Search

Service employment plays an increasingly important role in the UK economy. However, it has been suggested that some forms of service work are unattractive for many unemployed job seekers, and particularly those formerly employed in 'traditional' sectors. The argument has been made that these job seekers and others may be reluctant to pursue the type of positions that have become known as 'McJobs' - de-skilled, entry-level service jobs which often offer poor pay and conditions. This article examines whether there is such a reluctance amongst job seekers to pursue service work and whether it differs between job seeker groups. It also compares differences in job seekers' attitudes towards entry-level work in three areas of the service sector- retail, hospitality and teleservicing or'call centre work'. The analysis is based upon a survey of 300 registered unemployed people in Scotland. A substantial minority of respondents ruled out entry-level service work in retail and hospitality under any circumstances. Older men, those seeking relatively high weekly wages and those without experience of service work (and who perceived themselves to lack the necessary skills) were particularly reluctant to consider these jobs. Differences between job seekers were much less apparent in relation to attitudes to call centre work, which was more unpopular than other service occupations across almost all groups, The article concludes that policy action may be required to encourage job seekers to consider a broader range of vacancies and to provide financial and personal support for those making the transition into work in the service economy. However on the demand side, service employers must seek to 'abolish the McJob', by ensuring that even entry-level positions offer realistic salaries, decent work conditions and opportunities for personal development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study investigated sustainability and multimorbidity alongside barriers to employment including health and policy to demonstrate intersectional impact on return-to-work success within a UK welfare-to-work programme., Design: Cohort study design: The study calculated the proportion of time spent employed after experiencing a job start and the proportion retaining work over 6 months. Employment/unemployment periods were calculated, sequence-index plots were produced and visualisations were explored by benefit type and age., Setting: This study used confidential access to deidentified data from unemployed Work Programme clients operated by Ingeus on behalf of the UK Government in Scotland between 1 April 2013 and 31 July 2014., Participants: 13 318 unemployed clients aged 18-64 years were randomly allocated to a Work Programme provider and monitored over 2 years., Results: This study has two distinct groupings. 'Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)' corresponding to those with work-limiting disability in receipt of related state financial support, and 'Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA)' corresponding to unemployment claimants. Despite fewer and later job starts for ESA clients, those that gained employment spend relatively more subsequent time in employment when compared with individuals without work-limiting conditions (ESA clients under 50, 0.73; ESA clients over 50, 0.79; JSA clients under 50, 0.67 and JSA clients over 50, 0.68). Proportion in permanent jobs was higher among ESA than JSA clients (JSA under 50, 92%; JSA over 50, 92%; ESA under 50, 95% and ESA over 50, 97%)., Conclusion: The research demonstrated that returning to paid employment after a reliance on welfare benefits is challenging for people aged over 50 and those with disability. The study found that although fewer older ESA claimants entered employment, they typically remained in employment more than JSA clients who did not leave the Work Programme early. This indicates the importance of identifying risk factors for job loss in ageing workers and the development of interventions for extension of working lives., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)