1

TREMPLINUNITED KINGDOM NATIONAL REPORT 2

Fish processing in Scotland

Dr Pamela M ClaytonDepartment of Adult and Continuing Education

University of Glasgow

August 2003

2

NOTE

Because of the close similarity of the words ‘employers’ and ‘employees’, the more colloquial terms‘bosses’ and ‘workers’ when referring to respondents are used throughout this report.

Where answers were to be ranked in order of agreement, 5 was the highest score and 1 the lowest.Hence scores of 3 and above indicate general agreement, scores of 2 and below general disagreement.

Reference to the overall survey means that carried out in the agro-food sector in each of the CzechRepublic, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom.

1. INTRODUCTION

On the face of it, the agro-food sector in the United Kingdom is of small importance since it accountsfor under 2 per cent of all employees. In the manufacturing sector as a whole, however, 9 per cent areengaged in food manufacturing and the sector generates a great deal of tertiary sector employment, forexample, in the wholesale, retail and transport sectors. Above all, it is of importance because itsupplies our most important basic need, food, which at the same time carries great health risks. Thus,the sector is interesting in terms of the skills and knowledge, and hence training, needed by bothemployees and employers.

There are three kinds of market driving the agro-food sector:

• mass markets for relatively cheap and widely accessible products, giving rise to high-techmass production methods;

• high-volume markets for more expensive, exclusive products where demand may be based onseason, fashion and so on, giving rise to batch production for limited runs, using both high-tech machinery and manual skills;

• niche markets, both domestic and export, for high-value, hand-crafted products.

There are, correspondingly, different size firms in the sector. About three-quarters of all firms aresmall, with between one and nineteen employees. Only 2 per cent have five hundred or moreemployees.

The market is highly competitive, with different brands vying for market share, and at the same timereliant on only four to five large customers in the form of the supermarkets, which supply over three-quarters of the food bought by domestic consumers. On the one hand, therefore, there are pressures onprofit margins, while on the other hand training is essential in order to meet all the legal requirementsto ensure health and safety, not only for employees but for consumers. For the small firms whichdominate the sector, therefore, there is a tension between maintaining profit margins (some of whichis necessary for further capital investment in order to meet competitive pressures and new legislativerequirements concerning health and safety) and investment in human resources, including the trainingof new recruits and ongoing training of both existing employees and owner-managers.

The sub-sector chosen for the Tremplin project was fish and shellfish processing. Scotland waschosen as a geographical region producing high quality fish products such as smoked salmon, kippers,oysters and langoustines in small firms, as well as having large fish processing factories. In 2000,British demersal, pelagic and shellfish vessels landed a total of 307,700 tonnes into Scotland,compared with only 156,900 tonnes into the rest of the United Kingdom. Foreign vessels landed52,400 tonnes into Scotland compared with 9,200 tonnes into the rest of the United Kingdom.Scotland is, therefore, an important location for the processing of fish and shellfish. It is alsoimportant for fish farming, which has seen a great increase in recent times. For example, 129,000tonnes of farmed salmon were produced in 2000 compared with only 32,400 tonnes in 1990; theproduction of farmed mussels has risen from 500 to 2,000 tonnes over the same period (ScottishFisheries Statistics, 2000).

3

There has been a concerted campaign by bodies such as the Food Standards Agency to persuadepeople to eat more fish, particularly oily fish (http://www.food.gov.uk). Seafood in general is avaluable source of proteins, vitamins and minerals. At the same time, however, seafood that isimproperly stored, handled or cooked carries dangers in the form of bacteria and viruses, such as theVibrio bacterium which is the greatest source of reported food-borne illness, the Norwalk virus (foundin raw oysters) and hepatitis A, found in raw or partially cooked shellfish. These pose health risks toall but particularly to pregnant women, children and older people and to those with existing healthproblems. Health and safety issues are, therefore, of major concern. As highly perishable products,fish and shellfish must be dealt with, from catching or farming, through processing, packaging andstoring, to delivery, in the most rapid and hygienic way possible.

The implications for training are clear: every employee who has any contact with the product must betrained to rigorous standards to ensure that all health risks are eliminated; quality management is key;and managers have to be familiar with all of the legislative requirements concerning food standards.Skill gaps need to be kept to the minimum through training, not only of new employees but of allemployees where legislation changes or new products are manufactured. Continual updating of skillsis, therefore, a fact of life in the seafood industry. Case study A, the North Atlantic Fisheries College,will describe the role of training in the Shetland seafood industry.

