Abstract
This paper aims to stimulate debate within the employment involvement participation, and worker representation, discussions. We use the work of cleaning in the UK as our main example. This work was perceived as ‘essential’ during the Covid19 pandemic, and ‘valued’ in the social perception and the nationalist discourse of solidarity and sacrifice. Yet there was a particular set of political interventions that contested the need for rewarding such a contribution by individualising it and reframing it politically. The main argument we propose is that there is a greater need in discussions on employee participation and worker representation to focus on how the social and economic contribution of certain groups of workers is politically represented and contested, and not just their voice in formal or informal terms. Debates on participation and representation are beginning to move in this direction of widening the remit of the way the value of work is outlined and the article aims to build on this by focusing on such tensions around the representation of value at the political level and at key national moments of crisis in terms of the state and related actors.
Keywords
Introduction
An increasing interest in how we have undermined or undervalued what is generically labelled ‘unskilled’ work, such as cleaning, has moved to the centre of many work and employment-related discussions. These have been framed in terms of the way such work is often degraded or marginalised due to various negative predispositions towards those doing the work. The way such work has been increasingly individualised and fragmented – being the subject of greater de-regulation and forms of outsourcing – has also tended to shift this work into the periphery of the concerns of numerous labour and social organisations. Therefore, being pushed to the margins makes it more difficult to recognise the importance or value of this work as its representation is obscured due to these varying aspects.
However, the recent pandemic brought the nature of the value of such work to the forefront of debates. Particularly with questions of hygiene and health – and the way work such as cleaning had to be sustained during a difficult period. This has reshaped certain perspectives on what is generally deemed to be ‘unskilled’ work (ILO, 2023; McBride and Martinez Lucio, 2021). The need to appreciate and reward the efforts of workers in such jobs was – during the pandemic lockdown periods – pushed to the forefront of differing debates we will discuss later, especially around what was being termed ‘critical’ or ‘key’ work (particularly in the context of the United Kingdom which is the basis of this article). As time passed, this symbolic revaluing of such work became contested during the previous UK Conservative administration due to diverse governmental responses to challenges during that period, that such work needed to be upgraded or more suitably rewarded. Within debates on representation and participation at work the representation of this work and the political dimensions of the contested nature of the value of this work is not always given due regard in our view. This paper argues that there is a lack of emphasis related to the representation of the work itself at the formal political level from a broader range of economic, political and regulatory actors – particularly in terms of the contribution of, and value of, what workers do. This is partly due to the gap between discussions on the meaning of work in sociological circles, those dealing with representation (industrial relations), those dealing with participation more broadly (human resource management) as well as the broader institutions in the realm of the political sphere.
The case of cleaners during UK pandemic lockdowns raises some interesting insights into the way the debates on representation at the broader political level in terms of the agendas and actions of key policy actors are relevant. This is the main focus of this paper. The paper begins by briefly outlining discussions on cleaning and unskilled work then moves onto the case of cleaners both before and especially during the pandemic lockdowns and we use an interesting case from the UK. It builds on some earlier work by the authors but updates this by focusing on a specific set of initiatives by the UK government during the pandemic to reframe and constrain an increasing awareness and demand for such work to be publicly and politically recognised and valued. In this paper, we focus on the specific attempt to push the responsibility for the safety aspects of this work (during a pandemic) onto the cleaning workforce itself, as well as reframing their contribution as being part of an extant expectation that should be made of citizens during a national crisis. Therefore, the paper also highlights the relevance of the issues of social contribution and personal responsibility to be considered in broader debates on representation.
