do even worse, earning only £235 a week
or £12,220 a year - less than two-thirds the average wage of their white
counterparts (Labour Research Department, 2005a).
The Equal Opportunities Commission recently found that EM women have a
lower average weekly income (£118) than white women (£135), despite the fact
that they are more likely to enter higher education (58%) than EM men (55%),
white women (41%) and white men (34%) (EOC, 2004). However the difference
in earnings between white women and men was greater (51% less for women)
than for EM women and men (41%), possibly an indication of the lower earnings
of EM men. It could also be due to the fact that a greater percentage of EM
women work full-time than white women.

8
Recent figures from the Labour Force Survey for 2004, however, show that while
white male workers have higher average hourly pay than black male workers,
black women earn more than white women (see table 2 below). As suggested
above, this may be due to the greater likelihood of white women to work part-
time. Overall, according to the Low Pay Commission, the ethnic pay gap is much
smaller than the gaps for gender and disability. It finds that, as the ethnic pay gap
was small to begin with, the introduction of the national minimum wage (NMW)
has not had a significant impact on it (LPC, 2005, pp.116-117). However it does
demonstrate that EM groups benefited disproportionately from the 2004 uprating
of the NMW, estimating that some 8% of the beneficiaries belonged to a minority
ethnic group, compared to the 6% of the adult working population who belong to
EM groups. The largest proportion of EM workers to benefit were of Pakistani
and Bangladeshi origin (ibid, pp.115-116).
Table 2: Median hourly pay by ethnicity and gender for employees over 18,
2004
£ per hour Male Female
White 9.31 7.06
Non-white 7.54 7.50
Black 7.00 8.27
Indian 9.56 7.60
Pakistani/Bangladeshi 6.25 6.24
Mixed/other 7.60 7.58
Source: LFS 2004, published in LPC, 2005, p.118
There has been some improvement in the proportions of EM groups in
professional or managerial jobs, although again the situation varies according to
ethnic group. While Chinese men and women improved their representation
among managerial jobs between 1992 and 2000, and are found in greater
proportions than white workers, the proportions of black Caribbean and Pakistani
managers remain low. Indian men have similar rates to white men (around 25%
in professional/managerial posts) and Indian women have seen an increase in
such positions, to 16% in 2000 (compared to 15% for white women) from around
6% in 1992 (Cabinet Office, 2003, p. 22).
Levels of self-employment in many EM groups is high, particularly among
Pakistani, Indian and Chinese men. However self-employment among black
Caribbean and black African men is lower than for whites (Cabinet Office, 2003).
There is considerable debate as to how far the higher levels of self-employment
among some groups can be explained by factors such as cultural disposition and
how far it is to do with anticipation and experience of discrimination in the labour
market (Cabinet Office, 2003; Wrench and Modood, 2000; Ram et al 2001a).
Nevertheless it is a significant and growing form of employment for many groups.
While figures on the number of EM firms are not regularly collected, it has been
estimated that Asian and black businesses represent almost 7% of all small
businesses, and that in Greater London there are at least 15,000 such
businesses – around one in five of all privately-owned businesses in the capital -

9
which employ over 200,000 people in full and part-time work (Bank of England,
1999, P.11).
Labour force data show that while EM women are less likely than men in their
communities to be self employed, they have higher levels of self employment
than white women. However differences exist among women entering self-
employment. Dhaliwal (cited in Bradley and Boles, 2003, p.8) identifies two types
of entrepreneurs in her study of Asian women in business: “independent women”
and “hidden women”. The independent women are entrepreneurs in their own
right, seeing their business as a challenge rather than a financial necessity. The
hidden women, however, are involved in family businesses in which they work
out of financial necessity and tend to be involved in the manual rather than the
business or financial operations.
The restaurant sector is one of the main areas of self-employment for Pakistani,
Indian and Chinese workers and this is explored in more detail in section 4.
1.4 Evidence of discrimination
Despite the variety of types and levels of participation in the labour market
described above, there is plenty of evidence to show that racism and
discrimination in the workplace remains a common experience for many EM
workers.
Wrench and Modood (2000) identify five ways in which evidence of discrimination
against ethnic minorities in the labour market can be assessed: statistical
evidence from large scale surveys that can show indirect discrimination;
discrimination testing; research into the actions of employers and employment
agencies who act as “gatekeepers” to the labour market; research into the
experiences of members of EM communities; and through the actions of
aggrieved employees.
The first of these – statistical evidence from large-scale surveys – has been
discussed above in relation to EM workers’ overall position in the labour market,
and presents a distinctive picture of labour market differences for ethnic
minorities.
Another method is discrimination testing, in which testers belonging to majority
and minority ethnic groups with the same qualifications etc, apply for the same
jobs. Such tests have provided direct evidence of discrimination, for example a
CRE study in 1996 that found the white applicants’ chances of getting an
interview were nearly three times greater than those of the Asian applicants, and
almost five times more than the black applicants (Wrench and Modood, 2000,
p.27). More recent evidence from a BBC test which sent CVs using traditionally
white, black African or Muslim names found that almost a quarter of applications
by candidates given traditionally "white" names resulted in interviews, compared
to only 13% for those with black African names and 9% of the "Muslim"
applications, and suggested that September 11 was causing considerable
difficulties for Muslims (BBC, 2004).

10
A number of studies by the CRE and others have revealed the practices of some
employers towards the employment of EM workers, highlighting issues such as
stereotyped perceptions, informal recruitment practices through family members
or word-of-mouth, and “no-go areas” for non-whites in some firms (Wrench and
Modood, 2000, p.29). Employment agencies were also revealed to comply with
the discriminatory attitudes of employers who requested white staff only. These
findings have implications for our study in that employment agencies are used in
the hotel and catering sector and anecdotal evidence from one of our contacts
suggests that such attitudes and practices persist.
Research in the 1990s into the experiences of Afro-Caribbean and Bangladeshi
young men uncovered strong perceptions of racial discrimination in looking for
work and also confirmed observations about “racism avoiding behaviour”, in
particular among Bangladeshi respondents, who gave one reason for getting
employment in restaurants as being that they felt that they would not experience
racism there (Wrench and Modood, 2000, p.32).
Discrimination towards ethnic minorities in access to employment is believed to
be a problem by both whites and ethnic minorities. The 1994 PSI study found that
90% of all economically active white people thought that employers refused
people jobs for racial or religious reasons. But ethnic minorities were more likely
to believe that discrimination was widespread, with one in five believing that most
employers discriminate, compared with only one in 20 whites (cited in Wrench
and Modood, 2000, p.34).
The PSI survey also highlighted the interaction of religious and racial
discrimination, showing that a quarter of the EM persons who believed that they
had been discriminated against in a job application believed that it was for a
mixture of reasons to do with their race and religion. For South Asians it was
even higher, with over 40% believing that this combination of factors was the
cause (cited in Wrench and Modood, 2000, p.34).
Evidence of discrimination and harassment once in work was provided by the
TUC in 2000 when they ran a “Root Out Racism” hotline for five days which
received nearly 450 calls from workers, revealing “an appalling catalogue of
verbal abuse” and some reported being the victims of actual physical violence
(TUC, 2000). The racist abuse that they suffered at work often resulted in them
taking time off sick with stress, depression and anxiety. Callers also complained
about being refused references, not being informed properly about training,
overtime or promotion opportunities and being unfairly monitored. If they
complained some said they were deliberately isolated at work, ignored, victimised
or even sacked.
Just over half (53%) of the calls came from African/Afro-Caribbean workers, 26%
were from Asian workers and only 0.5% from Chinese workers. EM workers at all
levels reported problems, with the greatest number (20%) from professional jobs,
17% were in clerical and secretarial jobs and 14% worked in the personal and
protective services (i.e. emergency services, security guards, catering workers
and hairdressers). Almost two-thirds (63%) were in the public sector, and a

