Current welfare rules force those on benefits to take up any job that’s available, with no consideration of its financial viability, future prospects, or suitability to people’s other needs. This leads to a race to the bottom in terms of the quality of jobs that are on offer. Sharon Wright, Katy Jones and  Lisa Scullion put forward 5 policy proposals that can improve job quality for those relying on Universal Credit.

Work requirements for benefit claimants are top of the agenda in the 2024 UK election campaign. While Labour leader Keir Starmer promises to support those looking for work by removing pressure to take ‘any job’, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak continues to call for cuts to  benefits for those who ‘can work’ but ‘don’t’, including people with disabilities.  However, forcing people into any job doesn’t guarantee financial independence.  Our new analysis reveals that the UK’s existing compulsion to take ‘any job’ actually means that people are pushed into low quality jobs, where they often continue to need state support. We offer 5 policy proposals for better long-term outcomes for job seekers, disadvantaged workers, and employers.

Five million workers turned to Universal Credit in 2020 when Covid-19 hit.  The pandemic showed us that the causes of illness and unemployment can be completely outside individual control.  Now, six million people receive Universal Credit, with 2.1 million receiving in-work payments.  The rules that shape financial support while moving in and out of paid work therefore matter a great deal to many people.

A decade and a half of welfare cuts and reforms have transformed our social security system from a safety net protecting workers from market uncertainty to a source of insecurity. As our paper demonstrates, it is no longer possible to understand working life without factoring in the influence of our welfare system. Poor quality work and conditional welfare combine to trap workers in low paid and precarious employment.

“It’s as if they’re all in cahoots together. [Employers] can get rid of you just like willy-nilly because they know they can get anybody else sent to them but from the Jobcentre.” (Joel, 54, kitchen porter, variable hours)

Our analysis of more than 100 interviews shows how claimants are required to take insecure jobs, including zero hours contracts, with inadequate pay, and poor employment terms.

“Literally, they don’t have to pay me till Friday, give me a week’s notice. All they needed to do is when they called us in for a meeting on Monday was, ‘Oh, you can go home now. We’ve got no work for you.’ That would be it. That’s zero-hours contract literally meant, if there was no work, I don’t work.” (Kevin, full-time job, zero-hours contract)

“[The Jobcentre] pressured you to apply for jobs that you didn’t want . . . and if you got offered them you’d have to take them otherwise your money would be stopped . . . I haven’t got set days. Again, like tonight, I’m working until six. Monday I worked until eight.” (Leanne, 37, retail, short hours contract, variable hours)

In-work progression

Core to Universal Credit is the promise of progression towards better employment, but we found little evidence of genuine improvement in pay or job quality over time. Instead, we found that progression merely translates to a simplistic policy goal to increase weekly working hours to a full-time standard of 35 hours, through multiple jobs if necessary.  This practice undermines job quality and exacerbates existing inequalities in the labour market. Making it mandatory to continue to seek additional hours de-legitimises both part-time work and informal care. This prevents work-life balance, especially for women, who often need predictable part-time hours because they split their time between earning and caring.

“I took a job that wasn’t beneficial to me or the children . . . My family life, my home life suffers.” (Leanne, 37, retail, short hours contract, variable hours)

“Work–life–welfare balance” has replaced “work-life” balance for many low-paid workers.  Those we spoke to experienced intrusive and short-notice time demands generated by an increasingly interventionist welfare state.

Using the threat of sanctions to compel low paid workers to increase their hours is called ‘in work conditionality’. This alters employment conditions for structurally disadvantaged workers, who are more likely to rely on Universal Credit because of pre-existing intersectional inequalities.

5 policy ideas to improve job quality

1. Remove the requirement to accept ‘any job’ so that in-work progression becomes more possible.

Our research shows that pressure to take ‘any job’ drives poor job quality. Participants who took “Any” Job, did not move into “Better Jobs” or “Careers”.

2. Use job quality criteria to measure progression instead of 35 hours per week. 

The Department for Work and Pensions views ‘in-work progression’ as successful if Universal Credit recipients work 35 hours per week.  Although some claimants can negotiate for a discretionary reduction to their working hours, Universal Credit holds full-time paid work as the norm.  We found widespread disregard of the time and capacity constraints of ill-health, disability and care.  Good quality part-time work should be a legitimate option for everyone.

Replacing the ‘35 hours per week’ criterion with the following evidence-based indicators of job quality could ensure viable work.

3. Recognise labour market discrimination and disadvantage exist and reform Universal Credit to support people, without risk of losing benefits.

Women, mothers, working class people, disabled people and those with long-term illnesses, and Black and minority ethnic groups face workplace discrimination. Disadvantaged workers are concentrated in sectors where jobs are often lower status and have fewer opportunities for promotion to  higher salaried positions. Unequal pay is common. A punitive welfare system risks exacerbating these inequalities/reinforcing these disadvantages. Instead, Universal Credit should offer meaningful support free from threat of sanctions.

4. Match people with the right jobs.

Jobcentre Plus was originally designed to give employment advice and match people to suitable job vacancies.  However, the political drive to push people off benefits using sanctions has turned Jobcentre Plus into an enforcement agency.  Jobcentres have lost their specialism in matching people up with the jobs they would enjoy and be good at. Employers are also critical of the approach centred on “any job”, which results in a high volume of inappropriate applications. Job matching is crucial for sustainable high quality employment outcomes.

5. Regulate employers to provide good quality jobs and uphold employment rights.

The UK welfare system reinforces one-sided flexibility, on employers, while placing numerous conditions on of employees.  Claimants must search intensively for work, but employers are free to provide poor-quality work that undermines people’s quality of life. While there many good employers, far too many adopt poor working practices.  Employment rights abuses are rife, including underpayment of minimum wages and failure to provide basic entitlements like paid holidays or payslips. Employers should be regulated to ensure high quality jobs and employment rights.

All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of LSE British Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Image credit: 1000 words on Shutterstock