The authors’ earlier research mentioned above was based on a range of interviews and observations of cleaning work in parts of the UK (pre-Covid), mostly in the public sector (McBride and Martínez Lucio, 2016, 2021). This paper follows up arguments from that research but here is based on a review of significant and relevant government strategies and secondary sources during Covid lockdowns. The paper is mainly a reflection and commentary on the way we view questions of the value and contribution of certain forms of work, and how these are mobilised by different actors, and redefined and contested politically. We focus on ‘value’ as in our previous work in what workers do and the value of what they do and argue that this is itself a point of struggle and contestation when it comes to the representation and transparency of their contribution as workers, and this should be positioned more centrally in discussions. Here, we suggest that processes that prevent or limit such marginalised and individualised workers from having their contribution and work represented and acted upon (and not only their working conditions), should be considered as important as the way they collectively represent their material concerns and the way they participate in workplaces. Throughout the piece we focus on the social value or social contribution of work as a concept in general terms but often the debates and interventions also include notions of essential work, marginalised workers, and others as the term value is quite broad: indeed often there is a monetary and social component but overall we focus on the latter although tensions tend to be played as we will show on questions of renumeration as well.
Widening the debate to questions of what work does and the value of jobs
Much of the current discussion on representation and working conditions has been focused on a somewhat static or institutionalised notion linked to how 'voice' is established as a vehicle for enhancing working conditions and labour standards (Alberti and Però, 2018; Cioce et al., 2022) This debate has played itself out in relation to marginalised workers and especially migrants whose contribution to voice at work issues are often ignored due to their ethnic and racial background, as well as the view of the kind of work they do. Building on these discussions in the light of developments during the pandemic may help contribute to greater awareness to the broader nature of worker representation and its political dimensions in terms of how it is a site of contestation. To do this we need to look at the contours of the nature of the work itself more closely – and its presentation to broader audiences and stakeholders – beyond existing discussions’ focus on participatory workplace voice or negotiations or systems of collective representation on behalf of workers engaged with such work. We argue that we need to consider how worker representation also hinges around the way the value of work is represented at key moments by actors and how it often becomes contested. In terms of the debates that we feel are relevant, these have widened the understanding of representation of unskilled workers but continue to have certain gaps and blind spots.
First, the question of skill and how work is valued has become referenced in a range of broader debates. Much of this relates to the value of jobs, mostly in what are termed low-skilled or unskilled jobs, and within a set of concerns amongst critical labour relations specialists and sociologists regarding how such work is strategically marginalised in terms of discussions (Sennett, 1999; Braverman, 1974). The debates on low-skilled work have tended to focus on the way it has been segregated and steadily individualised and fragmented through developments such as outsourcing which have placed groups of workers such as cleaners increasingly on the periphery of the regulatory systems of employment (Grimshaw et al., 2019). Much of the debate in this area has therefore focused on the way such operational changes have further degraded the conditions and terms related to the work and re-emphasised its peripheral and marginal status.
Second, the response to these concerns often focuses on the development of decent work initiatives such as living wages (Wills and Linneker, 2012). The focus has settled increasingly on improving working conditions and environment, i.e. the need to ensure that individual working conditions and collective forms of voice be brought to the forefront of policy discussions and initiatives (Brill, 2019). However, issues of ‘value’ are steadily, although unevenly, gaining ground in the more formal narratives and concerns of the International Labour Organisation (2022) with regard to ‘decent work’, amongst others. There is a broad stream of academic study that has increasingly focused on the actual value of work in the sense of how it is perceived and/or appreciated – and the importance of valuing the person engaged with the tasks and job (Sayer, 2009, 2011; Gomberg, 2007). It is argued in these discussions that it is important to recognise how the broader skills and contribution of workers of certain types of work are to be appreciated and recognised more fully although these perspectives have come late to the discussion on decent work and related narratives.