Although there has been a slow decline in domestic demand for fish, prices have risen and more isspent on fish than previously (though, paradoxically, demand for fish is lower in Scotland thanelsewhere in the United Kingdom). There are jobs for workers in the sector, but seafood processing isan odoriferous task and although the Scottish industry offers good rates of pay, it is difficult to recruitpeople, with or without the existing skills of handling, filleting and processing fish and shellfish. Inother words, the sector appears to have an image problem. The situation is so serious in Shetland thatthe Shetland Fish Processors’ Association (SFPA) is applying for work permits for immigrantworkers.

The original intention was to focus on the industry in Shetland. According to the SFPA website:

“Small fish processors are vital to the wealth of the islands’ local economy. They provide theinnovation and specialism that is crucial for the development of the industry as a whole” (RuthHenderson, chief executive of SFPA).

Great efforts are made to ensure that the fish which goes to the Shetland processing units is of highquality. All the vessels in the Shetland fishing fleet are owned and operated by their crew and theirlivelihood depends on them meeting the stringent standards laid down by the Scottish Seafood Projectcode of practice, which is enforced by the two chilled fresh fish markets in Shetland (they are amongthe most modern in Europe), and constantly monitored since 1985 by an independent quality controlcompany, the Shetland Seafood Quality Control (SSQC) company. This not only monitors the qualityand temperature of fish brought to market, but also gives guidelines for the handling of all seafoodproducts in Shetland and carried out random spot checks of fishing boats, fish farms, fish processorsand fish transportation companies.

Not only is Shetland important for the catching and export of wild fish, it has also been involved insalmon farming for the last fifteen years and great pride is taken in its quality. The SSQC traces allsalmon products from hatchery to the final customer and carries out random testing. Mussels, halibutand other fish and shellfish are also cultivated for the table. Training and development is carried outby the Fisheries College.

As far as the Tremplin survey is concerned, despite the great majority of firms contacted by telephone(that is, all nineteen firms in the Shetland Fish Processors’ Association) agreeing to take part, in theevent few actually returned questionnaires. So the survey was extended to all twenty-four firms whoare members of fish and shellfish processing associations affiliated to the Sea Fish Industry Authorityin Scotland. This generated a few returns but not nearly enough. The reasons for this requireexploration, but it is probable that the length of the questionnaire, the great quantity of surveysalready carried out, the generally low educational level of the workforce and the pressure of work,especially in very small firms, deterred firms and/or their workers from taking part.

Training is essential at all levels from managers to cleaners, and concerns not only the hygienic

4

handling and correct chilling and storage of fish and shellfish, but also testing for contaminants,allowable additives and preservatives, quality control, traceability, packaging, classifying, labelling,transportation; the maintenance and cleaning of equipment used in their processing, the cleaning ofpremises, the discharge of effluent, and factory design and layout. In addition, key skills such as team-work and problem-solving may require training. SMEs have particular difficulty keeping abreast offood safety and related legislation, and a safety risk assessment tool used by the food industry tocontrol the safety and quality of foods will become mandatory for all food premises from 2004.

2. PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS

Given the disappointingly small number of returns, it is not possible to make generalisations, and thefollowing analysis applies only to the firms who did participate.

It can be stated, however, that in the United Kingdom agro-food sector in general, almost half (45 percent) of employees hold operative and elementary jobs, with a further 15 per cent in skilled trades, 11per cent in managerial positions and 12 per cent in professional and associate professional/technicaljobs. Overall, 19 per cent of employees in the sector have no qualifications, particularly at the trade,operative and elementary levels. Almost all (98 per cent) of managers, however, have some level ofqualification (Dench et al. 2000, p. 10). There is no reason to suggest that the Scottish fish processingindustry as a whole varies greatly from this.

Nine firms were represented, two very large (with five and thirteen thousand employees respectively,the latter a multi-national corporation) and the rest SMEs, ranging from forty to 120 employees. Allwere in rural areas. In the whole agro-food survey, however, just over half had a rural location (seeEuropean Survey, Annex D, Table D4).

Nine people designated ‘bosses’, representing seven firms, participated in the survey. Four weremanagers of local branches, two were human resource managers, and three worked in managementsupport roles, including one production line supervisor. In other words, no firm owners or managingdirectors are represented but rather, people in managerial positions who chose to answer as bossesrather than as employees. In the overall agro-food survey, however, one-third of the bossesresponding were owners.

On average, the Scottish bosses had spent 6.2 years in their present job (range, four to ten years), 9.3years in their present firm (range, five to twenty-one years) and 10.1 years in the industry (range, fiveto twenty-one years). This last average is significantly lower than the average for the Europeansample as a whole The average number of people managed in Scotland was thirty-one (range, one toseventy-two), similar to the whole agro-food sample (see European Survey, Annex D, Table D1).

