The uncertain future of good work

Covid-19 has disrupted much of what we thought we knew about the future of work, and added new questions and challenges, particularly when we think about the future of good work.

Pre-Covid, speculations on the future of work had some common threads: automation would eliminate or change some tasks; some roles would alter dramatically or even disappear; atypical ways of working would continue to grow; and workers would need to get used to the idea that their ‘career’ would change several times during their life. Many of these forces looked likely to affect those in lower paid, less secure work, both fastest, and most severely.

Definitions of good work were also broadly in agreement: a decent wage; secure or at least predictable contracts and working hours; flexibility for workers as well as employers; a safe working environment; opportunities to learn and progress; and tasks and objectives that felt meaningful. There was a gathering momentum on many of these aspects before the pandemic, but this has been slowed or complicated by Covid-19, and in many cases we can see how the economic impact of Covid is exacerbating the existing problems of bad jobs.

Firstly, who is most likely to find their job at risk in the coming months. Furlough has kept people connected to the labour market, and no doubt stopped some employers from going under and their employees facing unemployment in a deep recession. But it also means we don’t know how bad unemployment will get over the winter, or exactly which types of jobs and sectors are going to be worst hit. JRF has just published a study with their predictions: the lowest paid, non-key workers are the most likely to lose their jobs. 40% of those on the minimum wage are at high risk of losing their job due to Covid impacts, compared to 1% of those earning over £41,500 / year. Those already disadvantaged in the labour market – women, those with disabilities, young people and some BAME workers – are more likely to have highly at-risk jobs.

One of the factors in JRF’s risk index is the level of human contact involved: the higher the rate of contact, the higher the risk of job loss. Many of these types of jobs, for example in hospitality or social and health care, are also those where workers have little control over their hours or location of work, or autonomy about how they carry them out. They therefore cannot be adapted to provide more Covid security, they cannot be done from home or at times to suit the worker. For those jobs that survive the recession and restructuring of the economy, this lack of flexibility and therefore higher risk to workers’ health, will remain.

In order to survive, businesses are having to adapt how they work, perhaps trying to respond to changing demand by altering their operating hours. There might be an increase in short-term or zero hours contracts, with the associated lack of ‘benefits’ such sick pay, paid holiday, and flexible working. The impact of this on their employees could be devastating. Drastically reduced hours means lower income; regularly changeable hours means difficulty budgeting, planning childcare, and having a life outside of work. If schedules are planned by automated systems, as Cathy O’Neil describes it can be impossible. No sick pay means a stark choice between continuing to work when unwell, endangering the worker and others’ health, or severe financial insecurity.

In some sectors and roles, Covid appears to be hastening job changes and job loss due to automation. The pressures to reduce running costs, find new, Covid-safe ways of working, and respond to changing consumer preferences, has prompted some businesses to invest in new technologies more quickly than they may have done otherwise. Tasks such as cleaning, data processing and warehouse picking and packing were already undergoing technological transformation, but there is increasing evidence that the pace has picked up due to the pandemic.

Some sectors and businesses are suffering now but may bounce back if and when Covid is brought under control; others may be damaged irreparably. How workers are able to respond may depend on the quality of the job they are in. Lower paid workers are less likely to be offered training, and in many cases have been stuck in their low paid role for many years; their opportunity to develop skills and competencies is limited compared to those in better paid, higher quality work, which may in turn affect how easily they can find a new, decent job.

For those that struggle, or who cannot find work that pays enough to live on, the conditions and sanctions of Universal Credit await. Despite widespread criticism, the pause on conditionality for UC claimants was ended in the summer, meaning they can have their payments stopped for periods of months or even years if they are deemed not to comply with DWP requirements. In the most severe recession we’ve had for years, with the magnitude of job losses to come, this is indefensible, and will no doubt push those in low paid work further into difficulty.

Covid has undoubtedly shone new light on poor quality, low paid jobs, and brought some much-needed public attention to the issues. But it has also exacerbated many of them, and added new complexities and challenges for those trying to push the good jobs agenda forward.

(c) Anna Dent 2020. I provide social research, policy analysis and development, writing and expert opinion, and project development in Good Work and the Future of Work / In-Work Poverty and Progression / Welfare benefits / Ethical technology / Skills / Inclusive growth