11
further 9% were in each of manufacturing, transport and communications and
retail, hotels and catering.
1.5 Equal opportunities policies
In addition to the legal remedies that workers may have to address, race
discrimination (some of the difficulties of which are described in section 5), equal
opportunities policies have been introduced by most employers.
However, Wrench and Modood’s report (2000) finds a “rather mixed experience
of the implementation of equal opportunities and anti-discrimination policies in
work organizations” (p. 2). They point out that many major companies have high
profile equal opportunities initiatives, which have had a positive impact on the
profile of their workforces. However, they also note that “relatively few companies
have serious plans for implementing racial equality initiatives” (p.2).
And their evidence suggests that such policies may have had very little impact on
the majority of workers covered by this research project. They say that: “equal
opportunities practices and diversity management are in practice virtually
irrelevant for those ethnic minorities who are found in the lowest paid, least
protected and most precarious sectors of employment. For this particular group
of EM workers, the priority for tackling the ’ethnic inequality’ they experience is
not solely via direct measures such as race relations legislation but also through
indirect measures such as the introduction of legislation allowing union
recognition, and the effective enforcement of a national minimum wage policy” (p.
2).
1.6 Government policy
The government has engaged in a number of policy and strategy initiatives to
tackle the labour market position of EM workers in the last few years. In March
2001 the Strategy Unit began work on a project on “Improving the labour market
achievements of ethnic minorities”, one result of which was a major report by the
Cabinet Office in 2003, Ethnic Minorities and the Labour Market. This report
contains an objective that “in ten years’ time, ethnic minority groups living in
Britain should not face disproportionate barriers to accessing and realizing
opportunities for achievement in the labour market” (Cabinet Office, 2003, p. 7). It
focuses on 4 key areas to achieve this: education, employment, equal
opportunities and delivery.
The Ethnic Minority Employment Task Force was also established to improve the
labour market position of ethnic minorities and it produced its first report in
November 2004, containing a number of recommendations across departments
covering education, employment, access to employment etc.
A further strategy document was published by the Home Office in January 2005,
Improving Opportunity, Strengthening Society: the Government’s strategy to
increase race equality and community cohesion, (Home Office, 2005b) which
also contains strategies for the labour market, covering connecting people to
work, workforce skill development and equal opportunities in the workplace.

12
2. The employment of migrant workers in the UK
2.1 Definitions
The definition of migrants used by the Home Office in a series of recent studies
on UK migrants in the UK labour market is “all those who were born outside the
UK” (Home Office, 2002a). Other definitions of migrant workers are used, such
as that employed by Bell and Jarman (2004, p.3): “An individual who arrives in a
host country within the last five years, either with a job to go to or intending to find
a job”. For the purposes of this report the Home Office definition will be used as
the figures presented mainly come from research done for the Home Office.
Migrants, therefore, include both whites and non-whites, as well as those who
have been in the UK for some years and have acquired British citizenship.
Although many workers are both from an ethnic minority and are migrants, this
section presents data relating to migrants, and will, where useful, distinguish
between EM and white migrants. It is also worth noting that some white groups,
such as Irish and Eastern European workers, suffer worse conditions than other
white migrants, and these are sometimes highlighted here.
2.2 Migrants in the UK
Using the Home Office definition, migrants account for 8% of the UK population
and almost 10% of the working age population (or around 4.8 million people, of
whom 3.6 million are of working age). In 2002 almost a quarter (23%) were from
the EU (as defined then), 20% from the Indian sub-continent, 19% from Africa,
11% from the Americas, 10% from the rest of Asia, 5% from other Western
European states, 4% from Australasia, 3% from Eastern Europe and 3% from the
Middle East.
Almost half of migrants (47%) have acquired British citizenship. Almost a third
(31%), however, arrived in the 1990s, a period when many arrived from Eastern
Europe.
More than 40% of migrants lived in London in 2001, making up 26% of the
population of London.
Ethnic minorities accounted for less than half (46%) the migrant population in
Great Britain in 1997 (Shields and Wheatley Price, 2002, table 2.1, p. 13).
Indians were 13% of all migrants, 7% were Pakistani, 6% black Caribbean and
3% each were Bangladeshi and Chinese.
Migrants tend to be of working age and are mainly concentrated in the 25-49 age
group (Home Office, 2002a).
Educational attainment is polarised for migrants, who are both more likely to be
highly qualified than the UK-born population (19% have degrees, compared to
15% among the UK-born) and to be found among those who have no
qualifications (19% compared to 16%).

13
In addition to the migrants identifiable by the Home Office, there are also
undocumented migrants working in the UK, although clearly it is very difficult to
estimate the numbers. It is also the case that the distinction between lawful and
undocumented migrant status is not always clear. For example, an individual on
a student visa, who works more than the 20 hours permitted, would be
considered to be working unlawfully, as would a migrant worker whose legal
status becomes undocumented once she/he overstays what is legally allowed.
2.3 Labour market participation
While the statistics show that the employment rate for all migrants is lower than
for the UK-born (64% compared to 75%), the labour market performance of white
migrants is very similar to that of British-born whites, according to Dustmann et al
(2002). They find that EM individuals, and in particular those from the Indian,
Caribbean, Pakistani, black African, and Bangladeshi communities, are
significantly less likely to find employment than white immigrants. However the
exception to this is white individuals from other European countries, who are
predominantly from the former Eastern Bloc countries and Turkey (Dustmann et
al, 2002, p. 36). Recently arrived migrants have significantly reduced
employment and participation rates (Shields and Wheatley Price, 2002).
Self-employment is a significant form of employment for many migrant groups,
with concentration in some sectors, in particular construction and distribution,
hotels and restaurants. Self-employed migrants are twice as likely to work in
distribution, hotels and restaurants than the white UK-born population (36% in
2000, compared to 17% of UK-born whites). But for EM migrants the figure rises
to 50%, compared to 22% for white migrants (Dustmann et al, 2002, p. 43).
In terms of earnings, it has been shown that white migrants are generally more
successful than white UK-born workers, with individuals from the Old
Commonwealth countries earning on average 20% higher wages than
comparable UK-born individuals. However for many EM groups earnings are
considerably lower than average: Bangladeshis earn about 40% less than white
UK-born and Pakistanis around 20% less (Dustmann et al, 2002, pp. 47-48).
Perhaps unsurprisingly, English language proficiency has been shown to improve
with time of residence, is higher for the more educated, and is strongly linked to
the likelihood of being employed and can significantly reduce the wage gap
between UK-born whites and minority migrants. There are also variations in
proficiency across ethnic groups, with Bangladeshi and Pakistani groups having
the lowest levels of proficiency in English (Dustman et al, 2002).
2.4 Evidence of discrimination and exploitation
Migrant workers, particularly those in the low-skill sectors of the economy, are
often vulnerable to exploitation in employment. The CAB has collected evidence
from clients using their services of the vulnerability of migrant workers in the low-
wage sectors: agriculture, care homes, cleaning, food processing and hospitality
(CAB, 2004).

14
Evidence of exploitation by gangmasters and employment agencies in agriculture
has been recognised by the government and the media (see for example, The
Guardian newspaper 10 and 11 January 2005). But the CAB report found “similar
problems arising from the activities of gangmasters in the hospitality and cleaning
sectors, especially in relation to motorway service stations” (CAB, 2004, p. 4).
A number of common themes emerged from the experiences of migrant workers
in all the sectors studied by the CAB including: misleading recruitment of workers
in their own country on false promises of good pay, conditions, and housing;
extremely long hours, low gross rates of pay and sub-standard accommodation;
excessive deductions from pay for accommodation, transport to work, utilities,
and repayment of the cost of travel to the UK; failure to provide a contract of
employment and/or proper pay slips, and denial of other basic employment
rights; uncertainty and confusion about who is actually the worker’s employer,
and a frequent failure to ensure that the worker had a National Insurance
number, with the apparent non-payment (by the employer) of tax and National
Insurance contributions; and the summary dismissal, and immediate eviction
from any associated accommodation, of workers who assert their legal rights or
‘rock the boat’ (CAB, 2004, p. 5).
Experiences from the hospitality sector reported by the CAB include:
- a Thai man in Bristol who had entered the UK on a five-year work permit some
two years previously to work as a chef in a local Thai restaurant and was being
paid only £150 for a 60-hour week (just £2.50 per hour – i.e. £1.70 less than the
then National Minimum Wage of £4.20 per hour). He had received only two
weeks’ paid holiday per year and no Statutory Sick Pay in respect of a two-week
period of (certificated) illness;
- a Ukrainian man and woman in London who had both been working at a local
branch of a national restaurant chain for four years, during which time they had
received no paid holiday; and
- a Portuguese man in Nottinghamshire who had been working as manager of a
local fish-and-chips shop for seven months without receiving a contract of
employment, pay slips or paid holiday, and was being paid £200 for a 60-hour
week (i.e. some £1.20 per hour less than the then National Minimum Wage)
(CAB, 2004, p. 8).
Further evidence of the exploitation of migrant workers is shown by a recent
report, Forced labour and migration to the UK (Anderson and Rogaly, 2005),
which shows how even those with work permits find it difficult to enforce their
rights, and for irregular workers the situation is much worse. Although the report
focuses on workers in care, construction, agriculture and contract cleaning, many
of their findings will apply to the hotel and catering sector. The government’s
2002 White Paper Secure Borders, Safe Haven (Home Office, 2002b) notes that
the problems connected to the employment of irregular migrants are particularly
severe in catering and hospitality as well (Anderson and Rogaly, 2005, p.20).
The research establishes four indicators of forced labour:
- Violence: including physical or sexual violence, and threats of violence;
- Other forms of coercion, such as debt bondage, retention of identity documents,
threats etc.;

