Search

This article contributes to debates on equality, diversity and inclusion by exploring the efficacy of employers' equality certifications, focusing on the UK government's Two Ticks and Disability Confident certifications. In Study 1, using data on Two Ticks certification matched into the nationally representative Workplace Employment Relations Study 2011, we found the adoption of disability equality policies and practices, the prevalence of disabled people in the workforce and disabled people's experience of work were no better in Two Ticks than in non‐Two Ticks workplaces. In Study 2, using Department for Work and Pensions data on Disability Confident certification matched into WorkL 2021–2023 data (the world's largest employee experience database), we found that the proportion of the workforce that is disabled is no higher in Disability Confident Level 1 'Committed' organisations and Level 3 'Leader' organisations than in non‐Disability Confident organisations. While the proportion of the workforce that is disabled is higher in Disability Confident Level 2 'Employer' organisations than in non‐Disability Confident organisations, just 22 per cent of Disability Confident organisations are at this level. Disabled people's experience of work was no better in Disability Confident than in non‐Disability Confident organisations. Our findings therefore question the efficacy of these employers' equality certifications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Integrating literature on small firm informality and organizational growth and development into Stone and Colella's model of the workplace treatment of disabled individuals, we assess prior claims that disability employment outcomes are better in large firms than in small and medium‐sized firms. Drawing on the principle of equifinality, we propose disability employment outcomes (workforce disability prevalence and disability gaps in contentment and job satisfaction) will not vary by firm size, given both the formalized approach of large firms (disability equality practices, HR specialists, and union recognition), and the more informal approach of small firms (greater job autonomy, a stronger fairness culture, better work‐life balance, and single‐site operations with closer personal relationships) may have benefits for disabled people. Analyzing nationally representative matched employer–employee data, we show that, as anticipated, formalized approaches are more prevalent in large firms (and to an extent medium‐sized firms) and informal approaches are more prevalent in small firms, and disability employment outcomes do not vary by firm size. However, this appears to reflect the ineffectiveness (rather than effectiveness) of characteristics and practices associated with both large firm formality and small firm informality, with both being weakly associated with better disability employment outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper assesses disabled employees' likelihood of working from home relative to non‐disabled employees, and the implications of doing so for their experiences of work. Analysing British nationally representative data, the findings suggest that disabled employees are less likely to work from home than non‐disabled employees, given they are disproportionately excluded from the higher‐paying and/or managerial roles in which working from home is more widely available. In addition, organizations in which working from home is more commonplace do not employ a higher proportion of disabled people. The results also confirm disabled employees report poorer experiences of work than non‐disabled employees regarding job control, job‐related mental health, job satisfaction and work–life balance. Although working from home is positively associated with these outcomes (except for work–life balance) for both disabled and non‐disabled employees, there is very little evidence it is associated with smaller disability gaps in these outcomes. Therefore, our analysis questions the potential for working from home to reduce disability disadvantage within organizations, and highlights the need for more substantial action to address the barriers to employment that disabled people encounter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Teamworking developments in the iron and steel industry potentially have far-reaching implications for steelworkers' occupational culture. The traditional seniority-based crew system is examined and is shown to have exerted a considerable influence in shaping the occupational culture in steel. Recent changes in work organisation are discussed, including the nature of teamworking developments at two steel plants. The authors conclude that the changes could further undermine the extant occupational culture in steel. At the same time, while management are looking to teamworking partly as a means to increase worker commitment, ironically the removal of crew hierarchies may entail the loss of a past source of moderation and cooperation among the steel-workers. Teamworking could even create a ne basis of worker solidarity, absent when steel workers were differently positioned within separate work crews.

Using unique questions introduced into the 2011 British Workplace Employment Relations Study, a detailed matched employee–employer survey, this article compares disabled and non‐disabled employees' experience of the 2008–2009 recession to contribute a cyclical perspective on disability‐related disadvantage at work. We find that disabled employees are more likely to report recession‐induced changes to workload, work organization, wages and access to training, even after controlling for personal, job and workplace characteristics. There is limited evidence that workplace equality characteristics moderate these relationships to protect disabled employees. These findings have particular resonance in the context of the COVID‐19 recession. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article assesses whether job insecurity is higher in leveraged buyouts (LBOs) than elsewhere. It draws on matched employer‐employee data from the British 2011 Workplace Employment Relations Study linked to data from the Centre for Management Buyout Research. The analysis finds no consistent evidence of higher job insecurity in LBOs as measured by workforce reduction practices (redundancy rates, job security/no‐compulsory redundancies policies and redundancy consultation), dismissal rates, labour use practices (non‐permanent employment contracts and outsourcing) and employees' job security perceptions. Job insecurity is no higher in either current or former LBOs than elsewhere. Contrary to what might be expected, it is also no higher in private equity (PE)‐backed LBOs, management buy‐ins or high‐debt LBOs and there is only partial and weak evidence of higher job insecurity in short‐hold LBOs. Job insecurity is also no higher in perfect storm LBOs (PE‐backed management buy‐ins that are short‐holds with high‐debt). Concerns over the negative implications of LBOs for job security thus appear misplaced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article seeks to identify whether employee perceptions of job quality are better in instances where an onsite union representative is present. It also seeks to identify whether the relationship between onsite representative presence and job quality is explained by employee perceptions of union collective voice. The analysis, based on a survey of union members in the UK finance sector, demonstrates that employee perceptions of several dimensions of job quality are better where an onsite representative is present, and that this can be explained by the higher perceptions of union collective voice that onsite representatives engender. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]