These gaps have implications for the way we understand representation and debates on representation and even ‘employee participation’. 1 Many of these more formal debates often focus on the institutional dimension such as formal versus informal representation (see Dibben et al., 2022), direct versus indirect representation (Marchington, 2007), and changing forms of representative structures and actors across time (Dundon et al., 2004). These discussions have been pivotal in broadening the debate on worker representation and we will return to them in our discussions, but issues of value have not normally been integral to them. More focused debates on cleaners and representation often focus on formal representation through collective bargaining and official trade union structures and/or more informal dynamics such as the use of mobilising processes such as protests, organising campaigns and social campaigning (Peró, 2020). There is a growing interest in how the work of ‘hidden’ communities or ‘distant’ communities need to be represented much more (e.g. Donaghey and Reinecke, 2018), and we build on this shift but make a point later of highlighting some political tensions and differences in relation to that representation in terms of contribution and value. Hence, debates on types of representation and even participation may need to be more closely linked to issues related to a more diverse and often marginalised workforce (Wilkinson et al., 2021). The question here in our paper is how we respond to the absence of a link between debates on representation or participation, and the actual representation of the value of work – in terms of what workers do and the value of what they do – and its broader symbolic representation.
Within debates on representation and participation at work (both of which overlap although are distinct), the representation of marginalised, unskilled/low-skilled work, including its social representation, and the political dimensions of the contested nature of the value of this work, is not always given due regard in our view.
The authors maintain that to understand the contradictions that emerge from the changes taking place to jobs normally considered ‘unskilled’, economically and operationally, there is a need to fully appreciate the contribution of that work. For example, there is a need to appreciate how this contribution is represented and engaged with in a context where workers are increasingly having to make core decisions on operational issues in ever-increasing hostile and dangerous contexts as in cleaning work (McBride and Martínez Lucio, 2016). There has been a growing concern with the need to reconsider the value of the changing nature of cleaning work in ever more fragmented and under-resourced contexts as in the case of the UK, but how these changes are represented more broadly and by whom needs further attention. Indeed, the pandemic demonstrated how we do need to further rethink the way such work is valued. Certain types of work such as cleaning were considered essential work during the pandemic. In fact, many different types of work were recognised as ‘essential’ work during this time, and the ‘key workers’ clapped by the UK public during lockdowns worked within the realms of ‘unskilled’ and ‘low-skilled’ work in the health or emergency services, for example, and not just skilled or professional work. Hence, it is important that this discussion on value and the representation of the contribution of work be pushed further to the centre of established debates on representation as we will discuss in relation to a specific political juncture and set of interventions that led to tensions around reframing the value of work.
We used a secondary data analysis technique for this paper. As there were few academic sources available on the topic of cleaners, C19 and lockdowns at that particular time we relied on media sources and UK ‘official’ government documentation that covered the whole of the UK during the pandemic lockdown periods. We also set up Google Alerts on ‘Coronavirus and precarious work’, ‘cleaners and essential workers’ and ‘key workers’. This led to a number of alerts to media sources on these topics every day during the lockdown periods and for a while after. We only drew out, accessed and used those relevant to our arguments and from reliable sources.
We, therefore, focus on a specific event and set of interventions that were primarily focused on the way work was being valued socially and the manner in which it became an object of government counter-intervention. This episode is a critical moment which reveals the way the value and contribution of jobs can play a part in raising workplace concerns and issues (a form of symbolic mobilisation), but that they also reveal the manner in which they are contested through different channels (e.g. in the form of counter-mobilisations).
The context of the pandemic and the political contestation and re-representation over work and employee contribution: the case of cleaners in the UK
Cleaning work has been largely under-appreciated (see McBride and Martínez Lucio, 2016, 2021). Yet, the work of cleaners was commonly perceived as being essential during the worst waves of the pandemic crisis. The need to deep clean communal spaces where C19 transmissions were identified; working ‘out in the public’ during a global health crisis; deep-cleaning the indispensable and demanding hospitals and schools; and having to travel to and from work in an exposed context – all demonstrated how essential this work was to society and during a context such as a pandemic. Indeed, the sudden (and, in retrospect, brief) appreciation of various undervalued, un/low-skilled low-paid jobs in general was expressed in the UK through the national ‘Clap for Carers’ campaign during the early stages of the crisis (BBC, 2020). This demonstrated a mutual, national, social perception of the genuine value of these types of jobs to society although there have been studies to indicate that such an engagement was varied from the public (Manthorpe et al., 2022). Nevertheless, the way in which, what had been generally ignored or stigmatised jobs, was suddenly redefined leading some to consider whether there would be a re-evaluation of such work. Indeed, early publications highlighted a growing interest regarding the need to reward and protect those in precarious, low-paid and/or stigmatised jobs (Joliffe and Collins, 2020), and some private sector organisations provided a 'bonus’ to some of their employees for their efforts during the pandemic. The focus was not just on professionals within areas such as the health services but generally those in key support positions.
