A sociological investigation of underemployment and the lived experiences of underemployed workers

该项目将解决社会面临的最重要的问题之一：由于产业变化、2008年经济衰退和新冠肺炎大流行而导致的就业不足、弱势工人增加。我们的工作方式正在发生变化，有可能带来更高的效率和福祉，但也有更大的早熟和不平等(Beck等人，2020；Schwab，2016)。劳动力市场破裂的短期和长期影响导致就业不足螺旋式上升(劳工组织，2020年)，因为雇主寻求保护利润和/或业务。与此同时，英国脱欧后的人员和技能短缺、某些部门的工作性质不稳定以及休假的影响，给工人带来了进一步的风险和不安全，但也有可能改变就业和工作条件。就业不足和工作人员短缺并存，使这项调查与政策制定者和从业人员相关。我们的目标是了解劳动力市场变化对就业不足的影响、社会不平等对就业不足脆弱性的影响以及后者对不平等的影响，并利用与政策制定者和从业者讨论的强劲结果，确定如何缓解这一问题。在这个过程中，就业是摆脱贫困的最佳途径，任何工作都比没有工作好的政策口头禅受到了挑战。在工作时间、技能使用和工资(HSW)方面发展高质量的就业至关重要，因为每7名食品银行用户中就有1人(主要是兼职)有工作，在大流行期间问题加剧(Trussell Trust，2019、2021)。政府的主要数据夸大了创纪录的就业人数，但掩盖了当代劳动力市场的复杂性。在大流行之前，近100万(2.7%)英国工人从事非自愿兼职工作，5.2%的人喜欢更长的工作时间(贝尔和布兰奇弗劳尔，2013,2019年)。在疫情最严重的时候，几乎三分之一在英国从事兼职工作的男性表示，他们这样做是因为找不到全职工作(Torres等人)。2021年)。对于目前的工作，30%至51%的员工资历过高，37%的员工技能过高(CIPD，2018)。在职贫困影响了13%的劳动力，18%的低收入工人希望增加工作时间(JRF，2019年)。低收入工人受到疫情影响的打击最大，面临着工作不稳定、生活成本上升和经济困难的风险增加(Warren等人，2021年)。就业不再等同于全职、充足、有保障或良好的工作。就业不足的蔓延和潜在的激增引发了人们对这一概念有限的理论和经验理解的担忧。供给侧经济学和心理学观点(Dooley，2003；Mousteri et al，2020)主导了辩论，并强调个人的选择和偏好。我们提出的研究创新性地将理解转向了社会学视角，聚焦于就业不足的生活经历。这种转变很重要，因为获得体面、有报酬的就业机会并不是均匀分配的。例如，妇女(Kamerade和Richardson，2018年；Bond等人，2009年；McQuaid等人，2010年)、年轻/老年工人(Beck，2015；Beck和Williams，2015)以及工人阶级(Warren，2015)更容易就业不足。通过探索生活经历的范围，可以调查就业不足的原因和后果。费尔德曼(1996)和杜利(2003)警告了未充分就业工人的工作保障、收入、福祉和社会地位面临的风险。本项目涉及的主要知识差距包括：社会不平等如何改变工人及其家庭就业不足的结果；就业不足各项指标(工时、工资、技能)的趋势及其综合影响；以及就业不足如何影响劳资关系体系、雇主和企业、商业模式、工会、社区、政策制定者及其做法，特别是考虑到新冠肺炎、英国退欧和经济衰退。

This project will address one of the most important issues facing society: the increase in underemployed, vulnerable workers resulting from industrial changes, the 2008 recession, and the Covid-19 pandemic. How we work is changing, with potential to deliver greater efficiency and wellbeing, but also greater precarity and inequality (Beck et al, 2020; Schwab, 2016). Short- and longer-term effects of labour market ruptures have seen underemployment spiral upwards (ILO, 2020) as employers seek to protect profits and/or business. At the same time, staff and skills shortages in the wake of Brexit; the precarious nature of work in some sectors; and the effects of furloughing provide further risk and insecurity for workers but also potential for changes in employment and working conditions. The coexistence of underemployment and staff shortages makes this investigation relevant to policy makers and practitioners. We aim to understand impacts of labour market changes on underemployment, the ways that social inequalities affect vulnerability to underemployment and the effect of the latter on inequalities, and, utilising robust results in discussions with policy makers and practitioners, identify how this can be mitigated. In the process, the reoccurring policy mantra that employment is the best way out of poverty and that any job is better than no job is challenged. Developing good quality employment in hours, skill use, and wages (HSW) is crucial because 1 in 7 food bank users are (mainly part time) employed, with problems deepening during the pandemic (Trussell Trust, 2019, 2021). Headline government figures extol record numbers in employment but disguise the complexity of the contemporary labour market. Before the pandemic, nearly a million (2.7%) UK workers were in involuntary part-time jobs, with 5.2% preferring more hours (Bell and Blanchflower, 2013, 2019). At the height of the pandemic, almost a third of men working part-time in the UK said that they were doing so because they could not find a full-time job (Torres et al. 2021). Between 30 and 51% of employees were overqualified and 37% overskilled for their current job (CIPD, 2018). In-work poverty affected 13% of the workforce, with 18% of low-paid workers wanting more hours (JRF, 2019). Low paid workers were hit hardest by the fallout of the pandemic, facing increasing risks of precarious work, rising living costs and financial hardship (Warren et al, 2021). Employment no longer equals full-time, sufficient, secure or good work. The spread and potential upsurge of underemployment raises concerns about limited theoretical and empirical understandings of this concept. Supply-side economic and psychological perspectives (Dooley, 2003; Mousteri et al, 2020) dominate debates and emphasise individual choices and preferences. Our proposed research innovatively shifts understanding towards a sociological perspective focused on lived experiences of underemployment. This shift is important because access to decent, paid employment is not evenly distributed. For example, women (Kamerade and Richardson, 2018; Bond et al, 2009; McQuaid et al., 2010), younger/older workers (Beck, 2015; Beck and Williams, 2015), and the working-class (Warren, 2015) are more vulnerable to underemployment. Exploring the range of lived experiences allows an investigation into the causes and consequences of underemployment. Feldman (1996) and Dooley (2003) warned of risks for underemployed workers' job security, incomes, well-being and social standing. Key knowledge gaps addressed in this project include ways in which social inequalities alter outcomes of underemployment for workers and their families; trends in each indicator of underemployment (hours, wages, skills), their combined effects, and how underemployment affects industrial relations systems, employers and businesses, business models, unions, communities, policymakers and their practices, especially given Covid-19, Brexit and recessions.