Of the twenty-five designated ‘workers’, from eight firms, 40 per cent were male, 60 per cent female(similar to the whole agro-food sample). The biggest number, however, 44 per cent (eleven persons),were aged between thirty-five and forty-four, compared with the agro-food sample, which has a lowerage profile. Of the rest, four were under twenty-five, seven were between twenty-five and thirty-four,two between forty-five and fifty-four and only one was fifty-five or more. No persons beyondretirement age1 were represented. (See also European Survey, Annex D, Table D2.)

No professionals and only two unskilled manual workers took part. Of the rest, six wereclerical/administrative workers, eight were on the production line, five were skilled craft workers,three were in managerial positions and one a Scottish Vocational Qualifications (SVQ) trainer. Theproportion of clerical/administrative workers in the sample, compared with the lower number in theEuropean survey, is likely to reflect the lower level of education and therefore resistance to surveys ofthe general workforce in the fish-processing industry.

On average, the workers had been in their current position for 5.2 years (with a range of one to

1 In the United Kingdom, retirement age is currently 60 for women and 65 for men, though this disparity is dueto disappear.

5

eleven), in their current firm for 6.5 years (with a range of one to eleven) and in the industry for 8.6years (with a range of two to twenty-seven). These figures are generally below the European surveyaverage and given the average age of the sample may reflect a relatively high degree of turnover in anindustry which, for reasons stated in the introduction, finds it hard to recruit and retain workers (seeEuropean Survey, Annex D, Table D3).

The average number of people managed was just under eight. This figure is distorted by four of theworkers managing respectively twenty, forty, forty-eight and seventy people. Fourteen of the workersdid not have any managerial responsibility.

3. SKILLS SHORTAGES

3.1 RecruitmentThe data here consists of responses to questions, put to both bosses and workers, on workers’ reasonsfor entering the industry; employee attitudes towards a selection of industries and occupations; bossand employee assessments of the quality of the jobs provided by their firms; and methods ofrecruitment bosses found useful compared with workers’ sources of information.

3.1.1 Reasons for entering industryBosses were asked to indicate their opinion of the importance, on a scale of 1 to 5, to their workers ofa number of factors which may have influenced their decision to enter the industry in the first place.Workers were asked to state which factors had in fact influenced them. The factors suggested in thequestionnaire were: good pay, secure employment, chance to work with people, opportunities fortraining, seemed interesting, work environment, good career prospects, fringe benefits (such ascompany pension, canteen, crèche, car), well-respected job, hours of work, good appraisal/guidancesystem, wanted a change, couldn’t get anything else, wanted to live in this town/area and alwayswanted to do it (table 1).

Table 1 Assessment of factors in recruitment to the industry by workers and bosses

Workers BossesRecruitment factors Score Rank order Score Rank orderGood pay 3.8 1= 4.2 2Secure employment 3.8 1= 4.4 1Seemed interesting 3.5 3 2.9 7=Work environment 3.4 4 2.7 12=Chance to work with people 3.3 5 3.0 5=Opportunities for training 3.2 6 3.2 4Wanted to live in this town/area 3.0 7 2.9 7=Fringe benefits 2.8 8 2.8 11Well-respected job 2.7 9= 2.6 14The hours of work 2.7 9= 3.0 5=Good career prospects 2.6 11= 2.7 12=Good appraisal/guidance system 2.6 11= 2.9 7=Wanted a change 2.4 13= 2.9 7=Couldn't get anything else 2.4 13= 3.4 3Always wanted to do it 2.0 15 2.0 15N 25 8

The bosses put ‘good pay’ (4.2) and ‘secure employment’ (4.4) as the most important factors.Workers gave lower ratings than bosses but were broadly in agreement that ‘good pay’ and ‘jobsecurity’ (both 3.8) were the most important factors. The one both bosses and workers thought leastimportant was ‘always wanted to do it’ (2.0).

6

In the agro-food survey as a whole, the factors rated highest by bosses were ‘secure employment’(4.1) followed by ‘work environment’ (3.4), while those rated least important were ‘fringe benefits’(2.3) and ‘wanted a change’ (2.6) (see European Report, Annex A, Table A2). Workers overall, too,ranked ‘secure employment’ top (3.9), above ‘good pay’, ‘seemed interesting’ and ‘workenvironment’ (3.7) (European Survey, Annex B, Table B6).

When comparing the Scottish rankings by each group, however, some divergences as well assimilarities appear.

Both bosses and workers gave similar or even identical rankings to ‘chance to work with people’ (5),‘wanted to live in this town/area’ (6 and 7 respectively) and ‘good career prospects’ (a low 11).