There were also numerous online petitions established, aiming to ensure ‘key workers’ were recognised and rewarded for their invaluable contribution to the pandemic. However, the first petition in Autumn 2020 received only 10,000 signatures with a response from government stating, In light of the Government's recent above inflation pay awards and specific support packages relating to Covid-19 pressures there are no plans to increase pay further at this time (Petitions Parliament, 2020; UK Parliament, 2020). By December 2020 another petition, this time signed by 250,000 people was debated in Westminster. This called for a bonus, tax break or fair pay for key workers during the pandemic. However, this was dismissed as being 'potentially unfair’ as …many of those we have relied upon are in the private sector and so to give reward only to the public sector workers would be unfair (Nursing Notes, 2020). This specific response by the government was arguably an attempt to generate a series of boundaries between these categories of workers. It basically formed part of a narrative that viewed the public sector sphere as already being a privileged space in employment terms, and therefore, it followed, that work in that sphere was not to be viewed or valued differently in quite the same way as those working in the private sector. It utilised a discourse that had been mobilised during years of deeming the public sector sphere as being privileged and over-subsidised. What is evident with such responses was that, regardless of the growing social recognition that the work of many key workers was in fact invaluable, government responses managed to offset the perceived contribution of such work with a perception that the workers were already ‘protected’ relative to other groups and resisted any significant reward for the contribution of this work through various justifications. The relevant agencies of the state were managing to manoeuvre the narrative around value and contribution – broadly speaking – by dividing sets of workers into those who were deserving and those who were not and used sectoral and class boundaries in great part. Following on from the pandemic, this argument that public sector workers were not to be treated in any special way compared to others became more intense within the approaches of many leading Conservative Party leaders (Financial Times, 2024). Hence, continuities with earlier reticence towards recognising and rewarding key worker contributions were visible (see the Daily Mirror, 2021).
Secondly, the government response to the demands for cleaning work as essential work during the pandemic also had a more detailed and intricate set of strategies that worked around the individual boundaries of the workforce. This response was mainly in relation to those involved in deep and essential cleaning and ‘formal guidelines’ (UK Health Security Agency, 2020) were provided as to how these workers ‘should be protected’ at their workplaces and in their work. At the heart of these guidelines was a redrawing of lines around specific definitions of national interest and populist sentiment that focused on duty. However, when scrutinising these guidelines in more detail, what they basically do is transfer the focus of responsibility of the protection of this work – during the uncertainty of a pandemic where workers are faced with daily exposed danger to the virus – directly back to the workers themselves. The focus was linked to self-regulation and a more individualised focus on worker commitment. The duties of the job of cleaning have for some time become increasingly viewed as the responsibility of cleaners themselves due to the problems of austerity policies and its impact (McBride and Martínez Lucio, 2021). This has included issues in health and safety enforcement, the collective voice of cleaners being increasingly marginalised, and decisions on operational aspects having to be taken individually on a day-by-day basis in the face of declining management support and capacity. There have been a range of campaigns in the past few decades raising the plight of cleaners using the courts to establish their demands for direct and/or more fair employment practices and rewards. Such campaigns, normally led by new forms of independent trade unions (Alberti and Però, 2018) or networks within established trade unions (see Smith, 2022), unfortunately does not diminish the reality of this sector of employment being increasing fragmented, isolated and individuals being placed at risk within their workplaces and spaces. Therefore, the formal guidelines during the pandemic that were provided for ‘critical workers’ generally and cleaners indirectly, basically attempted to push back the responsibility onto these workers through the preference for ‘self-regulation’. The ideological opening provided by the moment of the pandemic was partially closed in terms of formal political interventions by government through this attempted transfer of responsibility back onto the workers.
