Adding insult to injury: how work-life pressures affect the participation of low-paid workers in vocational education and training.

• Author: Pocock, Barbara
• Position: Contributed Article - Survey

Abstract

This paper applies a work-life lens to examine the barriers and challenges confronting low-paid workers in their participation in vocational education and training. It utilises data from a large national survey of Australian workers, as well as qualitative material arising from interviews and focus groups amongst workers, students, and industry representatives in the retail, food processing, and aged-care industries. The findings illustrate how money and time pressures constrain the participation of low-paid workers in vocational education, and how these particularly affect low-paid women. Implications for policy are discussed.

1. Introduction

   There is a large research literature on the economic benefits of education and training for both employees and employers in terms of income, job quality and productivity (see Grimshaw 2011 for a review). Underneath these broad patterns lies significant complexity, and a number of studies have addressed the circumstances under which education and training have a greater or lesser impact on outcomes such as wages and occupational status, characteristics of the individual (for example age and prior level of education), and firm (size, industry, and wage policies), and country-level labour market circumstances such as wage regulations and the predominance of low-paid work in the national economy (Grimshaw 2011; Hansson 2009).

   The observation that organisational context (for example occupation, industry, firm size and job type) can influence the willingness and capacity to engage in work-related education and training is particularly important, as not all jobs are created equal with regard to support and opportunity for such activities. In this paper, we examine engagement in education and training in a specific occupational context, which is individuals in low-paid and (or) low-skilled jobs, such as cleaning, social and personal services, production line and manual processing work, transport, hospitality and retail customer service (Grimshaw 2011). Specifically, we examine low-paid workers' views and experiences with regard to engaging in work-related training, perceived benefits, and the push and pull factors influencing such participation. We apply a work-life lens to our analysis, which recognises that the experience of work and how it shapes opportunity and capacity to engage in education and training is significantly influenced by gender and other non-work responsibilities such as parenting and caring responsibilities (Pocock 2005).

2. Literature Review

   There are good reasons to focus on low-paid workers. The challenges of low-paid work to financial security, quality of life, health and family well-being are well documented (Burton, Lein and Kolak 2005; Gautie and Schmitt 2010; Masterman-Smith and Pocock 2008). Therefore, low-paid workers arguably have the most to gain, and perhaps also the most to lose, from their investment of time, energy and (sometimes) money into education and training. Furthermore, a prominent discourse in research and the public political domain is that low-paid jobs are temporary stepping stones to higher-paid, better-quality jobs. From a social justice and equity perspective, therefore, research examining low-paid workers' experiences with education and training and the outcomes of this engagement is of particular importance.

   Studies of the job and wage mobility that education and training provide to low-paid workers are mixed, with some demonstrating a positive impact and others showing little benefit (Hansson 2009). There is a range of contextual factors that may explain such mixed results. Differences in the flexibility and permeability of the labour market have a significant impact on whether workers become trapped in low-level positions, or can use them as stepping stones to higher-paid and better-quality work (Scherer 2004). There is evidence that those who already have substantial human capital (intermediate or higher levels of education) are more likely to gain a wage benefit from training and are less likely to be trapped in low-paid jobs (Pavlopoulos, Muffels and Vermunt 2009; Sloane and Theodossiou 2000).

   Others have challenged the universality of the assumption of career ladders being available to all workers, whether in internal or external labour markets (Goos and Manning 2007; Mosthaf, Schnabel and Stephani 2011; Rainbird 2007). In a competitive marketplace many employers adopt a strategy of minimising labour costs, especially for low-level jobs, which includes minimising investments in education and training (Appelbaum, Bernhardt and Murnane 2003; Bernhardt et al. 2001). Bernhardt et al. refer to the problem of the 'disappearing middle', where there are low-paying jobs and high-paying jobs, but no middle ground or pathways between poorly and well-paid positions--a phenomenon they describe as 'the stickiness' of low-paid work (p.164).