There were differences in the rankings of 3 for ‘seemed interesting’, which was workers’ third mostpopular reason for entering the industry; of 4 for ‘well-respected job’ (less favoured by bosses) and‘the hours of work’ (which bosses rated more highly); of 5 for ‘good appraisal/guidance system’ (oflower importance to workers); of 7 for ‘work environment’ (much more important for workers) and‘wanted a change’ (denied by most workers); and 10 for ‘couldn’t get anything else’, which was nearthe bottom of the workers’ ranking but near the top of bosses’.

3.1.2 Employee perceptions of certain industries and occupationsWorkers were asked to give their impressions of a range of industries and occupations, in order to testthe perception that some sectors and jobs suffer from a poor image which hinders recruitment (tables2 and 3).

First they were asked to give their impressions, from very favourable to very unfavourable, of a rangeof industries.

Table 2 Workers’ perceptions of industries

Industry Average score out of 5 RankingEngineering 3.9 1Agriculture 3.8 2=Health care 3.8 2=Food processing 3.8 2=Information technology 3.8 2=Business 3.7 6Banking 3.5 7Hotels and catering 3.4 8Tourism 3.4 8Insurance 3.3 10Construction/building 3.2 11Agro-tourism 3.2 11N 25

The top ranked choice of industry, with an average of 3.9 out of 5, was engineering, followed byagriculture, health care, food processing and information technology (equal second with an average of3.8).

In view of the perception that both engineering and food processing suffer from a poor image, this isunexpected. The popularity of engineering may be accounted for by Scotland’s impressive past recordin this industry; but the high ranking given to food processing needs to be seen in the context of table3, where jobs are ranked. Industries were perhaps ranked in terms of perceived usefulness rather thanof generating desirable employment.

The overall results for the agro-food sector were largely quite different, with food processing, tourismand IT equal first with 3.7, followed by engineering, business and hotels and catering with 3.5. In bothcases, however, food-processing, their own industry, was well regarded (see European Survey, AnnexB, Table B1).

7

Next, they were asked to rank occupations in terms of whether they were very good jobs, very badjobs or somewhere in the middle of that range (table 3).

Table 3 Workers’ perceptions of occupations

Occupations Score out of 5 RankingDoctor 4.6 1Lawyer 4.3 2Manager 4.2 3=Computer programmer 4.2 3=Teacher 4.1 5=Electrical engineer 4.1 5=Nurse 4.1 5=Electrician 4.0 8=Police officer 4.0 8=Office worker 3.6 10Bank clerk 3.5 11=Butcher 3.5 11=Baker 3.4 13=Farmer 3.4 13=Fisheries worker 3.3 15=Factory worker 3.3 15=Dairy worker 3.2 17Hotel worker 3.0 18N 25

Despite engineering coming top in the industry ranking, electrical engineers and electricians rank fifthand eighth as occupations. In another popular industry, health care, doctors rank above nurses,although public sympathy is probably greater for nurses than for doctors; and the occupationsassociated with food-processing, butcher, baker, farmer, fisheries worker, factory worker and dairyworker are at the bottom of the list, except for hotel worker. It seems probable that perceived levels ofpay inform these rankings.

Overall, too, the occupation of doctor was ranked first (4.2), followed by manager and computerprogrammer (3.9), lawyer (3.8) and teacher and electrical engineer (3.7). Bottom of the list camefisheries worker (2.9), below factory worker, farmer and dairy worker (3.2) (European Survey, AnnexB, Table B2).

3.1.3 Ratings of own firms and jobsBosses were asked to rate their firms in terms of whether they provided ‘very good jobs’, ‘quite goodjobs’, ‘jobs that are neither good nor bad’, ‘quite poor jobs’ or ‘bad jobs’ and workers were asked toassess their own jobs in similar terms. Seven out of the nine bosses stated that their firms provided‘quite good jobs’, plus one claiming ‘very good jobs’ and one stating that the jobs were neither goodnor bad. Workers were rather more enthusiastic, with eleven stating they had very good jobs, twelvequite good jobs and only one neither good nor bad.

The bosses in the overall agro-food survey were slightly more likely to see the jobs provided by theirfirm as ‘neither good nor bad’ (20.5 per cent) but the majority, as in the Scottish survey, were fairlypositive about their firms, with 22.7 per cent feeling that it provided ‘very good jobs’ and 54.7 percent claiming that they provided ‘quite good jobs’ (see European Survey, Annex A, Table A4). Agro-food workers in general were much more likely than the Scottish workers to see their jobs as ‘quitegood’ rather than ‘very good’, but similarly there was very little dissatisfaction (European Survey,Annex B, Table B8).

Bosses and workers were then asked to assess their firms in terms of pay, security of employment,opportunities to work with people, opportunities for training, interesting work, work environment,

8

career prospects, fringe benefits, respected job, hours of work and good appraisal/guidance system(that is, most of the factors referred to under reasons for workers to enter the industry) (table 4).

