Faltas del alumno (a)

It has been argued that there is a specific correspondence between the employment of migrant and agency labour in London hotels as well as in other low-paid service jobs in the city (May et al. 2007, McDowell et al. 2008a). It is argued in particular that ‘the increases in the supply of transnational migrant workers, prepared to work under less favourable conditions than ‘local’ workers, have been facilitated by and have increased agency work’ (McDowell 2008: 754). This interdependence between labour migration and the increase in temporary work in fact emerged from a recent comparative research McDowell conducted in two different low paid service jobs (a hotel and a hospital) in London. The study revealed a particular connection between changes in migration flows and the relative rates o f turnover in different parts o f the service sector, such that the author concluded that: ‘Where turnover rates are low, the migrant division of labour reflects an earlier pattern of in-migration’ (ibid.764). However, other authors have argued that a focus on the so-called ‘new migrant communities’ from Eastern Europe has overshadowed the presence of other groups of varying statuses in the service and other low-paid sectors (Rogers et al. 2009: 40). Importantly, Rogers and colleagues recall that there are also large populations of refugees, asylum- seekers, students, skilled migrants, seasonal workers and others employed under different conditions in London’s labour market. To be sure, during the 1990s, before the EU Enlargement, there had been a wide influx o f migrants from outside the EU (Africa and Latin America in particular). This is attested to by the fact that the number o f work permits issued to foreign-born workers increased from about 40,000 in the mid-1990s to over 200,000 a year in 2004 (see May et al. 2007). However, some have argued that with the arrival o f Eastern European migrants since 2004 the Government has considered the new large influx as reducing Britain’s reliance on low skilled workers from beyond the EU (Anderson et al. 2006, TUC 2003).

On their part, owners and managers report that as the A 8 nationals came to the UK to improve their English and look for temporary employment in menial jobs, their influx exacerbated some o f the employment features in the sector (McDowell et al. 2008a: 754). They filled in the ‘reserve army’ of vulnerable labour, willing to accept lower wages and conditions o f employment. But it was also argued that these ‘new migrants’ were seen to display a ‘different attitude to service work’, a better education and easier occupational mobility as compared to settled migrants already employed in the sector (ibid.). This point shows how it is impossible to fully understand the phenomena o f turnover, casualisation and the increasing use o f agency labour in London hotels

without first examining the actual characteristics of the workforce. In other words, emphasis upon the ‘internationalisation o f the industry’ is inadequate unless this is considered together with the ongoing transnationalisation o f the labour force.

Before looking more deeply into the changing composition and the old and new stratifications o f the hospitality workforce, it is worth identifying besides the structural features the main problems o f the industry from the point o f view o f workers and organisers. In order to unpack the main issues at work as perceived by workers and union activists the nature o f work and labour processes involved in the hospitality sector and the hotel industry in particular need to be considered more closely. These are indeed directly intertwined with the main issues suffered by workers in this branch o f the service sector.

3.2 Unpacking the main issues at work

3.2.1 The nature o f ‘hospitality work* and its organisation

The types of work performed in the hospitality sector are so diverse that it would be misleading to describe ‘hospitality work’ as a homogeneous category. Its very definition may be controversial, as for instance the Labour Force Survey considers ‘hotels and restaurants’ as comprising one industry while the employers’ association across the same sectors in the UK includes in the category o f hospitality ‘hotels, restaurants, catering, event management and temporary agency employment across these sub-sectors’ (BHA 2010: 2). The present research employs a relatively wide definition o f the hospitality sector including jobs in hotels, restaurants and catering performed in different public and private establishments (as in the case o f the two NHS Hospitals and the Business Centre where I worked via an agency).