In fact, this point draws out a third issue. If we look further into how much the focus on self-regulation and individualised approaches was driven by public policy initiatives during the pandemic, the question of how lists and hierarchies were constructed in terms of the meaning of ‘critical workers’ is salient. For instance, an ‘official’ list of essential work was produced, and those workers were allowed priority for their children to continue their education during the pandemic (Department for Education and Cabinet Office, 2020). It needs to be noted here that cleaners were not written into this list – again noting how cleaning work is not perceived as essential work – during a pandemic. Nor were cleaning workers specifically mentioned in the official UK Government list of ‘Essential Workers prioritised for Covid Testing’ (UK Health and Social Security Agency, 2021) when they were still expected to work in potentially high-risk contagious zones. Many cleaners were also exempt from the increases to ‘Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) for key workers’, as this was only available to those earning at least £118 per week. Therefore, lower paid workers or those with lower hours of work did not qualify for SSP had limited options – choosing to work whilst sick, or not be paid – again having to use their own judgment and self-regulate their health and others – during a pandemic. Once again, this provides an example of pushing the responsibility (of whether to work or not when feeling unwell during a pandemic) onto the individual (self-regulation) and re-establishing control over the ‘value’ of work.
Fourth, these initiatives were explicitly couched and written in terms of a nationalist style of language of solidarity and personal sacrifice – ‘We are all in this together’; ‘it is all in the interest of the national good’. It is interesting to note the way the government, in part due to the idiosyncrasies of specific leaders, benchmarked themselves within the narrative and history of Britain during the Second World War (especially the siege mentality that underpinned aspects of national solidarity at that time and increasingly the government itself). 2 To this extent the attempts to push back against the increasing social alertness to the contribution of workers, especially groups such as cleaners, were not just organised around specific recommendations couched in terms of work-related details, but also general re-readings of contribution and sacrifice in political interpretations of an individualistic nature of the concept of national interest. These were at times ad hoc and rarely coherent responses by the then government, but they were an attempt to utilise such rhetoric to highlight the problems of the economic and cost implications for employers of having to reward such groups of workers due to the increasingly positive representations of their work amongst citizens. Therefore, what we now see (during/after the pandemic) is the work and contribution of the cleaner being redefined in terms of ideational dimensions, with the work being linked to issues of ‘sacrifice’, ‘service’ and the ‘nation’ (see also Morgan and Hauptmeier, 2021) something not uncommon within industrial relations at specific times (see Hyman, 1975 on the importance of language and discourses in relation to the question of work).
This complex array of strategies underpins the fact that collective worker voices in many parts of the cleaning sector have been weakened. Indeed, sometimes referred to as the ‘invisible workforce’ (Equality and Human Rights Commission Report (EHRC) 2014), cleaners and other isolated workers often do not have a strong collective voice. Indeed, the EHRC (the state agency for equality and human rights issues) presented a report that outlined how many cleaners in their study were unaware of their employment rights, feared complaining in case they lost their job, with some reliying on the Citizens Advice Bureau for advice on their employment rights. The evidence also presented low levels of trade union membership across the cleaning sector (EHRC, 2014: 62) and many workers found it hard to imagine bargaining over their pay or conditions assuming that an employee accepted what he or she was offered or left the job. Amongst the main recommendations of the EHRC report, and relevant to this paper, were the points: to ensure that there was more access for cleaners to their employment rights; that businesses voluntarily recognise a trade union and actively engage with them; and that to support greater awareness of employment rights, the Government should consider how the ‘BIS Pay and Work Rights’ helpline could be promoted more effectively to cleaners (op cit, p89). However, these aspirations did not reflect any change in the ‘effective representation’ of these workers, nor did it provide any clear opportunity for the creation of a collective strong voice. In fact, cleaners are still expected to independently search for information on their employment rights – and through a system that clearly needed overhauled as the EHRC report demonstrated that it is flawed. However, even if these systems were improved, the fact remains that the responsibility for searching for their employment rights was still left to the worker – again pushing the responsibility back to the individual. It is also noted that there was nothing in the report that specifically referred to employee voice or alternative representation, yet there was - and still is - a need for stronger channels of representation of these workers and ensuring greater clarity in terms of trade union recognition and greater institutional support. This demonstrates how the work of cleaning was undervalued using individualised, self-regulated approaches with uneven outlets or mechanisms in place for worker voice or contestation. Finally, it must be noted that the wave of industrial disputes in the UK for a while after the lockdowns involved mostly groups of workers who were identified as ‘heroes’ during the worst waves of the pandemic in terms of their contribution and the context of it. As with cleaners, given the way their status and sacrifices were acknowledged during the pandemic, the main source of the disputes concerned pay which suggests that the counter-mobilisation by government on the representation of work was not wholly successful.
