In modern Britain, employment remains the main source of material welfare.

With the downturn in the manufacturing industry forcing those who predominately made up the workforce i.e. the working class, there was a shift into the service sector or so it was claimed. The service sector, which was once largely made up of semi-skilled jobs witnessed the disappearance of such positions and instead saw what were becoming increasingly skilled managerial and professional positions opening up. A combination of this and a growth in part-time and casual work (driven by increasing competition from overseas) meant that those who had previously worked in the manufacturing industry were either unqualified for such positions (they lacked the educational qualifications, thus lacking grammatical and ‘articulative’ competence) or saw such work as ‘women’s work’. The growth of flexible and casual work not only affected the so called ‘unskilled’ but also those white-collar workers, managerial and professional workers – they suffered as a result of workforce reductions.

Occupational Identity no longer exists; changes to the labour market through deregulation as well as shifts in the world economy means that jobs that were once considered well paid, secure etc are now insecure at the best of times. Furthermore, men’s patterns of working over time are increasingly similar to women’s; periods of work interspersed with periods of involuntary economic indolence. Such broken patterns have downbeat implications for levels of income and contributory records i.e. National Insurance contributions.

In the past women’s access to paid employment outside the home was restricted by domestic responsibilities, especially childcare which seemed the norm – women’s place was apparently in the home. However, since the 1960s’ (The Golden Age) the number of women in paid employment outside the home has been steadily increasing while the demand for male employees has fallen (E.g. 11.3 million females in 1997 as opposed to 9.4 million females in 1978). The changes that have taken place within the labour market have accentuated the traditional acceptability of inequalities that exist between male and female employee’s in more than one respect, but more so in reference to pay levels, which as a result, have meant that the relatively cheap labour women (subliminally) offer is attractive to employer’s looking to expand yet keep costs down (E.g. average full time pay in 1996 for men £390.60, for women £283.00). These lower earnings reflect the concentration of women in low-paid sectors of the job market as well as reflecting modern day definitions of skills.

Young people are a group particularly vulnerable to and affected by unemployment – subsequently responses to youth unemployment has been a major focus for debate and policy reform. Unemployment experienced by young people however is short lived, yet when they do enter the job market there seems to be very few avenues to explore. In 1979, 81 per cent of employed 16-year-old males were located in five industrial sectors: Distribution, Metal Goods, Other Manufacturing, Construction and Other Services whilst 83 per cent of females were in just four occupational orders: Clerical, Selling, Catering and Other Processing and Making. Since the 1980’s, the demand for youth labour has declined noticeably, largely due to the decline in the manufacturing industry, which relied heavily upon school leavers as a source of labour. The increase in flexible, part time casual work has also contributed to the disappearance of many jobs once available to young people. Such decline in manufacturing has resulted from the growth of multinational corporations relocating overseas to reduce labour costs, which has meant that the need for a more highly skilled workforce is paramount. Another reason leading to youth unemployment is the internal markets that recline within firms – there tends to be less reliance on school-leaver recruitment, as the firm-specific skills are often composed of knowledge of the organisation, its production system, organisational goals as well as technical expertise. Deakin (1996) points out that young people who are disadvantaged in some way, and may be harder to train, will be considerably less attractive to employers and training providers. To add to this, the Thatcher years which deregulated the labour market, reducing considerably the number of checks employers had to attain meant that those at a disadvantage were put at more of a disadvantage as employers had greater flexibility to pick and choose. School leavers often rely upon their achievements at school to ascertain a position within a company, however the Employment Department in 1990 indicated that vocational qualifications were ranked only eighth out of nine attributes that employers sought from school leavers.  With an ever-increasing requirement for higher skills, the demand for youth labour is somewhat dwindling, however there may yet be hope as Keep and Mayhew point out. British employers effectively choose to adopt strategies, which are based on low-quality, low-skill, price-based competition. 

Social class, ethnicity, regional positioning and parenthood are other factors that contribute to an individuals or a groups (un) employment status. Social class, although familiar to arguably everyone in the United Kingdom is sometimes unseen and unheard when explaining social phenomena. ‘Social Class’ generally is a category of people who have similar educational histories, job opportunities and social standing who are conscious of their membership to that social class that is ranked in relation to other’s and replicated over generations. A class where unemployment is highly concentrated, a group touched on previous occasions, is the ‘working class’. They are reliant on the sale of their labour and entirely dependent on the owners of the means of production – fortuitous business is perhaps in as much their interest as the owners because they are heavily reliant upon their job. The implications of being in a certain ‘social class’ are prevalent, spanning education, health, leisure etc, although in respect of (un)employment, education is somewhat more influential. The education system as we know it is a two-tier education system, with those who can afford to, having the best education, while those who cannot having to make do with a second rate education. This has implications for both the working class and ethnic minorities, who are profoundly working class them selves. They are essentially priced out of an education, which merits not their ability to learn and progress but their ability to pay. The mode in which education is taught in the United Kingdom has fundamental issues which themselves can have prolific implications on the future of ethnic minority students. Subjects that are chosen and the manner in which they are taught are aimed at the white middle-class student – schools, especially state schools seem to lack the time to educate ethnic minorities in a way most effective and efficient to their future interests. Ethnic minorities are subsequently unable to understand as effectively as they need to which impacts negatively upon access and furthermore accomplishment.

The geographical pattern of unemployment has varied in the United Kingdom since the 1930’s, unemployment being concentrated in the old staple trades located in North England, Wales and Scotland. This pattern was still apparent two decades following World War Two, when unemployment in these areas was between two and three times as large as in the south. Areas with consistently high rates of unemployment were clustered in northern conurbations where long-term industrial decline occurred. Only in the 1990’s did the two-nations pattern of unemployment brake down and it is no longer possible to describe the geography of unemployment in terms of a north-south divide.

Unemployment, as aforementioned, is itself a varied condition, encompassing short-term transitory job loss, long-standing unemployment or early retirement. There are several causes of unemployment, however it is generally agreed that the root cause is structural. There are various explanations accounting for unemployment, ranging from Individualist to Structuralist explanations right through to more radical approaches. Individualists argue unemployment is a consequence of uncompetitiveness in Western markets whilst Structuralists argue the unemployed are victims of global economic forces and changes, which lock them into social and economic disadvantage.

Despite all the disparagement by those content to indulge in state benefits, employment seems to be more popular than ever. Most young people want to find a job while many lone parents would like the opportunity to look. Employment is fundamentally still seen as the ticket to full societal integration.