Table 4 Bosses’ and workers’ assessment of aspects of the job

Bosses WorkersAspects of job Score Rank Score RankOpportunities to work with people 4.2 1 4.2 1=Security 4.1 2 4.2 1=Opportunities for training 3.9 3 4.1 3Pay 3.6 4= 3.7 7Appraisal/guidance system 3.6 4= 3.3 9Work environment 3.4 6 3.8 5=Interesting work 3.2 7= 3.9 4Career prospects 3.2 7= 3.2 10The hours of work 3.1 9 3.4 8Respected job 3.0 10 3.8 5=Fringe benefits 2.9 11 2.8 11N 9 25

In terms of ranking, both groups said the best aspects of the job were ‘opportunities to work withpeople’, ‘security’ and ‘opportunities for training’, and both put ‘career prospects’, ‘the hours ofwork’ and ‘fringe benefits’ to the bottom. Pay was less important according to workers than to bosses.

In the agro-food survey as a whole, bosses thought security of employment and opportunities to workwith people were the best aspects of jobs in their firms, and fringe benefits and career prospects theworst. The main difference is that the Scottish bosses were less likely to see the work as ‘interesting’and more likely to cite ‘opportunities for training’ as a positive factor (see European Survey, AnnexA, Table A5).

Agro-food workers in general rated most highly ‘opportunities to work with people’ (3.9), interestingwork and work environment (3.8) and job security (3.7), with fringe benefits and career prospects atthe bottom, which is broadly similar to the Scottish results (European Survey, Annex B, Table B9).The notable difference is the Scottish emphasis on training opportunities, no doubt because trainingwas much more a feature of the Scottish firms than in the overall European sample.

There are some notable disparities between Scottish bosses’ and workers’ scores. Workers were morelikely than bosses to see their jobs as interesting and respected and carried out in a good workenvironment. They saw their hours of work and opportunities for training in a slightly better light thandid bosses, but were less satisfied with the appraisal/guidance system.

Despite, then, the general low opinion of jobs in their industry, the majority of workers were quitesatisfied with their own firms and rated them more highly than did the bosses. This has implicationsfor recruitment, as the next section will show.

3.2 Methods of recruitmentBosses were asked what were the most effective recruitment methods for their firm, while workerswere asked who or what helped them to find out about jobs in this type of work. The questions arerather different, as workers were answering on the basis of their entry to the industry rather than to thefirm, but the contrast in the answers is nevertheless striking. The scores relate to the percentages ofrespondents who chose each category as one of their recruitment methods or sources of information(table 5).

9

Table 5 Bosses’ recruitment methods and workers’ sources of information

Recruitment method/source of information Bosses WorkersAdvertisements in the general press 87.5 20.8The unemployment service 87.5 25.0Word of mouth 87.5 54.2Advice from friends 50.0 25.0Advice from current or past employees 37.5 45.8Private employment agencies 12.5 4.2Advice from family 12.5 29.2Professional/industry publications .0 4.2The Internet .0 12.5Advice from teachers .0 12.5Talks in schools .0 4.2Stands at trade/career fairs .0 .0N 8 24

Professional/industry publications, private employment agencies, talks in schools and stands attrade/career fairs were used by few or no bosses or workers. The Internet and advice from teacherswere mentioned by a small number of workers but not by bosses. One boss added that he usedadvertisements in local shops to attract recruits. There are, however, notable differences between thetwo groups. Considering the responses by workers, bosses appear greatly to over-value the usefulnessof advertisements in the general press and the unemployment service; to place more credence in wordof mouth (although this was the greatest single source of information noted by workers); and to under-value advice from current or past employees and from the family. Given that the second biggestcategory for workers was advice from other employees, it appears that a firm offering satisfactoryconditions should have fewer recruiting problems overall than one with dissatisfied employees.

The overall agro-food survey shows some differences from the Scottish one. Bosses in the Europeanagro-food sector gave top rating to ‘word of mouth’ (61.7 per cent of bosses responding), closelyfollowed by ‘advertisements in the general press’ (59.4 per cent), ‘advice from friends’ (55.6 per cent)and ‘advice from current employees’ (49.6 per cent) as the most common methods of recruitment (seeEuropean Survey, Annex A, Table A3). Scottish bosses, therefore, relied far more on formal methodsof recruitment, including the state employment service, although still recognising the importance ofinformal channels; whereas workers in Scotland, in prioritising informal methods, were closer tobosses in Europe as a whole than to their own.

Agro-food workers in general were more likely to have got their information through advertisementsin the general press and advice from friends, less by word of mouth and about the same from someonethey knew in the job and their families (European Survey, Annex B, Table B7).