   For all workers, but especially for low-paid workers, it is apparent that there is not a simple or direct relationship between participation in education and training and outcomes such as better-paid and higher-quality employment. Even in circumstances where there may be a benefit, the nature of low-paid work makes it very difficult for many workers, especially women, to engage in education or training.

   The difficulties adult learners experience in their attempts to combine paid work, family life and study have been the subject of a number of studies, mostly focused on participation in higher education. Time poverty and financial strains are common for working parents who a re trying to combine study, low-paid work and parenting (Alsop, Gonzalez-Arnal and Kilkey 2008; Lowe and Gayle 2007; Marandet and Wainwright 2009; Reay, Ball and David 2002). Conflicting and competing time and emotional demands between work and family responsibilities are particularly salient for working mothers (Alsop, Gonzalez-Arnal and Kilkey 2008; Daniels 2010; Edwards 1993; Reay, Ball and David 2002), as women commonly have primary responsibility for, and spend the most time on, care and domestic work (Budlender 2010; Sayer et al. 2009).

   These work-life difficulties are likely to be magnified when individuals are employed in low-paid occupations. Low-paid work is likely to create strains and difficulties in the 'struggle to juggle' work and family responsibilities (Masterman-Smith and Pocock 2008; Perry-Jenkins 2005; Swanberg 2005), which makes it very difficult to fit in additional activities such as education and training, especially if there are requirements for out-of-hours study or preparation. For low-paid workers, additional pressures of transport and geographic accessibility can limit choice and create additional time and financial demands associated with travel (Alsop, Gonzalez-Arnal and Kilkey 2008; Reay, Ball and David 2002). Work schedules a re often less flexible (Moss, Salzman and Tilly 2005; Perry-Jenkins 2005), often involve early mornings or evening work (Perry-Jenkins 2005; Presser 2003), and have poorer paid-leave provisions such as paid parental leave and other entitlements to support combining work and care (Boushey et al. 2007; Perry-Jenkins 2005). Financially, low-paid workers are less likely to have access to key resources such as childcare, especially services available out of hours that suit shift workers (Breitkreuz, Williamson and Raine 2010; Presser 2003).

   Unpredictable work demands are also common in industries where low-paid workers are concentrated, such as retail, hospitality, personal and care services, and manufacturing. Finally, from a work-life perspective it is also important to observe that low-paid work is highly feminised. Women are disproportionally represented in low-skilled and (or) low-wage work such as retail, personal and care services, and cleaning (Grimshaw 2011). Women are also more likely to work part-time, and hence earn low income. This is an important observation, as women more often report time pressures and difficulties in meeting their paid-work and unpaid (caring, domestic work) obligations (MacDonald, Phipps and Lethbridge 2005; Pocock 2003; Walsh 2007), and hence have less time available to engage in education and training (Lipsett 2000; Rainbird 2007).

3. The Current Study

   Much is known about the challenges of combining work, care and study, and also about the strains and difficulties of low-paid work. There is very little research examining the intersection of low-paid work, work-life pressures and participation in education and training. The intersection between these three spheres is the terrain of our study. Indeed, a growing body of international literature calls for an understanding of working life--including the development of skills--to be set within a larger context of household type, government policy and settings, the nature of the state, and sociological settings such as gender relations (Alsop, Gonzalez-Arnal and Kilkey 2008; Daniels 2010; Gouthro 2007). In these models, institutional, cultural, and prevailing behavioural settings are all relevant to the construction of prevailing 'work-care' regimes (Pocock 2005), which in turn construct workers' capacity and opportunity to participate in education and training. Applying a work-life lens, the current study examines how men and women in low-paid jobs perceived and experienced education and training, with a particular focus on the issues of combining work and care, and of work-life conflict and time pressures in general. The aim was to examine the extent to which work-life strains--such as time pressure and combining work and care--affected workers' willingness to participate in education or training, and the difficulties they experienced while working...