15
- Excessive dependence on employers or third parties; and
- Other practices including excessive working hours and the provision of sub-
standard living conditions.
Sub-standard working conditions documented in the report include the failure to
pay workers, excessive working hours, lack of concern for health and safety
standards, and the provision of poor accommodation, which in turn adds to the
dependency of many migrant workers. It is common for migrant workers to face
deductions from wages by employers and agencies, which are often illegal or
excessive. The report identified four broad categories of deductions from wages:
(i) deductions to “repay” migration debt including travel, visa and documentation
costs, and the interest accrued;
(ii) deductions for the opportunity to work;
(iii) deductions for accommodation, and;
(iv) deductions for work related costs such as uniforms, transportation or safety
gear (ibid, p. 42).
Workers’ immigration status, even when legal, is often used to keep them in
forced labour. The retention of identity documents, as well as threats to
denounce the worker to the authorities, keep them tied to the employer (ibid,
p.39). Furthermore, legal controls on the worker’s right to work create a
dependence on the employer, as work permits are obtained by the employer not
the worker, who is therefore tied to that particular employer. Permit holders are
also barred from claiming state benefits, including statutory sick pay (ibid, pp.47-
8).
2.5 Government policy
In February 2005 the government published its five year strategy on asylum and
immigration, Controlling our borders (Home Office, 2005a), which included the
intention to phase out low skilled migration schemes in the light of new labour
available from the European Union (in addition to other controversial proposals
such as only granting refugees temporary leave to be reviewed after five years).
The plans to allow only skilled migration into the UK will remove schemes such
as the Sectors Based Scheme, which granted work permits to certain numbers of
workers in skills shortage sectors such as hospitality (see 3.2.3). On 23 June
2005 the Minister of State for Immigration announced that the Sectors Based
Scheme would cease operating in the hospitality sector from 31 July, or from
when the 2004-5 quota was exhausted, whichever was sooner. As the quota was
said to be nearing its limit, it was announced that no new applications submitted
after 1 July 2005 would be considered. This will certainly be opposed by many
employers in the industry who were instrumental in setting up the schemes. The
Chief Executive of the trade association for the industry, the British Hospitality
Association, has said: “The government is saying that the industry will create
500,000 new jobs by 2010. It will be impossible to fill these vacancies without a
more sympathetic approach to immigration”.1
1
BHA Press release 7 March 2005

16
Trade unions have also criticised the proposals for failing to deal with the well-
documented exploitation of migrants workers, and some are calling for an
amnesty for illegal migrant workers currently in the UK, along the lines of that
granted by the Spanish government to up to 800,000 undocumented immigrants
(Labour Research Department, 2005b).
Government policy is concerned to appear tough on illegal immigration. One
strand of this was the 2004 Gangmasters Act, which created a compulsory
licensing system for gangmasters and employment agencies supplying or using
workers in agriculture, gathering shellfish and related processing and packaging
activities. However it will not extend to other sectors, such as hospitality, where
there is known to be exploitation of migrant workers.

3. The hotel and catering sector
The hotel and restaurant sector, using the Standard Industry Classification
(SIC) H 55, is made up of five sub sectors (see Appendix 2):
- hotels (H 55.1);
- camping sites and other short-stay accommodation (55.2);
- restaurants (including take-away food shops) (55.3);
- bars (55.4); and
- canteens and catering (55.5).
Within the sector there are significant variations in the proportions of ethnic
minorities employed (see section 4). Whereas EM workers are found in
greater proportions than white workers in the labour market as a whole in the
hotel, restaurant and canteens and catering sub sectors, they are
underrepresented in camping sites etc. and bars. It therefore seems clear that
our research should focus on the three sub sectors where ethnic minorities
are most likely to work: hotels; restaurants; and canteens and catering. For
this reason, the following sections will pay particular attention to the
characteristics of these sub sectors, although some of the figures will refer to
the sector as a whole.
3.1 Economic characteristics
A report prepared by Smith and Carroll (2003) for the European Foundation
for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Klein Hesselink et al,
2004), provides a detailed picture of the UK hotel and restaurant sector.
It shows that the hotel and restaurant sector:
- represented 3.4% of GDP in 2001 (an increase from 2.7% in 1993);
- is one of the most significant in terms of employment, accounting for
more than 4% of all employment (1.2 million jobs), with a growth during
the 1990s;
- is characterised by small establishments, with 82% of restaurants and
79% of contract catering firms having 10 or fewer employees. But for
hotels the figure is 55%, with a significant decline in smaller hotels in
recent years and a trend towards larger chains (HtF, 2002);
- the canteen and catering sector has grown as a result of contracting
out of services, with public and private sector organisations now less
likely to provide catering in-house (26% of contract catering outlets
were in education, 5% in healthcare and 49% in business and industry,
BHA, 2002).
The sector has witnessed a 7% growth rate over the past five years – more
than the economy overall. This growth is set to continue, with an additional
15,000 new jobs predicted to be needed between 2002 and 2012 - in addition
to the 846,000 replacement jobs lost through labour turnover. Over the past
four years there has been a growth of 6% in the number of new
establishments (People 1st, 2005, p.6).

3.2 Labour market characteristics
3.2.1 Overview
In summary, Smith and Carroll (2003) show that work in the sector is
dominated by the following types of workers and contracts:
- women account for 61% of those working in the sector overall
(compared to 47% in employment), but are more likely to be in
canteens and catering (73% of employees) than hotels (58%) or
restaurants (54%);
- young workers aged under 25 years account for 37% or those
employed in the sector (compared to national figure of 13%); by sub
sector, 44% of workers in restaurants are under 25, compared to 34%
in hotels and 9% in canteens and catering;
- short-term employment/high turnover: 36% in 2002 had been with
their employer for less than 12 months (compared to 19% average in
the labour market) (38% in restaurants, 34% hotels and 22% canteens
and catering), with the effect of excluding these workers from a number
of employment rights that require a year’s service;
- temporary employment is slightly more prevalent in hotels (8%),
restaurants (9%) and canteens and catering (7%) than the national rate
of 6%;
- more than half of all employees (52%) work part-time compared to the
national average of 26%;
- the above average rate of part-time work applies to both men and
women: whereas only 10% of all men work part-time, 39% of those in
restaurants do so, as do 30% of male hotel workers and 15% in
canteens and catering; 45% of all women work part-time, rising to 65%
in restaurants, 61% in canteens and catering and 53% in hotels;
- most part-time workers in the sector are either students (54% of part-
timers in restaurants and 45% in hotels) or do not want a full-time job
(81% of those in canteens and catering);
- men and women working in restaurants are slightly more likely to be
self-employed than the national average (16.4% of men in
restaurants, compared to 15.8% nationally and 9.7% of women,
compared to 6.5% nationally) and the last decade has seen an
increase; levels of self-employment for men and women are lower in
hotels (which has seen a decrease in numbers) and canteens and
catering than the average;
- high proportions of workers in the sector have either no educational
qualifications (17% in restaurants and 15% in hotels, compared to
12% nationally) or compulsory level education only (23%, compared to
19%).
Smith and Carroll are unable to provide figures, but point to anecdotal
information that informal or unrecorded work exists in the sector, with some
employers taking advantage of people who do not have the right to work
legally in the UK to employ them under poor terms and conditions.
18