3.3 Problem areas in recruitmentAll the firms in Scotland stated that they had problems with recruitment, whereas only 67.6 per centof bosses in the overall agro-food survey reported such difficulties (see European Survey Annex A,Table A6). Nearly all the Scottish bosses found it difficult to recruit unskilled manual staff, three-quarters production line staff and half professional staff. Two mentioned problems with recruitingmanagerial and skilled staff. None, however, reported problems with IT specialists and other technicalstaff, secretarial/clerical, sales or reception/customer service.

In the overall survey of agro-food bosses with recruitment difficulties, the greatest problem was torecruit skilled craft workers (58.9 per cent), followed by sales staff (35.6 per cent), and productionline and professional staff (33.3 per cent each). Only a quarter (24.4 per cent) was short of unskilledmanual workers (see European Survey, Annex A, Table A7). Although there are some similaritiesbetween the European set and the Scottish sub-set, there appears to be a greater shortage of unskilledmanual staff in Scotland than elsewhere, though it is unclear whether this reflects the local pool of

10

labour or the types of jobs available in the firms.

When asked about the post for which they had the greatest difficulty recruiting staff, table 6 shows thereasons, in order of frequency, suggested for the difficulty of filling this post.

Table 6 Reasons for recruitment difficulties given by bosses

Reasons Number ofresponses

Rank

Pay’s considered too low 6 1The work is boring 5 2Hours of work (too long/antisocial) 4 3Poor career prospects 3 4=Too few fringe benefits 3 4=Young people aren’t interested in working hard 3 4=Poor/difficult working conditions 2 7=Job has a poor image 2 7=Firm located in a difficult place to reach 2 7=Not much job security 1 10=Not enough training opportunities 1 10=Not enough guidance/ appraisal in job 1 10=People don't want to/can’t afford to live here 1 10=Employment agencies don't recommend it 1 10=Schools don't teach young people the right skills 1 10=Not enough contact with people .0 0Applicants don’t have the right qualifications .0 0N 9

In addition, one boss wrote in that there were very few unemployed people in the area.

The main reasons given concerned perceptions of pay and conditions: low pay and boring work,which was carried out at unsocial times. Three bosses mentioned other aspects, such as poor careerprospects and too few fringe benefits. Three also stated that ‘young people aren’t interested inworking hard’. Two felt that the job had a poor image and two mentioned that the firm was located ina place which was difficult to reach (these were both in remote parts of Shetland). None, however,said that applicants did not have the right qualifications. Overall, the problem seemed to be one ofimage, given that pay in the sector is well above the minimum wage, and this tends to confirm theinformation given by the SFPA, that recruitment is a problem.

The overall survey of the agro-food sector is similar to the Scottish sub-set in placing ‘pay’sconsidered too low’ (59.8 per cent) as the main reason for difficulties in filling their hardest-to-fillposts; but they placed ‘young people aren’t interested in working hard’ (47.8 per cent) rather higherand, whereas in Scotland ‘applicants don’t have the right qualifications’ was not an issue, 42.4 percent of agro-food bosses overall rated this a problem (European Survey, Annex A, Table A8). Thereason for this difference is unclear. It may arise from the kind of posts that were hardest to fill (theunskilled manual staff in short supply in Scotland do not need qualifications), or from the generalattitude to and availability of vocational qualifications (Scotland, like the United Kingdom in general,does not have a strong tradition of vocational education and although ‘paper qualifications’ areincreasing in importance, they are sometimes considered neither necessary nor sufficient for entry to ajob).

Bosses were asked, when recruitment for hard-to-fill posts did take place, what kind of person theywere likely to recruit (table 7).

11

Table 7 Bosses’ views of likely recruits to hard-to-fill posts

Categories of recruit Responses RankMales 8 1Females 6 2People between 25 and 45 7 1People under 25 5 2People over 45 2 3Unemployed people 7 1People transferring from other firms in the same industry 5 2People coming from other industries 2 3Recent school leavers 1 4=People returning to work after a career break 1 4=People transferring from other posts within your firm 1 4=Recent graduates .0 0People who need training 7 1People who are already suitably trained 5 2N 9

Unemployed males under forty-five were the most likely recruits, but females were also likely to jointhe firms and also people, who were already suitably trained, transferring from other firms in the sameindustry. Many likely recruits, however, needed training.

There are some interesting differences between the Scottish subset and the general agro-food survey.Whereas a significant number of recruits in Scotland were aged under 25, in Europe as a whole thegreat majority (76.9 per cent) were predicted to be aged between 25 and 45. The sources of recruitswere similar, however, with the most common sources people transferring from other firms in thesame industry (45.1 per cent) and unemployed people (39.6 per cent), although the order is reversed.Similarly, about half the recruits in the European survey needed training (European Survey, Annex A,Table A9).

