institute for employment studies

publications by IES authors

Employers’ Use of Migrant Labour
Main report

Dench S, Hurstfield J, Hill D, Akroyd K
RDS Online Report 04/06, Home Office, March 2006

a study commissioned by the Home Office

The Home Office commissioned IES to conduct research into the recruitment and employment of migrant workers in the UK. This research formed part of the preparation for change from the current economic migration system to the new points-based system. The focus of the study was on economic migrants – people who come to this country primarily to work, rather than asylum seekers or refugees. Data were collected between April and August 2005.

The aims of the report were to provide:

• in-depth understanding of the reasons employers use (or avoid) migrant worker schemes
• exploration of underlying attitudes towards migrant labour in general
• analysis of actual recruitment and employment activities
• feedback on the proposed points-based system.

The study was commissioned during development of the government’s five-year strategy for asylum and immigration, so the focus of the study also included employers’ views of the new proposals. Both low- and high-skilled migrant workers were considered and there was additional interest in illegal working and exploitation.

Method

A qualitative methodology was adopted involving face-to-face, in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 124 employers across London, East Anglia and north-east England in five employment sectors (construction; administration, business and management; finance and accountancy; hotels and catering; and agriculture). In addition, 20 interviews were held with labour providers and representatives of trade unions and employer organisations.

Findings

The main findings of this research are given below. It should be noted that they only represent the views of those interviewed in this small sample, which is not evenly distributed across sector, geographical area and size. Findings cannot therefore be taken as representative of all employers. However, the research has successfully identified many issues that are important to employers.

The profile of the migrant workforce

Migrants were mainly employed on a permanent, full-time basis and were students and/or aged in their twenties or thirties. The gender distribution was similar to that among existing employees in the organisation as a whole, as was migrant-worker pay and terms and conditions. The countries from which migrants were recruited varied by sector. The extent of on-the-job training and induction varied according to the sector and the English-language proficiency required for the job.

The length of time migrant workers remained in the UK varied according to scheme and sector, some making repeat visits to the UK through the ‘seasonal agricultural workers scheme’ (SAWS) or the ‘worker registration scheme’ (WRS). Migrants in more highly skilled jobs could stay several years, depending on the nature of the job. Most employers were uncertain of the destinations of those who left them.

The importance of migrant workers

Employers interviewed in this research reported relying to a considerable extent on migrant workers, particularly in the low-skill sectors. Employers across all sectors agreed numbers had increased over the past five years. Migrant workers have become an important source of labour, sometimes preferred over domestic (UK) workers, particularly in the agricultural, hotels and catering and low-skill parts of the administration, business and management sectors. Employers believed that businesses would suffer or could not survive without migrant labour. In the high-skill sectors studied – particularly administration, business and management, and finance – migrant workers were less crucial to business than in the low-skill sectors.

Employers of low-skilled workers reported that labour shortages were a primary reason for recruiting foreign workers. They had tried hard initially (through Jobcentres, local adverts etc.) to attract domestic workers but they were unwilling to take these posts, as often the conditions, pay, hours or nature of the work were unfavourable to them and migrants were more amenable to these conditions. Recruitment difficulties amongst domestic workers were less widespread in the high-skill finance and accountancy sector and were due to specific skills shortages, rather than labour shortages.

Employers cited advantages of migrant workers in terms of their general attitude and work ethic. They tended to be more motivated, reliable and committed than domestic workers. For example, migrants were said to be more likely to: demonstrate lower turnover and absenteeism; be prepared to work longer and flexible hours; be satisfied with their duties and hours of work; and work harder in terms of productivity and speed. In the view of some employers, the more favourable work ethic of migrant workers encouraged domestic workers to work harder. Migrants had also widened the horizons of domestic workers by helping them understand more about other cultures. Migrant workers’ greater commitment was a result of their motivations: they wanted to learn English or send money to families at home. Employers also suggested that migrant labour assisted economic growth and meant an overall increase in job vacancies.

For many employers, language barriers were the only disadvantage they could think of to employing migrant workers (understanding health and safety procedures was sometimes a specific concern). Some employers overcame the language barrier either by using fellow workers as translators, or by deliberately placing migrant workers among English-speaking workers so that they could acquire English language skills. A few larger employers ran English classes, and some smaller employers provided employees with language training.

Some employers cited difficulties for migrant workers in integrating with English staff and workers from other countries. However, many employers claimed that they actively encouraged integration and racial intolerance was not accepted.

Recruitment and selection of migrant workers

Generally across all sectors employers expressed no real preference for either migrant or domestic workers (despite the advantages cited). Many argued that they simply reacted to the pool of available labour and sought to recruit the best qualified applicants, regardless of nationality.