Discussion: The political and contested nature of what workers do and what it means for understanding developments in worker representation and the representation of work
This paper has tried to outline, through various instances related to policy and government responses, how the question of work is contested not solely in terms of the nature of working conditions and standards, but also in terms of the way its social value or contribution is represented by political actors and also becomes the object of political contestation more broadly. Work is often discussed in terms of the physical contribution to some extent but the perception and understanding of value and what workers do is, to use the term, also a contested terrain. It is one that frames the representation of industrial sectors and the visibility of the workforce. To this extent, we need to ensure that discussions about representation continue to take on board these symbolic and broader representational features of work and not just the formal relations between trade unions, employers and the state. Hence, there is a need to continue widening the debate on worker representation around these symbolic and broader questions of value and contribution. Many have reviewed how the industrial relations of the pandemic brought back an interest in worker voice especially the role of trade union influence at key crisis moments (Dobbins et al., 2023). Social partnership, and more structured forms of collaboration between actors, was clearly provided with a supportive push at the time by the state (Brandl, 2023). The pandemic in many ways has forced us to broaden our interests and engagement in terms of a wider set of issues and ‘real world challenges’, and this provides us with an opportunity and space to think more broadly in terms of the changing contours of representation (Dobbins, 2023). In some ways, industrial relations matter more and in different ways due to such conjunctures and events (Hodder and Martinez Lucio, 2021).
The case we presented above highlights, firstly, the way the contribution of workers can emerge as a focus of the industrial relations debates at the policy level. Secondly, our case outlined how the sacrifice and risks of such forms of work during key moments can become a site of struggle, e.g. how in this case governments and employers tried to limit the need to recognise the contribution, and the dangers linked to it by pushing the responsibility for safe working back onto the workers themselves. Thirdly, some groups of workers were defined and viewed as being more significant than others in terms of their contribution to society during the pandemic. And, finally, that such a contribution to society at key moments by key workers may be reframed by linking it to a sense of duty and sacrifice in nationalist terms such that rewarding the workforce would be seen as unnecessary or an aberration.