3.2.2 Gender segregation
Smith and Carroll’s report (2003) clearly shows the extent of occupational
segregation by gender within the hotel and catering industry. The table below
shows that in hotels, for example, almost a quarter of female workers are
cleaners or domestics, nearly a fifth are waitresses and almost one in ten are
receptionists. Men are most likely to be chefs or cooks, waiters, managers or
porters. Similarly in restaurants, women are much less likely to work as chefs
or cooks (9%, compared to 25% of male workers), and are most likely to be
waitresses. And in canteens and catering, half of women are kitchen and
catering assistants (compared with 16% of male workers), and are less likely
to be chefs or cooks or managers than men.
Table 3: Occupations of men and women in hotels and catering
Occupation 55.1 Hotels
%*
55.3 Restaurants
%*
55.5 Canteens
and catering %*
Male Female Male Female Male Female
Bar staff 8% 5% 3% 2%
Chefs, cooks 18% 5% 25% 9% 27% 16%
Cleaners, domestics 3% 24% 2% 2%
Hotel and accom-
modation managers
9% 7%
Hotel porters 9%
Housekeepers 6%
Kitchen and catering
assistants
8% 5% 24% 22% 16% 50%
Receptionists 9%
Restaurant and
catering managers
3% 2% 22% 14% 18% 12%
Sales and retail
assistants
4% 12%
Waiters, waitresses 16% 18% 12% 30% 3%
Source: Labour Force Survey 2002, taken from tables 11 (b) and (c) in Smith and Carroll
(2003, p.19)
* Columns do not add up to 100% as occupations with small numbers are not included
Other studies (for example, Lucas, 1995; Purcell 1993) confirm the
segregated nature of work in the sector on gender lines. Adib and Guerrier
(2003) note that the domestic nature of hotel work means that it is commonly
perceived as “quintessentially women’s work” (p.419). However, they break
this down further, saying that “hotels are structured around a range of work
roles that carry different expectations about gender, race, ethnicity and class”
(p. 414). They suggest that some jobs may be seen as only suitable for white
women (for example, receptionists) as they need to be seen as sexually
attractive to white men. They also find EM and migrant workers to be
clustered in lowest graded work, noting that: “It is common to find that all the
chambermaids in a hotel are drawn from the same ethnic minority or migrant
group” (p. 420).
19

3.2.3 Labour shortages and the Work Permit Scheme
Labour shortages have been a feature of the sector, with 33% of vacancies
unfilled in 2002 (compared to 24% nationally) and particularly acute shortages
in the more skilled occupations such as chefs (Smith and Carroll, 2003).
However, recent reports from the sector suggest that labour shortages are
less of a problem currently due to the availability of workers from the new EU
states, although this could be a short-term solution, particularly as the
economies of those states grow and workers may in future have more
opportunities at home.2
One attempt to address these staff shortages has been through the Home
Office’s Work Permits system. One particular Sectors Based Scheme (SBS)
aimed to address skills shortages in lower skilled occupations in two sectors:
food processing and hospitality (hotels and catering) by making available a
quota of 10,000 work permits from May 2003 to January 2004 for each sector
(Clarke and Salt, 2003). It was extended for a further year to 31 January 2005,
with a comprehensive review, due to report shortly. Such unskilled schemes
will, however, be ended under the Government’s recent immigration plans
(see 2.5).
Further analysis of the SBS for hospitality (see table 4) shows a total of
21,334 applications for work permits between 31/05/2003 to 30/09/2004
(Kofman et al, 2005, p.42). While only 16.1% of these went to female workers,
if the Bangladeshi workers, who make up the overwhelming majority of
applicants for male workers in the sector, are excluded, the female proportion
rises to 35%. It should also be noted that many of these applications,
particularly from Bangladeshi workers, did not result in permits being issued.
Table 4 shows the countries from which workers applied, and it is clear that
Eastern European countries feature prominently, with women often applying in
larger numbers than men. Kofman et al also point out that the number of
permits granted to students is much larger than those granted for work, with
education forming a significant route of entry for migrants, and possibly also a
significant source of migrant labour (ibid, p.20). As has already been shown
(3.2.1), young workers and students make up a large proportion of workers in
the sector so it is to be assumed that overseas workers are also included
among this number.
Table 4: Applications to the Sectors-Based Scheme for Hospitality
31/05/2003- 30/09/2004
Nationality Number % female
Bangladesh 11,684 0.5%
Bulgaria 864 44.7%
India 965 8.4%
Latvia 242 60.3%
Lithuania 184 57.1%
Moldova 242 38.4%
Philippines 357 61.6%
2
Interview with Chief Executive of British Hospitality Association, 6 April 2005
20

Poland 756 50.9%
Romania 452 42.9%
Russia 396 55.3%
Slovakia 113 59.3%
Thailand 140 55.0%
Ukraine 939 37.9%
Others 4,000 26.3%
TOTAL 21,334 16.1%
Source: Kofman et al, 2005
3.2.4 Regional breakdown
The chart below shows the distribution of workers in the Hotel and Catering
sector across England. It is interesting to note that women outnumber men in
all regions except London. Further analysis by ethnicity (see section 4)
provides further details on this.
Chart 1: Workers in the Hotels and Catering by region
Workers in the Hotel and Catering sector in England
60,280
42,117
33,580
41,759 42,799
84,278
73,714
51,966
88577
68048
52840
65764 64619
69079
93420
76071
33505
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
100000
N
orth
East
N
orth
W
est
Yorkshire
and
H
um
berside
EastM
idlandsW
estM
idlands
East
London
South
East
South
W
est
Region
Numberofworkersaged16-64
Male Female
Source: Census 2001, table KS11a
3.3 Conditions of work
Many studies have characterised the sector as one of low pay, low status
work, exploitation of employees, low levels of unionisation and poor
employment relations practices (for example, Gabriel, 1988; Price, 1994;
Head and Lucas, 2004 to name just some).
While Price (1994) found some examples of good personnel practice among
the larger employers and contract caterers, she concluded that “the industry’s
poor image is generally justified”. Head and Lucas (2004) also recognise the
diversity within the sector, but confirm that: “The structural characteristics of
21

the hospitality industry still allow ruthless employers to persist with arbitrary
management practices in spite of the increase in statutory employment
protection rights” (p.708).
High levels of disciplinary sanctions (3.6 per 100 employees, compared to an
average of 2.9 across all sectors) and dismissals (5.9 per 100 employees,
compared to 1.5 across all sectors) were identified in the hospitality sector by
the Workplace Employee Relations Survey 1998 (Head and Lucas, 2004).
The sector is also known to generate substantial numbers of Employment
Tribunal (formerly Industrial Tribunal or IT) claims, according to Earnshaw et
al (1998). Their examination of unfair dismissal claims taken to tribunals
focuses on hotels and catering, transport and communication and
engineering. Of the 11 case study companies in hotels and catering, five had
had recent IT cases taken against them. None of the 11 organisations had
either a trade union presence or other formal mechanism for representing
employees. The report comments on the use of informal channels of
recruitment and internal labour markets (Earnshaw et al, 1998, p.18),
including the use of schoolchildren on work placements.
3.3.1 Agency work
Many workers in hotels and catering are recruited through employment
agencies, and as a result can suffer inferior terms and conditions than directly-
employed workers. There are currently over 300 recruitment agencies
servicing the sector in London alone, according to People 1st, the Sector
Skills Council for the industry (see 3.5). A recent report from the TUC cites
evidence of apparently widespread continuing abuse of agency workers, in
particular migrant workers, by some employment agencies (TUC, 2005). One
particular problem, that is likely to affect workers in this sector, is the
deduction of payments for items including transport, equipment, uniforms and
meals. They have also been told of unlawful deductions for health and safety
equipment. The TUC accuses some employment agencies of circumventing
legislation that requires the worker’s express agreement to deductions, by
including general clauses in the contracts to the effect that “the Company shall
be entitled to deduct from salary or any other payments due to you in respect
of your employment, any monies due from you to the Company”. The TUC is
calling for the Government to implement the European Temporary Workers
Directive to remedy these abuses.
Differences in treatment between temporary and permanent employees in
hotels were conceptualised as a distinction between “core” and “peripheral”
employees by Guerrier and Lockwood (1989). Core employees experience
better conditions of employment whereas peripheral workers tend to enjoy
less job security and fewer job opportunities and may act as a buffer to protect
core workers from shifts in demand. Head and Lucas (2004) found that core
workers often experience a more “soft” form of employee relations, where
managers stress communication, commitment, training, job satisfaction or
career progression. In contrast, the casual workers who are not covered by
employment rights are subject to a more “hard” form of employee relations
than others within the same organisation (p. 706). It is likely that EM workers
22