There was little, if any, variation between the characteristics that employers were looking for in migrant workers compared to domestic workers (as they were both required to fill the same type of job). The only difference was that migrants were more prepared to accept certain jobs. The importance of good English, previous work experience and qualifications varied between employment sectors and the nature of the job.

The use of different migration routes to the UK (‘schemes’)

The use of migrant worker schemes varied between sector and job type. Employers in the agriculture sector had the greatest awareness of schemes – particularly the SAWS. It was highly praised by a number of employers as effective, efficient and flexible. There was less use of and awareness about other schemes, such as the ‘sectors-based scheme’ (SBS), and lack of knowledge about how they all operated.

WRS was well known and used by employers but there was dissatisfaction with its demanding administration procedures, costly fees for the migrants and difficulties in verifying documentation. Employers expressed particular concern that over time, when the economies of the accession states improved, the supply of WRS workers would fall. They therefore saw a need to retain immigration schemes for acquiring low-skilled migrant labour, being worried that phasing out SAWS and other low-skill schemes would affect their business.

A large number of migrant workers, especially for skilled jobs, entered the UK by work permit. Work permits allow migrants to be recruited for relatively long periods and this was seen as a particular attraction. However, across all sectors, applying for work permits was considered to be time-consuming, frustrating and bureaucratic, with no guarantee of success.

Illegal working

It was assumed that those who were employing workers illegally were unlikely to take part in this research, and covert research methods were not used. The information reported is therefore based on respondents’ perceptions and is not necessarily an accurate picture of the overall situation among UK employers generally. Some employers expressed no knowledge of illegal working, whereas others actually were or had been recruiting illegally. This was reportedly owing to their ignorance about registration procedures and their responsibilities as employers. While many employers said they made careful checks on employees, expressing concern over fines and possible repercussions, some found that the procedures were too time-consuming to deal with and sometimes ‘turned a blind eye’ to workers of unknown legality.

Many employers recruited through agencies. Some employers assumed agencies made appropriate checks, and other employers asked the agency for evidence of appropriate checks. Some employers reported that they were regularly approached by agencies with suspiciously large numbers of migrant workers.

Illegal working was generally thought of as more of an issue for low-skill jobs, particularly within smaller employers and in less regulated sectors.

Exploitation

There was a mixed picture concerning the extent of migrant worker exploitation. There were anecdotal reports of migrant workers receiving lower pay than domestic workers, experiencing long hours, poor conditions and few employee rights. Many of these reports related to the practices of labour providers and were concentrated in low-skill jobs. The vast majority however, insisted that they employed migrant workers on the same pay, terms and conditions as domestic workers in the same jobs.

The proposed points-based system

Comments from employers on the proposed points-based system were generally positive and reflected overall support. Most felt happy to model the UK system on seemingly effective systems from Canada, Australia and New Zealand. There were concerns expressed over flexibility and responsiveness to need within the new system, particularly for low-skilled workers. Employers also felt that sponsorship was too much of a burden and difficult to carry out successfully. They often did not know where employees went after leaving their employment and did not feel they had any influence over whether migrants returned home or not. A number also queried potentially excessive charges and required further clarification in terms of what the charges would be for. Overall, however, employers hoped the new system would prevent abuse and stop increases in illegal labour.

Conclusion

It is generally accepted that the UK economy relies on a significant number of skilled migrant workers who enter the UK largely through the general work-permit route. However, this study shows that UK employers also place considerable reliance on low-skilled migrants. Many employers in both high- and low-skill sectors did not explicitly set out to recruit migrant workers; rather they employed from the pool of labour available to them. If domestic workers were not available to them, then they employed migrant workers. Employers were however keen to employ those most highly qualified and experienced, regardless of nationality.

Migrant workers were considered by employers to have a number of advantages, most notably their work ethic that employers found more acceptable. They were often cited as harder working, more reliable and motivated than domestic workers. In some cases, they also had positive impacts on the domestic workforce. Without them, some businesses in the low-skill sector claimed that they would not survive. Disadvantages in employing migrant workers involved language difficulties but a number of employers believed that such problems could be overcome.

The current immigration system for migrant workers to enter the UK was perceived by employers as difficult to understand and complicated to use. Despite expressing some concerns, the proposal for a simpler points-based system was generally welcomed. Employers supported a less complicated, time-consuming and effective development which would prevent abuse within the immigration system and allow them to employ the workers they need.

Employers’ Use of Migrant Labour: Main report, Dench S, Hurstfield J, Hill D, Akroyd K. RDS Online Report 04/06, Home Office, 2006.
ISBN: 978-1-84473-889-2. £free

• How to obtain this publication