3.4 Bosses’ views on government action to help overcome skills shortagesBosses with recruitment problems were then asked to comment on the helpfulness, on a scale fromone to five, of suggestions concerning what they thought government could or should do to helpovercome these skills shortages. Only seven answered this question.

Table 8 Bosses’ suggestions for overcoming skills shortages

Suggestions Score RankReduce the social costs employers have to bear 3.9 1Reduce the benefits to unemployed people 3.6 2=Improve the performance of employment agencies and job centres 3.6 2=Require all unemployed people to take any available job 3.6 2=Give employers more tax breaks 3.5 5=Improve the opportunities for young people to experience the world ofwork before they look for their first job

3.5 5=

Invest more in vocational education 3.4 7=Improve careers guidance in schools 3.4 7=Require all employers to train their workforce 3.3 9Provide more crèches so that women with children find it easier to work 3.0 10Shorten the working week 2.9 11Allow more immigrants into the country 2.7 12Discourage early retirement among older people 2.6 13=Reform the school curriculum 2.6 13=N

12

Reducing tax and national insurance for employers and forcing unemployed people into work are theclearly preferred options. Also scoring fairly highly are the ideas of work experience for youngpeople, investing in vocational education and improving careers guidance. The requirement that allemployers should train their workforce might not have been such a popular option had owners offirms, rather than managers who are themselves employees, taken part. Further down the rankingswere family-friendly policies such as providing more crèches and shortening the working week.Allowing more immigration was not a very popular choice, although work visas for immigrants havebeen applied for in Shetland; and, worryingly, in view of forthcoming legislation, the idea ofdiscouraging early retirement did not seize the imagination. It is particularly interesting, however, thatreforming the school curriculum comes at the bottom of the list, for employers’ federations arecurrently complaining about lack of basic skills in the workforce.

In the overall agro-food survey, bosses were more likely to suggest improving education and guidancethan focusing on the narrow interests of the firm. Thus, the most popular options were ‘improvecareers guidance in schools’ (4.0), followed by ‘to improve the opportunities for young people toexperience the world of work before they look for their first job’, ‘invest more in vocationaleducation’ and ‘reduce the social costs employers have to bear’ (each 3.9) (see European Survey,Annex A, Table A10). The suggestion that unemployed people should be required to take anyavailable job scored only 2.5, compared with the higher score by the Scottish bosses (which no doubtreflects the low unemployment rate in the United Kingdom). Allowing in more immigrants, however,was almost equally unpopular (2.2).

4. SKILLS GAPS

4.1 Identification of skill gaps and the relevance of qualifications

4.1.1 SkillsBosses were asked how important, on a scale of one to five, various skills were for workers in theirfirm in general. Workers were asked the same question, as applied to their particular job, and werealso asked to rate their own skills. The results have been combined in table 9.

Table 9 Bosses and workers’ opinions of the importance of skills needed in their firm/job

Skills Bosses’ opinion Workers’opinion

Workers’ self-assessment

Score Rank Score Rank Score RankHaving a flexible attitude 4.8 1 4.7 1= 4.6 1Working in a team 4.7 2= 4.6 4 4.6 1Being accurate 4.7 2= 4.7 1= 4.4 3Being well organised/systematic 4.0 4 4.7 1= 4.2 4=Being logical 3.9 5= 4.5 5 4.2 4=Having physical fitness 3.9 5= 3.3 15 3.8 11=Managing people 3.7 7 3.8 7= 3.8 11=Having nimble fingers 3.6 8= 3.6 10= 3.8 11=Having specific knowledge 3.6 8= 4.3 6 4.2 4=Being imaginative 3.1 10 3.4 13= 3.8 11=Being caring 3.0 11 3.6 10= 4.0 7=Being good with numbers 2.8 12= 3.7 9 3.9 10Dealing with customers/public 2.8 12= 3.4 13= 4.0 7=Being mechanically minded 2.7 14 2.8 16 3.1 16Writing correct grammar 2.4 15= 3.8 7= 4.0 7=Using a computer 2.4 15= 3.5 12 3.5 15

13

Speaking foreign languages 1.4 17 1.6 17 1.5 17N 9 24 24

The figures in bold refer to attributes where there is a significant statistical difference betweenworkers’ opinion of the skills needed for their jobs and their self-assessment. The workers overall feltthat they were fitter and more caring and had nimbler fingers than required by the job. Since theimportance attached to speaking foreign languages is so low, the statistical significance there is of nointerest.

The survey of agro-food workers generally shows very similar results: the highest values are given tobeing organised (4.6); accuracy (4.4); teamwork, flexible attitude and specific knowledge (4.3); andbeing logical (4.2). Speaking foreign languages also came last (2.5). Overall, though, being caring anddealing with customers scored more highly (4.0) than in the Scottish sub-set (European Survey,Annex B, Table B3).