are overrepresented among the peripheral group and will be subject to
harsher employment conditions.
3.3.2 Pay
Pay levels in hotels and catering are low. Data from the New Earnings Survey
(which excludes part timers earning less than the threshold for paying
National Insurance contributions) for 2001 showed that male full-time manual
employees in hotels and restaurants earned only 73% of the gross hourly rate
for full-time manual males nationally. For women the average was slightly
higher at 82%, but this reflects women’s lower pay generally (Smith and
Carroll, 2003). As more than half of employees in the sector work part-time
(see above) and part-time hourly earnings are generally lower than full-time,
these figures will underestimate the extent of low pay in the sector.
Large numbers of workers in the hotel and catering sector earn less than the
lower earnings limit for paying National Insurance contributions (£79 per week
in 2004/05), therefore losing out on entitlement to many state benefits such as
sick pay, maternity pay, retirement pension etc. Research for the Equal
Opportunities Commission (Purcell et al, 1999) found that in 1995/96 45% of
women in the sector earned below the lower earnings limit, as did just over a
quarter of men.
Another indication of the extent of low pay in the sector is the impact the
National Minimum Wage (NMW) has had. Brown and Crossman (2000) found
that the majority of small hotels would be affected by the introduction of the
NMW in April 1999 (set at £3.60 an hour at the time). Of the 177 hotels in their
sample (mainly small establishments) 86% had at least some employees that
were affected by the introduction of the National Minimum Wage.
The latest report by the Low Pay Commission (2005) found that 55% of
employers in the hospitality sector responding to their survey were affected by
the October 2003 uprating, up 7% compared to the 2001 survey (p.69), and
around 20% of employees (over 200,000 workers)in the sector stood to
benefit (p.22).
A survey of pay and conditions for hotel workers found that the uprating of the
NMW in October 2003 affected nearly half of respondents, with a third
increasing the pay rates of more experienced or supervisory staff to maintain
pay differentials (IDS, 2004).
Further evidence is provided by recent estimates of low pay from the National
Statistics Office for spring 2004 which found that the hotel and restaurant
sector had the highest percentage of jobs with pay below minimum wage
levels, at 4.3% of jobs in the sector (42,000 jobs) (Milton, 2004, plus
supplementary table). This does not necessarily indicate non-compliance with
NMW legislation as it is not possible to identify apprentices who are exempt,
for example, or where pay rates may be reduced to account for the provision
of free accommodation.
Employers who provide workers with accommodation may offset part of the
cost of this against wages – currently £3.75 a day (from 1 October 2004). The
23

Low Pay Commission has rejected calls to increase this to reflect the actual
costs of providing accommodation, arguing that a balance needs to be struck
between costs, the advantages to the employer of having workers so near to
their work, and the need to ensure a minimum level of cash wages. It is
recommending an increase to £3.90 a day from October 2005 and £4.15 a
day from 2006 (LPC, 2005, p.72).
The LPC points out that tips can only count towards minimum wage pay if
they are collected centrally by the employer and distributed to staff through
the payroll. However, their research suggests that some employers choose to
put tips through the payroll to make up minimum wage pay, while others
prefer not to get involved in the collection or distribution of tips (LPC, 2005, p.
72).
3.3.3 Working hours
While the high numbers of part-time workers in hotels and catering mean that
average weekly working hours are lower than for other sectors of the UK
economy, there are also higher proportions working more than 65 hours a
week than average (3.4% in the hotel and restaurant sector, compared to the
national average of 2.7%, rising to 4.3% in the restaurant sub sector).
However short hours are much more common, with 36% of those in
restaurants working less than 20 hours a week (27% in canteens and catering
and 25% in hotels) (Smith and Carroll, 2003).
In line with the general pattern of male and female work, women were more
likely to work shorter hours than men (43% in restaurants, 34% in canteens
and catering and 30% in hotels worked less than 20 hours a week, compared
to 22% nationally). But for men too short hours were more common than the
average (26% in restaurants, 18% in hotels and 8% in canteens and catering
worked less than 20 hours, compared to 6% nationally).
3.3.4 Working environment
The working environment in the hotel and catering sector is often very poor,
commonly featuring physical hazards such as the risk of exposure to smoke,
noise and extremes of temperature (Smith and Carroll, 2003).
According to the Health and Safety Executive website there are many serious
accidents in the industry, with over 1,600 reported in 2003, despite some
improvement in recent years. The main causes of injury are: slips,trips and
falls on wet or contaminated floors; manual handling/ musculoskeletal injuries;
exposure to hot or harmful substances (e.g. hot oil , or cleaning chemicals);
and being struck by something (e.g. sharp knives or falling objects). The main
causes of occupational ill health continue to be: dermatitis; chronic ill health
effects from manual handling; and work-related upper limb disorders.
Health and safety is not viewed as a high priority by most employers in the
sector, according to an HSE report on small firms (2002). It states that: “The
risks are perceived to be low because they are similar to those encountered in
a domestic situation. Many small firms feel their business is too small for
health and safety to be a problem.”
24

3.3.5 Training
There is a relatively low level of training in the hotel sector in the UK (Smith
and Carroll, 2003) and also among managers and personnel professionals
(Price, 1994). Price notes that there is a particular concern about the lack of
management qualifications among proprietors in smaller establishments,
which make up a large part of the sector.
Stemming in part from the labour shortages described above (3.2.3),
increasing attention is being paid by the industry to training, with national
standards and greater emphasis on qualifications being introduced. People
1st
, the Sector Skills Council for hospitality, leisure, travel and tourism (see
3.5), is responsible for reviewing the national occupational standards and
rationalising the number of qualifications in the sector (there are currently
around 240 different qualifications from 13 awarding bodies). The British
Hospitality Association (see 3.5) has set up “Excellence Through People” to
help organisations in the industry attract staff and improve jobs and service. It
allows employers to assess their employment practices against good practice.
3.4 Trade unions
The proportion of workers in the hotel and catering sector that are members of
trade unions has traditionally been low, and in 2001 union density in the
sector was just 5% (compared to 29% among all employees). Among full-time
employees the figure is 8% and for part-time employees it is only 3%. Only in
the public sector (presumably mainly catering workers) are levels of
membership higher (32%), but this is still significantly lower than union density
for the public sector as a whole (59%) (Smith and Carroll, 2003).
Wood (1997) classifies the main reasons for the low levels of union density
as: the isolation and ethos of hotel and catering work; the structure of the
workforce with high levels of part-timers, women, seasonal and casual
workers and high staff turnover; management attitudes towards trade unions;
and the role of trade unions themselves in the sector, often not seeming to
make the sector a priority. Research by Macaulay and Wood (1992) found
fairly widespread ignorance by employees of union activity in hotels and
catering, as well as employer and management hostility towards unions.
However, there are some unionised employers within the sector. Appendix 3
lists 29 employers in the hotels, restaurant and hospitality sector with union
recognition, taken from the TUC database. Some of these are catering
companies organised by public services union UNISON. A number of hotels
are also included, organised by the GMB and T&G and there have been
campaigns by both these unions to organise in the sector, such as the T&G in
the Dorchester in London (Wills, 2005) and the GMB London region with a
focus on ethnic minority workers recruitment (see Holgate, 2004).
3.5 Industry bodies
The main trade organisation for the sector is the British Hospitality
Association, with over 40,000 member organisations in the hotel, restaurant
25

and catering trade, from major quoted groups to family-run businesses,
including ethnic minority restaurant associations and businesses. It has
established the Best Practice Forum, which is an alliance of the industry’s
principal trade associations and other industry partners to improve
employment practice and industry standards.
The Hotel and Catering International Management Association (HCIMA) is the
professional body for managers and potential managers in the hospitality,
leisure, travel and tourism industries, with 27 UK regional branches and 17
international groups. It provides accreditation for courses, as well as
membership for managers, as well as research and information for the
industry.
Springboard UK is an organisation that promotes careers in hospitality,
leisure, tourism and travel to potential recruits through a network of centres
across the UK. It has also devised an educational programme to support the
curriculum in schools and colleges.
People 1st is the Sector Skills Council (SSC) for hospitality, leisure, travel and
tourism. SSCs are employer-led and licensed by the government to promote
skills in the UK. A key element of their work is the drawing up of a Sector
Skills Agreement (SSA), a contract between employers and the supply side to
ensure that provision meets employer needs. The SSA for the hospitality,
leisure, travel and tourism sector is due to be published in December 2006.
26