To this extent, the work of cleaners was, in this case, subject to a form of counter-mobilisation by government and various state agencies not so solely in terms of anti-union strategies or systematically developing forums of representation that avoided labour representation, important as these are (Demougin et al., 2021). Employers and especially the government that were keen on containing the cost of rewarding such workers and improving their working conditions thus began to challenge the growing awareness of the contribution of such workers and the value of their work to society. Kelly (1998) points to the importance in stages of worker mobilisation of the role of state responses in undermining or even politicising such mobilisations. Most interventions on this matter refer normally to visible or what could be termed dramatic forms of mobilisation (e.g. strikes, campaigning and protests). However, these responses can be as much ideological and concerned with the symbolic and representational aspects of work and not just rely on physical or institutional responses by social actors or state agencies. Hence, we need to note the broader spaces of mobilisation that emerge at key political moments and conjunctures. Furthermore, Kelly (1998), drawing on established mobilisation theory, argues that mobilisation proceeds through a range of stages and at key points becomes generalised as a consequence of counter-mobilisations by the employers or the state. This counter-mobilisation by the state normally come in the form of coercive, punitive measures and the use of a range of concealed strategies such as blacklisting, that are meant to undermine the resources and legitimacy of worker led mobilisations (Kelly, 1998: 56–58, 101–2). In our case above, however, this also occurred through the symbolic mobilisation related to the question of work and how its value became subject to counter-interventions by the state related to the re-representation of the value of work and effort of workers. It is important therefore to highlight these political dimensions in terms of state responses in this case as being not solely related to the de-regulation of collective industrial relations or the evolution of anti-union strategies in institutional terms. It is also related to the representation by a range of actors of what it is workers do and how they socially and economically contribute. It is a dimension of mobilisation and counter-mobilisation strategies that need much more attention as these are not purely institutional issues related to the form of worker representation or participation and the nature of visible working conditions: they enter the broader political and public sphere as well.
This counter-mobilisation led by the government in our case study worked across different levels. First, generating industrial boundaries (e.g. dividing sectors of workers and viewing the public sector especially as being privileged). Second invoking an individualised worker (e.g. through referencing the limits of management and employer responsibilities by using an individualistic approach that transferred responsibility back to the individual worker on matters of safety for example). Third, by redefining what the subject was (the ‘essential/critical worker’ or ‘key worker’) and who was included in those definitions or not. Finally, using broader non-work or non-employment-related narratives (as in the use of nationalist rhetoric and notions of duty related to it). The struggle was one related to the way the value of work was therefore represented, and how, and the manner in which this dimension of representation especially becomes contested.
Our previous work and further investigations discussed here suggest that there is a greater need to focus on how the contribution of certain workers is represented more broadly as well as contested. One reason why groups of workers such as cleaners have degraded working conditions – which has led to an absence of voice compared to some other groups – is that their work is normally viewed as peripheral, hidden or lacking in strategic social or economic importance. Furthermore, what they do, and the value of what they do, on occasions becomes a focus of struggle and contestation when it comes to ‘voice’. There have been significant new waves of interventions on participation, voice and representation that extend the debate into more discreet and subtle issues, e.g. questions of worker silence (Cullinane and Donaghey, 2014), non-union environments (Dobbins and Dundon, 2020), broader social actors, individual voice (Levin, 2008), issues of social responsibility and its politics (Reinecke and Donaghey, 2021) and broader forms of employee voice (see Wilkinson et al., 2014). Our intervention also builds on these trajectories by pointing to the way the state itself and specific governmental interests enter directly at key moments into these discussions on how the ‘contribution’ of more marginalised workers such as cleaners, and indeed workers are to be understood and interpreted. Not only are work and the outcomes of work important, but so are the politics and tensions in relation to them.
Conclusion: Re-centring value and purpose within debates on the politics of representation and participation
The article is based on a short set of events and discussions regarding the value and contribution of workers at a specific moment that in our view reveals some relevant and important issues regarding work and representation. The events outlined above in relation to the pandemic lockdowns suggest that we need to extend our understanding of representation and even participation beyond formal organisational parameters and continue the contemporary academic attempt within industrial relations to widen its understanding (see Dobbins, 2023). We need to build on the insights from debates on crisis events as well to broaden our views regarding the manner with which worker contributions are recognised and represented, and refracted, economically and socially. Overall, we suggest that discussion also needs to continue widening the focus of debate on the mechanisms that hinder workers’ representation on broader work-related issues – the stigmatising of unskilled work, the hierarchical views of labour contribution, and the narrow way work is viewed. Part of this involves continuing to connect the debate on representation more closely into the sociological debates of purpose and value and extending what we mean by mobilisation (and counter-mobilisation) to include broader ideological factors. It also means that we need to engage with these symbolic dimensions of work as they are key to how outcomes may emerge on other substantive issues of a more material nature.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
