Brett, R; Dainty, A R J and Fernie, S (2024) Direct employment of construction workers: Skill and productivity in site practice. In: Thomson, C (ed.) Proceedings of 40th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September 2024, London South Bank University, UK.
Abstract
The long-term movement away from the direct employment of manual construction workers by UK contractors means subcontracting of labour is ubiquitous. With this has come a range of attendant problems considered harmful to the industry. While direct employment, and quasi-direct employment, are now minority occurrences, there are niche areas where it can be found and researched. An ethnographic approach which provides intimate, everyday access to construction practice reveals a double-sided picture of direct employment on a building conservation project. Focussing on skill and productivity, the findings show how security of employment and payment for time, not output, engenders a highly skilled, committed and stable workforce producing work which transcends typical quality conformance. It also starkly reveals the liberties that can arise among workers who are secure in their employment arrangements. This leads to a form of work that is ostensibly unproductive. In the case examined here, the quality of the work recompenses for the low output.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction workers; direct employment; ethnography; productivity; quality |
| Index terms: | conservation, movement, employment, ethnography, subcontracting, productivity, construction worker, minority |
| Subjects: | organization, environmental policy, qualitative and interpretive research, management, health behaviours and lifestyles, sociology, practitioner |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Roles and Professions, Supply Chain Management, Human Resources, Research Practice, Sustainability, Ethics |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here