4. Ethnic minority workers in hotels and catering
4.1 Participation in the sector
Table 5 shows the proportions of workers in hotels and restaurants by ethnic
group, broken down by region to allow us to see where particular ethnic
groups are most commonly found in the sector (taken from the Census 2001).
It includes only the three regions chosen for this study: London, the South
West and the West Midlands.
Although the research is not guided entirely by statistical considerations, the
table is helpful for the purposes of identifying where we might try to locate
workers to participate. One particularly striking feature is the difference in
ethnicity of workers in London in the sector, with only 34.8% of male workers
in London classifying themselves as White British, compared to the West
Midlands, where 74.2% of male workers in the sector are White British.
London also has particularly high proportions of workers who define
themselves as White Other (21.3% of men in the sector and 16.7% of
women). Pakistani workers appear in similar proportions in London and the
West Midlands (1.6% and 1.7% respectively). In the South West it is notable
that White Other constitutes the largest minority group (3.5%), followed by
Chinese (1.9%).
The table also allows us to see gender differences in the sector according to
ethnicity, with White British women more likely than White men to work in the
sector in all regions. London Black Caribbean women are more likely to work
in hotels and restaurants than their male counterparts, although outside
London the rate is more similar. Black African women in London are also
more likely than Black African men to work in the sector (6.6% compared to
4.9%). Significant differences are also observable between Pakistani and
Bangladeshi women in all regions, with women much less likely to work in the
sector. Bangladeshi women, for example, account for only 0.7% of women
workers in the industry in London, compared to 9.5% of Bangladeshi men,
and 0.1% in the South West, compared to 1.7% of men.
Table 5: Employment in hotels and restaurants by ethnic group and region
London
no. %
South West
no. %
West Midlands
no. %
All
White - British 63,189 41.2 116,529 91.0 89,744 83.5
White - Irish 5,065 3.3 881 0.7 1,470 1.4
White - Other 29,566 19.3 4,542 3.5 3,069 2.9
Mixed - White and Black Caribbean 824 0.5 276 0.2 629 0.6
Mixed - White and Black African 844 0.6 112 0.1 80 0.1
Mixed - White and Asian 1,052 0.7 283 0.2 272 0.3
Mixed - Other 1,349 0.9 285 0.2 232 0.2
Asian - Indian 8,179 5.3 336 0.3 2,342 2.2
Asian - Pakistani 2,499 1.6 160 0.1 1,823 1.7
Asian - Bangladeshi 8,465 5.5 952 0.7 2,490 2.3
Asian - Other 3,964 2.6 223 0.2 339 0.3
Black or Black British - Black Caribbean 5,464 3.6 281 0.2 1,598 1.5
Black or Black British - Black African 8,754 5.7 145 0.1 230 0.2
27

Black or Black British - Other 901 0.6 48 0.0 252 0.2
Chinese or Other Ethnic Group - Chinese 7,335 4.8 2,419 1.9 2,500 2.3
Chinese or Other Ethnic Group - Other 5,907 3.9 565 0.4 453 0.4
All 153,357 100.0 128,037 100.0 107,523 100.0
Males
White - British 29,341 34.8 45,476 87.5 30,998 74.2
White - Irish 2,277 2.7 349 0.7 458 1.1
White - Other 17,996 21.4 2,463 4.7 1,725 4.1
Mixed - White and Asian 654 0.8 138 0.3 123 0.3
Mixed - Other 795 0.9 139 0.3 97 0.2
Asian - Indian 4,479 5.3 226 0.4 1,288 3.1
Asian - Pakistani 1,939 2.3 114 0.2 1,607 3.8
Asian - Bangladeshi 7,983 9.5 865 1.7 2,395 5.7
Asian - Other 3,011 3.6 175 0.3 249 0.6
Black or Black British - Black Caribbean 2,313 2.7 142 0.3 608 1.5
All 84,278 100.0 51,966 100.0 41,759 100.0
Females
White - British 33,848 49.0 71,053 93.4 58,746 89.3
White - Irish 2,788 4.0 532 0.7 1,012 1.5
White - Other 11,570 16.7 2,079 2.7 1,344 2.0
Mixed - White and Asian 398 0.6 145 0.2 149 0.2
Mixed - Other 554 0.8 146 0.2 135 0.2
Asian - Indian 3,700 5.4 110 0.1 1,054 1.6
Asian - Pakistani 560 0.8 46 0.1 216 0.3
Asian - Bangladeshi 482 0.7 87 0.1 95 0.1
Asian - Other 953 1.4 48 0.1 90 0.1
Black or Black British - Black Caribbean 3,151 4.6 139 0.2 990 1.5
All 69,079 100.0 76,071 100.0 65,764 100.0
Source: Census 2001, Table S110, from Nomis
The sector is a particularly important source of employment for some groups:
52% of male Bangladeshi workers are employed in restaurants, compared to
only 1% of white males (Holgate, 2004, p.21).
4.1.1 Migrant workers in the sector in London
Migrant workers (those born outside the UK) represent 60% of all Londoners
employed in the hotel and restaurant sector (GLA, 2005a, p.68). Overall 31%
of London’s workers were born outside the UK. An analysis of the 2001
28

Census by the Greater London Authority (GLA, 2005a and 2005b) allows us
to see which groups of migrant workers have the greatest proportions working
in the hotel and restaurant sector. Table 3 below lists the countries where the
percentage of workers born in that country working in the sector is 20% or
more (only 4.6% of all those living in London work in the sector). Actual
numbers are also shown as these are small in some cases.
The table provides an indication of the diversity within the sector, in London at
least, showing that workers come from Europe, East and West, Asia and
North Africa. Other countries with significant proportions of workers in the
sector include Brazil (17.7%), Spain (17.6%) Colombia (15.8%) and the
Philippines (15.1%).
Table 6: Employment in hotels and restaurants by country of birth,
Greater London 2001
Country of birth % (persons in
employment aged
16-64) employed
in sector
No. employed in
sector
Thailand 40.8 962
Nepal 34.8 296
Bangladesh 30.8 7,928
Algeria 27.5 809
Vietnam 27.5 1,386
China 26.6 1,576
Portugal 25.8 2,874
Hong Kong 25.7 3,241
Morocco 23.7 839
Kosovo, Serbia and Montenegro 23.6 480
Turkey 21.7 2,322
Italy 20.0 4,486
Source: 2001 Census
4.1.2 Sectoral growth
Growth in employment in the sector has been largely among EM workers, at
least in London. Holgate (2004, p.18) shows that between 1993-2000 the
number of black and minority ethnic workers (BME) in distribution, hotels and
restaurants in London increased by 98,000, whereas the number of white
workers decreased by 2,000. In a period of relatively low unemployment the
sector has found it difficult to fill vacancies (see above, section 3.2.3.) and
employers are turning to migrant workers who are prepared to accept the
conditions that are unattractive to the indigenous workforce (Dobson, et al,
2001, cited in Holgate, 2004, p.18). Holgate cites Allen at al (1998) who note
that an ethnic division of labour has developed in London, particularly in
cleaning, but also in hotels, retail and catering, where workers are in these
jobs “primarily because of their ethnicity – regardless of their skill capabilities”
(p.19), with many in fact having high levels of skills and education.
29

