Thoughts on Labour Market Attachment

1. Thoughts on Labour Market Attachment Canadian Career Development Foundation

2. Background* • “Labour Market Attachment” (LMA) is used quite broadly, but is not well defined • It would seem that LMA is a significant input in an “input-process-outcome” model * All info here is based on Donnalee Bell’s “Labour market attachment: Defining the spectrum between the employed and the inactive”, a 2012 literature review on LMA for CCDF’s Employability Dimensions study.

3. Key Questions (cont’d) • What is LMA? • What does it mean to adhere, affix or append to the labour market? • Is it like glue – either sticks or doesn’t? • A magnet – can attract with varying strength? • A nut and bolt that, once connected in some way, just needs to be tightened up? • A relationship, full of human foibles?

4. Key Questions (cont’d) • Do clients entering career and employment services with low LMA fare worse than those with high LMA?

5. Definitions • Canada • LMA means “working or providing services in the labour market for remuneration, on a full-time, part-time, seasonal or temporary basis, either as an employee or in Self-Employment” • UK • LMA is a “concept relating to a person’s proximity to the labour force. It covers a spectrum from fully attached workers (e.g. those in employment or International Labour Organization’s [ILO’s] unemployment) at the one extreme, to those who do not want a job at the other extreme. The latter group, which includes economically inactive retired people, might be considered completely detached from the labour market”

6. Definitions (cont’d) • Spain • LMA is “the change in workers’ labour market state, as established by their situation at predetermined moments of time, which range from unemployment (or inactivity) to employment through a permanent contract”

7. Key Elements • Each definition is based on ILO definitions of employment • ILO’s approach to the labour force: • The labour force is made up of the employed and the unemployed (want a job, looking for a job, ready to start); everyone else is economically inactive or unattached • There is a spectrum of attachment • Within this spectrum, the underemployed need to be included • Specific social groups may be differentially attached

8. Fast Forward: de la Fuente’s 6-Point Scale • Employed • UPW: Under-employed part-time workers • Unemployed • PSIA: Persons seeking but not immediately available • PAWNS: Persons available but not seeking • Inactive

9. Key Problem • LMA approaches look at a snapshot of surface status vis-à-vis the labour market (e.g., “unemployed and looking”), but this tells us little about actual attachment – its nature, depth or strength • Imagine studying “relationship attachment” and measuring only: • Not dating; not looking • Not dating; will be soon • Not dating; looking • Dating; looking • Dating; not looking

10. LMA Factors • Labour Market Status • E.g., de la Fuente’s 6-point scale • Socio-Economic Factors • E.g., education, literacy, family care responsibility, external supports, housing, criminal record • Non-Cognitive or Personal Attribute Factors • E.g., motivation, goal orientation, self-efficacy, locus of control, perseverance, self-regulation

11. To Ponder… • How useful is the idea of LMA? • Even if we could measure it with an LMAI, would we? • What difference would it make to our practice? • If useful, how should it be defined? • How does the “status – SES – attribute” combination add to our understanding of LMA? • Or, is this broader approach simply a measure of “work salience”? • Or, are SES and Attributes simply predictors of LMA rather than components of LMA?