In any case, even within a single hotel it is difficult to enumerate the various types o f tasks accomplished everyday by different members o f staff. In the hotel industry jobs can be broadly differentiated between occupations associated with ‘Food and Beverage’ (including roles in

restaurants, kitchens, bars banqueting), and ‘accommodation work’ (including ffont-desk reception, portering and housekeeping)46. Within each area, jobs are differentiated according to a rigid hierarchy, mainly on the basis o f the social value attributed to the occupation, in turn corresponding to different levels o f pay and conditions. While jobs in catering services, restaurants and ‘Food and Beverage’ departments, and also in reception, are characterised by their interactive nature (often involving the direct delivery o f a service and customer-facing activities), cleaning jobs such as those performed by room attendants are often isolated and invisible. Some research has highlighted how despite ‘the rhetoric o f team-work’, in housekeeping departments most working time is organised so that the maids work in isolation for long periods o f time (Dutton et al. 2008: 112). Furthermore, room attendants remain invisible due to the fact that they are considered the least skilled o f the hotel workforce and, in turn, because their work is socially looked down on for being dirty, physically demanding and repetitive (Lennon and Wood 1989: 229, cit. in Dutton et al. 2008: 97).

The different nature o f waiting work and cleaning is usually framed in terms of the former being characterised by the interactive and ‘emotional labour’ involved in the delivery o f the service and the latter perceived as merely manual and ‘low-skilled’. One room attendant described this as ‘common sense and basic housework, what you would do at home’ in recent research by Dutton et al. (2008: 113). However, other research has argued that even if chambermaids are not specifically employed as ‘guest-contact staff, their primary function being ‘maintenance o f facilities’, nonetheless they work in spaces where they probably do meet guests (Guerrier and Adib 2000: 691). The interaction may render them particularly vulnerable to harassment by customers, as this work also involves social aspects that are normally overlooked. It will be demonstrated in Chapter 5 how these aspects have implications for the relationships and forms o f resistance that can be developed. In any case it is apparent that it is not straightforward to establish a clear demarcation between hotel ‘front of house’ and ‘back o f house occupations’. Furthermore, at the level o f work organisation, even where the service involves forms o f affective and emotional labour such as in the

46 Namely Guerrier and Adib (2000) distinguish between ‘Food and Beverage operations’ and ‘rooms division’ while Dutton et al (2008) differentiate between the former and ‘accommodation work’. In both definitions the second category includes reception work.

case o f waiters and waitresses, Taylorist divisions o f work and management techniques normally applied in ‘low skilled’ or ‘manual work’ are also apparent (Carls 2007).

As regards to the organisation o f hospitality work across various occupations, workers are often under pressure to be multi-skilled and able to switch between different kinds o f assignment. This happens notwithstanding the variety of labour processes involved and despite the fact that hospitality services are considered ‘low-skilled work’. Philips and Taylor (1980) made the important point that the very definitions o f work as ‘skilled’ or ‘low-skilled’ are ideological categories. In particular drawing from the examples o f jobs as diverse as carton factory workers and clerical staff, they showed how these are constructed on the basis o f gender bias: ‘The classification o f women’s jobs as unskilled and men’s job as skilled or semi-skilled frequently bears little relation to the actual amount o f training or ability required from them. Skills definitions are saturated with sexual bias’ (ibid. 79).

As emerged from the present study, while it is almost impossible to distinguish skilled or low-skilled jobs in a workplace such as a hotel, multi-skilling and flexibility are qualities highly valued across different work categories. This is especially the case in subcontracted catering jobs where the patterns o f service and the unpredictability o f the amount o f guests to serve require waiters and waitresses and catering staff to be quick and versatile (Ethnographic diary, shift at the hotel restaurant ‘Lush Cafe’). However, both in the case o f staff shortages and, increasingly, under pressure of redundancies, permanent in-house hotel workers were also expected to multitask and take on assignments in other departments (Ethnographic diary, informal interview with Cinzia, female, Black, Eritrea-Italy, part-time employee, Food and Beverage).

Besides the pressure for adaptability to fill in for various tasks, more broadly recent UK- based qualitative studies have revealed a long list o f poor conditions suffered by workers in the hospitality and hotel industry in particular. This includes low wages, long working hours, lack of overtime, sick or holiday pay, delayed payments and unlawful wage deductions, health and safety problems, bullying, harassment and unfair dismissal (the Guardian 2006, Evans et al. 2005, LC and Unite 2009, TUC 2007). Most o f these issues have been experienced by the hotel workers and waiting staff involved in this ethnographic study. In particular the interviews highlighted the practices of harassment and lack of respect by managers and supervisors, job insecurity, long working hours, unilateral imposition of flexi-time and overall physically demanding work. In-house

and agency workers often experienced different problems according to the different nature of then- contractual status.