4.1.3 Age profile
Section 3 of this paper showed that large numbers of young people work in
hotels and catering. This is particularly true for EM workers in London.
Holgate shows that 67% of all BME workers aged 16-19 are employed in the
sector (as are 54% of white workers in this age group). While there is a
significant decline in employment in the sector for all workers in older age
groups, BME males tend to remain in the sector for a longer period (2004,
p.19).
4.1.4 Unionisation
Holgate also shows that, despite the low density of trade union membership in
hotels and catering, in London “trade union membership figures among BME
workers are growing in this sector, with a doubling of membership among
women, although overall numbers are still very low (7,500)” (2004, p. 25).
4.2 The experiences of ethnic minority workers in Hotels and Catering
Little research exists on the experiences of EM workers in the hotel and
catering sector. Much of the existing literature on the sector focuses on
management behaviour and strategy (Hoque, 1999a, b, c; Rowley and
Richardson, 2000; Brown and Crossman, 2000; Price, 1994; Ram et al
2001b), but not in terms of ethnic minorities’ experiences. Adib and Guerrier
(2003) agree that the fact that the modern hotel has a diverse workforce in
terms of ethnic and national backgrounds has been “relatively neglected by
researchers” (p.414). Their study, based on the narratives of four women in
hotel work, looks at how gender intersects with nationality, race, ethnicity and
class. .
Around 15 years ago the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) undertook a
formal investigation into recruitment and selection in hotels (CRE, 1991) in
response to concern that the sector was failing to consider equal opportunities
in employment practices. Its main interest was in jobs that provided a career,
so the investigation focused on certain job categories with management
responsibilities, or trainee management roles. It found that EM staff were
disproportionately concentrated in unskilled jobs, and found only one EM
manager out of 117 hotels investigated. It made a number of
recommendations about how hotels should improve their practices in relation
to recruitment, monitoring, positive action and training taking account of equal
opportunities issues. It also made recommendations for colleges on how they
should improve conditions for EM students of catering and hotel management
courses.
Price (1994) noted that as a result the CRE organised meetings with major
employers in the industry to develop plans to tackle racial discrimination.
However, she commented that “to date nothing concrete has come from the
meetings and it seems unlikely that personnel practice in hotels has changed
very significantly” (p.46). Clearly this investigation was undertaken some time
ago, and it is to be hoped that at least some employers have improved their
30

recruitment and monitoring practices since, and that colleges have acted on
their recommendations too3
.
4.2.1 Self-employment
As has been shown (section 1.3), self-employment is a significant form of
employment for ethnic minority workers in this sector. However, the growing
body of research on EM small businesses has focused largely on owners’
accounts, with the effect that “little is known of ethnic minority workers’
backgrounds, motivations and aspirations” (Ram et al, 2001a, p.356).
Ram et al’s research on the experiences of 86 EM restaurant workers in
Birmingham attempts to address this gap in knowledge, as well as challenging
the presumption that working in a co-ethnic firm serves as an “apprenticeship”
for self-employment. Instead, they find that: “Immigrants and second-
generation ethnic minorities often found themselves working in co-ethnic
restaurants because of a lack of opportunity rather than a particular desire to
work in such places” (2001a, p.367). In the study only a small number of
workers wished to enter self-employment, and this was matched by those who
have had their own businesses in the past and have returned to employee
status. It was observed that many did not have the necessary “class
resources” (i.e capital, high earnings and occupational status, qualifications,
together with intangibles such as self-confidence and articulacy) to establish
their own firms.
In contrast to the high levels of labour turnover found generally in the hotel
and restaurant sector (see section 3.2.1), Ram et al’s research found an
uncharacteristic longevity of many workers in their current jobs, which they
explain in terms of: “Paternalist working arrangements, the social aspects of
the job, and embeddedness within localised familial and co-ethnic networks”
(2001a, p.367).
3
To follow up with CRE, could also find out what has been done re monitoring of students on courses such as
Hospitality BA at LMU.
31

5. Knowledge of rights and support and advice for workplace problems
There is evidence of a lack of knowledge of employment rights in general and
by ethnic minorities and the low paid in particular. A recent random survey of
476 people’s awareness of general employment rights in shopping centres in
the West Midlands found that women, ethnic minorities, young people and the
low paid were the least likely to be aware. Amongst established rights, only 59
per cent overall were aware of the right to a written statement of terms and
conditions, and of new rights, only 66 per cent were aware of the right to a
paid holiday, 52 per cent of the right to refuse to work over 48 hours and 32
per cent of the rights for emergency time-off to care for dependents. Only the
National Minimum Wage (NMW) stood out with 97 per cent aware of this right
(WMLPU, 2001: 15). Awareness of some areas of rights differed by the
gender, ethnic and pay background of respondents. Men and women were
equally aware of the NMW and right to an itemised pay slip, but women were
less aware than men of the right to a written statement of terms and
conditions within two months of starting a job; to be paid when off sick; and to
be able to claim unfair dismissal after a year (57, 53 and 35 per cent
compared with 62, 67 and 44 per cent) (WMLPU, 2001: 10). Ethnic minorities
were less aware than white respondents of the right to an itemised pay slip
(74 per cent of black, 82 per cent of Asian and 91 per cent of white
respondents) and to be paid when off sick (53, 45 and 61 per cent of the same
groups). The lowest paid were least aware: while 78 per cent of those earning
over £6 per hour were aware of the right to a written statement, only 48 per
cent of those earning under £4.50 were. The contrast between these wage
groups was demonstrated in awareness of unfair dismissal rights (49 per cent
and 30 per cent respectively), and rights to sick pay (75 per cent compared
with 42 per cent) (ibid. 2001: 12).
The problems for migrant workers can be more extreme, as they often face
isolation and language problems. Anderson and Rogaly’s report (see above,
2.4) on forced labour in the UK documents these difficulties. “Whatever their
legal status, not knowing where to go for advice and support, being unable to
consult with co-workers and not having access to basic information on rights
and procedures can have a serious impact on employment conditions. The
isolation of migrants and lack of information about their rights give employers
and agents more control, and in some cases this isolation is deliberately
created” (Anderson and Rogaly, 2005, p. 49).
The provision of support and advice for workplace problems is fragmented in
the UK, involving both statutory and voluntary-sector institutions, as well as
trade unions. The range has been summarised in Burkitt (2001). Research on
problems in accessing these for workers without collective trade union
support, as well as the increase in both the spread and complexity of
individual legal rights at work, is being undertaken by a project running in
tandem with this one (Pollert, 2005). In spite of the advice offered by
organisations such as Acas and the Citizens Advice Bureaux, problems
highlighted in the research are the difficulty of access to support, and
problems of enforcement of rights. The Citizens Advice Bureaux and other
advice organisations, as well as industrial relations academics, have proposed
32

that a need for a Labour Inspectorate, which unifies inspection and
enforcement, is becoming increasing relevant (Burkitt, 2001:18, Brown, 2004).
This project will contribute to the body of research on support and advice in
the area of EM employment, and will focus on how far those resources used
by the majority white working population are also used by EM workers, how
far these are trusted/distrusted or regarded as useful, and how far other
resources, whether ethnically/nationally or otherwise culturally based are
preferred.
33

6. Research aims and objectives
This is a qualitative research project to probe the experiences and problems
at work of migrant and EM workers in the Hotel and Catering industry. Its aims
are both to identify the range of experiences and problems encountered and
to gain a greater understanding of access to and use of support and advice to
resolve these problems. The main objective is to inform policy to improve
good-practice both in the sector and in areas of high EM employment more
widely, in order to prevent problems from arising, and to improve the support
and advice mechanisms available. The key target groups for these research
findings and policy objectives are thus employers, statutory bodies, the
voluntary sector, trade unions and community groups.
Among employers’ organisations, we will liaise with both sector-based
organisations, such as the British Hospitality Association, and EM business
bodies, such as the Asian Business Forum, in order to learn from their
experience, and provide evidence which illustrates how best to improve
practice. Statutory bodies include the CRE and the Acas Equality Service,
which has expanded the role of the former Race Relations Employment
Advisory Service to deal with all issues of equality and discrimination, in
response to the progressive unification of the legislation in this area. This
project will inform the private-sector advice work of the CRE and that of
Acas’s Equality Service, in providing free advice to organisations with 150 or
more employees to develop equality and diversity policies. In the voluntary
sector, the Citizens Advice Bureaux deal with all areas of employment
problems and rights, but also those associated with immigration and migrant
workers, and this research will contribute to its support role, as well as
contributing to and drawing from its growing research in this area. There are
many other bodies in the not-for-profit sector assisting workers with problems
at work, and part of the project’s aims are to identify these bodies, and explore
ways of disseminating findings with them. Many are also part of community
support groups, and the project will play a role in transmitting experiences and
information between these. The trade union movement has also been actively
involved in support and organisation among EM and migrant workers, as well
as commissioning research, and this project will both benefit from, and feed
into this activity.
The aim of providing evidence to these organisation based on qualitative
interviews across a range of workers is to gain in-depth insight into their
experiences of, and aspirations for, support and advice. While survey
research may quantify types of experiences, types of problems, types of
advice, and types of outcomes to problems, it cannot enter the evolution of
and inter-connections between issues. Yet understanding how experiences
develop and how they are perceived is vital to policy-making, and it is here
that this project will make an important contribution. Its strength in assisting
policy formation is in not only identifying tangible issues (the problems
themselves, for example), but also more elusive, subjective issues, such as
motivation, perceptions of opportunities and of rights, sense of inclusion,
integration and fairness – or their opposites – sense of frustration, alienation
and barriers to obtaining support and fairness at work. Policy needs to
address such issues, and needs to be based on real experiences. Qualitative
34

