OCCUPATIONS, ETHNICITY AND WORKPLACE INJURY RATES

Table 5.1 presents occupational injury rates for the 10 most hazardous Minor Groups of SOC90.

In constructing these occupational injury rates, information was extracted from the individual data files from the Winter Quarters (Dec-Feb) of the Labour Force Surveys covering the period Winter 1993 to Winter 2000. These 8 data sets were then merged to form a single data set covering the period 1993 to 2000. The injury rates therefore represent the average annual injury rates during each of the 8-year sub-samples. This is the same procedure that was utilised in the estimation of workplace injury rates for by ethnicity and migrant status presented in earlier.

These Minor Groups of SOC90 are ranked in descending order according to their workplace accident rate. For ease of exposition, we focus upon the all injury accident rate. Injury rates excluding road accidents and rates of reportable workplace injury for all SOC Minor Groups are presented in Annex 4. It should be noted that the numbering system assigned to these occupational categories reflects the hierarchical structure of SOC and not the actual number of SOC Minor Groups. For a full description of these occupational categories and the jobs that are classified to these groups, see OPCS (1990). In terms of the all workplace rate, it can be seen that the three most hazardous occupational groups are SOC Minor Group 83: Metal Making, Treating Operatives; 93: Other Transport Occupations and 61: Security Service Occupations.

The 5 most hazardous occupational groups are each characterised by workplace accident rates in excess of 10%. In contrast, the three least hazardous occupational groups are SOC Minor Groups 25: Business and Financial Professionals, 35: Legal Associate Professionals and 32:

Computer Analysts, Programmers.

The remaining columns of Table 5.1 present the cumulative percentage of people employed within these Minor Groups of SOC90. Full details of the occupational composition of employment (i.e. the cell percentages used to calculate these cumulative percentages are presented in Annex 5). To provide the most robust analysis possible, we utilise data from 28 successive quarters of the LFS covering the period Spring 1994 to Winter 2000. Note that in our analysis of the occupational composition of employment, we are not restricted to utilising information drawn only from the Winter Quarters of the LFS. Our figures are produced by taking averages of estimates derived from each of these quarters. The importance of taking averages from successive Quarters of the LFS is highlighted at the base of Table 5.1. It can be seen that on average, only 456 Black Caribbeans of working age and who were currently in

employment appeared within a single quarter of the LFS. This is compared to 399 Black Others, 1432 Asians and 414 Others. These unweighted samples would not be sufficient to provide robust estimates of the occupational composition of employment across detailed occupational categories.

It can be seen that among white workers, 8.6% are employed within the 10 most hazardous Minor Groups of SOC90. This is compared to 7.9% of Black Caribbeans, 6.7% of Black-Others, 5.4% of Asians and 4.6% of others who are employed in these occupations. This patterns is repeated when we consider the 20 most hazardous occupations, which are shown to constitute 20% of employment among whites, 17.7% of employment among Black Caribbeans, 12.9% of employment among Black-Others, 14.8% of employment among Asians and 9.1% of employment among Others.

It is therefore observed that ethnic minorities are generally under-represented in terms of employment within these most hazardous occupational groups. There are however a couple of exceptions to this. Most noticeable is the higher incidence of Black Caribbeans and Black Others who work within who work within Minor Group 64: Health and Related Occupations.

Jobs coded to this Minor Group of SOC include nursing assistants and auxiliaries, hospital ward assistants, ambulance staff and care assistants. 5.9% of Black Caribbean workers are employed within this group of SOC, compared to 2.8% of white workers. Similarly, 5.4% of Black Other workers are employed within this group of SOC, compared to 2.7% of white workers.

Employment within Minor Group 64: Health and Related Occupations is projected to increase from approximately 825 thousand to 1.4 million by 2010 (CE/IER, 2001). Growth in this occupational area may therefore disproportionately effect certain ethnic groups in terms of their exposure to risk of workplace injury.

Table 5.1 Occupations and workplace injury rates: ethnicity

Top 10 Most Hazardous SOC90 Minor

Top 20 most hazardous occupations 7.2% 20.0% 17.7% 12.9% 14.8% 9.1%

Average Total Employment (000s) 23981.3 204.4 185.4 636.9 189.0 (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) Average unweighted cases 58208 456 399 1432 414 The second dimension along which we consider the occupational composition of employment is in terms of residency. Here we now distinguish between those individuals who were either born in the UK, those who have resided in the UK for less than 10 years, and those who have resided in

the UK for more than 10 years. In Table 5.2, the Minor Groups of SOC90 are again ranked in descending order according to their workplace accident rate with the associated cumulative percentage of people employed within these Minor Groups of SOC90. Full details of the occupational composition of employment (i.e. the cell percentages used to calculate these cumulative percentages are presented in Annex 6).

Table 5.2 Occupations and workplace injury rates: migrant status

Top 10 Most Hazardous SOC90 Minor

91 other manufacturing etc occupations 10.1% 4.0% 1.5% 2.5%

54 vehicle trades 9.9% 5.1% 1.8% 3.2%

94 other communication occupations 9.0% 6.0% 2.3% 4.0%

58 food preparation trades 8.9% 6.3% 2.6% 4.2%

51 metal machining, fitting etc trades 8.8% 8.3% 3.1% 5.4%

60 NCOs etc, armed forces 8.5% 8.7% 4.2% 5.7%

Top 15 most hazardous occupations 8.2% 12.9% 6.4% 9.0%

Top 20 most hazardous occupations 7.2% 20.2% 9.6% 14.5%

Average total employment 23501.6 562.9 1351.3 (100%) (100%) (100%) Average unweighted cases 57391 1208 3152 It can be seen that among those workers who were born in the UK, 8.7% are employed within the 10 most hazardous Minor Groups of SOC90. This is compared to 4.2% of those workers who were not born in the UK and have resided in the UK for less than 10 years. Among those workers who were not born in the UK, but who have resided in the UK for more than 10 years, 5.7% are employed within the 10 most hazardous Minor Groups of SOC90. This pattern is repeated when we consider the 20 most hazardous occupations, which are shown to constitute 20.2% of employment among those workers who were born in the UK. This is compared to 9.6% of total employment among those who have resided in the UK for less than 10 years and 14.5% of total employment among those who have resided in the UK for longer than 10 years.

It is therefore demonstrated that those workers who were not born in the UK are generally under-represented in terms of employment within the most hazardous occupational groups.

This analysis of the occupational composition of employment among ethnic minorities indicates that the lower rates of workplace injury generally exhibited by these groups are related to their occupational composition of employment. Both workers from ethnic minority groups and those who were not born in the UK are under-represented in terms of their employment within the most hazardous occupational groups. However, while such patterns of employment contribute to lower aggregate injury rates among these workers, it is still not clear whether such workers are at an increased or decreased risk to experiencing a work related accident. Indeed, lower rates of workplace injury resulting from the concentration of employment in occupations that are less hazardous could actually disguise an increased risk of workplace injury experienced by ethnic minorities or migrant workers within these occupations. The research question therefore

remains as to whether, after controlling for a range of personal, job, and workplace characteristics, do ethnic minorities experience different risks of workplace injury?