interviews are also best for examining complex processes, such as the links
between biography and work history and between residence, community,
migration or immigration experience and work issues.
6.1. Key questions
As well as exploring residence, migration and work histories, there are 12 key
research questions which are important to the aims of the project:
1. What type of problems do ethnic minority and migrant workers have
working in hotels and restaurants?
2. How do these compare to the problems generally affecting workers in the
sector and to what extent are they associated with particular labour-market
niches within the sector to which these workers are confined? If this is so,
to what extent is the insecurity of migrant status relevant, or is racial
discrimination relevant?
3. How much do ethnic minority and migrant workers in this sector know
about their rights at work, and how important is the enforcement of rights
to them?
4. How much do migrant workers know about their migration and
employment status and rights?
5. To what extent do ethnic minority and migrant workers in this sector
attempt to enforce their legal rights at work, or instead try to find ways to
achieve a sufficient income and manageable working conditions, even if
this means colluding with illegal employment practices?
about where to get advice and support for problems at work?
about where to get advice on migration/immigration status and work
permits?
8. Who do workers turn to for advice and support? To what extent do ethnic
minority and migrant workers in this sector use statutory (ie Acas, CRE),
voluntary (CABx, local advice agencies), trade union, community (groups
or informal contacts through ethnic networks) or informal (friends, family)
sources of support and advice?
9. What are the experiences of ethnic minority and migrant workers in this
sector of using all these sources of support and advice?
10.What barriers are there for ethnic minority and migrant workers in this
sector to accessing support and advice for workplace problems, and what
support and advice would they like?
35

11.What information is available to ethnic minority and migrant workers in this
sector when they start work about their rights at work and where to get
advice and support?
12.What other help are they given during their induction and first few weeks in
a job to enable them to remain successfully in the organisation?
The research will cover a range of experiences and highlight any differences
according to a range of variables which will add further insights for the
providers of support and advice. These are:
- gender
- ethnicity
- nationality
- age
- length of time in UK
- migration or immigration status
- location
- whether part of an ethnic community or isolated
- characteristics of employer, ie.
o sector (hotel/restaurant)
o small, medium or large business
o ethnicity
o family or other business
o workplace unionised or covered by collective bargaining
o workplace having formal consultation, disciplinary and grievance
procedures.
- type of employment, ie.
o permanent/fixed-term/temporary/casual
o length of service in work history
o self-employed/employee
o employed through agency or directly
o relationship to employer (i.e. family?)
o full-time/part-time
o occupation
- union membership
- experience of and attitudes towards unions.
6.2. The Advisory Group
The project will have an Advisory Group comprising key actors both from the
sector and from policy and advice bodies in the area of equality, diversity and
rights at work and citizens’ and human rights. The composition and terms of
reference of the Advisory Group can be found in the Appendix. A key role of
the Advisory Group is to provide advice on how the research can best achieve
its aims and objectives in improving support and advice. It will meet
approximately twice a year, and can thus assess progress. In addition, it will
help to establish key contacts in the selected EM, sub-sector and regions who
can provide entry into communities.
36

7. Project methodology
The project aims to capture a range of different experiences and examine
these in depth. The regional terms of reference for this European Social Fund
project confine this study to England. This still poses a major challenge in
terms of sample selection, since, as this paper shows, there are major
concentrations of EM population across the country. The criteria for selection
are outlined below.
7.1 The target communities
The fieldwork will be conducted in three English regions, London, the West
Midlands and the South West. This is to ensure that the research includes the
experiences of workers in large urban areas with significant ethnic minority
populations who may benefit from community support, as well as those in
areas with smaller ethnic minority or migrant populations who may be more
isolated. Initial contact with key actors and researchers in these areas include:
• County or Borough Council Equality Officers
• Regional Race Equality Councils
• National and local trade unions
• Ethnic Minority business forums
• Contacts through the Advisory Group.
7.2 Interviews
7.2.1 Individual worker interviews
Just over 50 interviews will be conducted: 25 in London, 15 in the Midlands
and 15 in the South West.
We will establish a semi-structured interview schedule, which will allow broad
scope for work-history narrative, while probing the key questions outlined
above (6.1). This will be developed and refined incrementally, with
experience. Where language permits, it is proposed that the key researcher
on this project will conduct the major part of the interviewing, to maintain
control over content. However, issues of trust will probably mean that key
community contacts will also be involved, at least initially4
. Where interviews
are conducted in the native language, we shall be experimental. One
approach is for a member of the core team plus a native speaker to interview
together, with interpretation, although checking meanings remains a problem.
In all cases, interviews will be taped and notes taken.
Translation and transcription will be conducted as the research develops.
Whether or not transcription, or simply listening to and writing up the tapes, is
best assessed as the project proceeds. Experience shows that the fresher the
interview when it is written up, the better.
4
Research by Turnstone Research and Consultancy for ACAS on ethnic minority small businesses used
community based recruiters – advice workers, youth workers, welfare officers etc. Research by UNL on the
Minimum Wage in North London in 2001 included interviews with 12 community organisations, identified by the
local authority and Voluntary Action Councils.
37

7.2.2. Group interviews
Where feasible and where the opportunity arises, we will conduct Group
Interviews with employees. These will provide some indication of group
dynamics, the existence of EM and language enclaves, and views from these
groups of who are perceived as ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ in a work context.
7.2.3. Employer and key informant interviews
To provide additional contextual information, there will also be interviews with
key informants with experience of the sector. Employers will be interviewed
wherever possible, regarding their employment policies, any problems they
may face and support/advice they receive. In particular, problems in
accessing support and advice on employment rights and equality and diversity
policies will be examined. Equal opportunities polices and practice will also be
addressed.
In addition, employer or trade union representatives, as well as community
organisations that represent workers from particular ethnic groups or
nationalities will be interviewed. It could also be useful to interview
representatives of organisations providing support and advice, such as Acas,
the CRE or CABx, and Equality Officers.
7.3 Possible recruitment strategy
As noted in 6 above, the research design does not include a representative
sample of workers in the sector, but rather aims to provide in-depth accounts
of experience that reflect significant issues for workers in the sector. However,
in order to ensure that a range of experience is included, the interview
participants could be selected using some of the following criteria:
Gender – approx 50/50 male/female split
Ethnicity – define key groups in each region, and compare with LFS figs for
sector, and highlight any possible interesting/emerging groups
Time in UK – include British-born EM, recent migrants and settled migrants
Age – include older and young workers
Size of employer – include large employers/chains and small
independent/family run businesses
Sector – hotels and restaurants (including fast food/sandwich shops, if
appropriate)
Employment status – casual and permanent workers (also agency and directly
employed?), and full-time/part-time
Unionisation – possibly set maximum who are in unions? (only 5% of sector
overall)
38

Occupation – range of jobs, ie. managers, chefs, hotel receptionists, kitchen
and catering assistants, waiting staff, cleaners, administration
7.4. Analysis
The qualitative interviews will be analysed thematically. At present, it is not
envisaged that qualitative computer packages will be used, as experience
shows that ‘conventional’ analysis of qualitative material, in which the themes
are explored both in terms of those which have been introduced as the design
stage of the project, as well as those which emerge as the interviews evolved,
seems most sensitive and successful.
39

Ethnic Minority Workers in the Hotel and Catering Industry

Ethnic Minority Workers in the Hotel and Catering Industry

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Destacado

Destacado (6)

Similar a Ethnic Minority Workers in the Hotel and Catering Industry

Similar a Ethnic Minority Workers in the Hotel and Catering Industry (20)

Más de Think Ethnic

Más de Think Ethnic (20)

Último

Último (20)

Ethnic Minority Workers in the Hotel and Catering Industry