There are some differences between the Scottish responses and those in the agro-food survey as awhole. Accuracy, team-working, flexibility and organisation were given high scores by bosses in theagro-food sector throughout the European survey, but specific knowledge and customer care rankedlower in the Scottish survey (see European Report, Annex A, table A1).

It should be borne in mind that the bosses’ and workers’ views are not strictly comparable, as bosseswere asked about their workers’ skills in general whereas workers were assessing the skills needed intheir particular jobs.

Nevertheless, the rankings of bosses and workers concerning skills needed are broadly similar at thetop and the bottom of the rankings. All placed a flexible attitude at the top and team-working,accuracy, organisation and logic were valued by both sets. Since workers on average felt their skills inthese areas (except for team-working) were not quite as good as needed, concentrating in-servicetraining here would appear to be an acceptable option for both parties.

Similarly, speaking foreign languages and using a computer were at or near the bottom for both.

There are two notable exceptions: bosses valued physical fitness far above workers (but the latterthought they were fitter than they actually needed to be for the job); and conversely, workers placedmore importance on writing correct grammar (but again thought they were better than their jobdemanded). Both rankings and scores diverge in these areas.

In terms of scores, workers appeared to place a higher value on their jobs than did bosses in severalareas: being well-organised (workers 4.7, bosses 4.0), having specific knowledge (workers 4.3, bosses3.6), being logical (workers 4.5, bosses 3.9), being good with numbers (workers 3.7, bosses 2.8) andusing a computer (workers 3.5, bosses 2.4). White-collar workers were highly likely to emphasisenumeracy and computer use, given the nature of modern office work; looking at the blue-collarworkers who gave scores of 4 or 5, however, all fifteen thought their jobs demanded being organised,fourteen thought they needed specific knowledge and logical thinking to do their jobs and ten thoughtthey needed to be good with numbers.

Workers were modest about their skills in the highest-ranked areas, but felt that their abilities wereabove the level needed for their jobs in the matters of being imaginative, caring, mechanically-mindedand dealing with the public. Similarly, agro-food workers in general felt they could be more flexible,accurate and good at team working (4.2), more organised (4.1) and more caring (4.1), but felt theywere good at dealing with customers (4.0) (European Survey, Annex B, Table B4).

4.1.2 QualificationsOf the twenty-five workers, nine (about one third) of the workers had completed lower secondaryschool, twelve (almost a half) upper secondary school, three had attended further education and onehad a degree. Six (about a quarter, and including four of the fifteen manual workers) had vocationalqualifications and were working towards others; a further six (including four of the manual workers)had some but were not working towards any others, and just one without qualifications, a manualworker, was currently working towards some.

14

Twelve (almost half), however, had no vocational qualifications and were not working towards any.This last group included six of the manual workers.

The educational profile for the whole agro-food survey is similar, but fewer had or were workingtowards vocational qualifications than in the Scottish survey (see European Survey, Annex D, TableD2.)

Of those who had or were working towards vocational qualifications, the average number of awardswas 1.3 (compared with only 0.6 in the whole agro-food sample, see European Survey, Annex B,Table B12, see also Table B13), all of which were considered relevant to their present jobs. Thisfigure, however, does not fully reflect the picture. Of those with or working towards vocationalqualifications, the average number was 2.3 and the range was one to five. Furthermore, taking intoaccount the level of qualifications, just one had only level two. Eight were (or would be) qualified tolevel three, two to Higher National Diploma/Certificate level and two to first degree level.

The qualifications held by the group as a whole included typing and shorthand, computer operation,accounting and business studies; hygiene, health and safety, food and drink manufacture and first aid;team leadership and quality monitoring

The group as a whole, then, is polarised between non- or low-qualified workers and those at levelthree or above.

Those with relevant qualifications were asked for their reasons for studying (table 10).

Table 10 Workers’ reasons for having or taking job-relevant qualifications

Reasons Score RankingTo get my first job in this type of work 35.7 1=To widen my career opportunities/choices 35.7 1=My boss advised me to 35.7 1=Because I thought it sounded interesting 28.6 4=To get a better job in this type of work 28.6 4=My family/friends advised me to 14.3 6Other people (e.g. teachers) advised me to 7.1 7Unemployment office advised me to .0 0Private employment agency advised me to .0 0N 14

Instrumental reasons were the most common, principally to obtain or advance in a job; but fourpeople, two of whom were manual workers, selected ‘because it sounded interesting’. Other reasonsgiven include ‘relevance to job in workplace’ and ‘essential for working here’.

The commonest reasons given by all the agro-food workers were broadly similar: ‘because I thought itsounded interesting’ (45.8 per cent), ‘to widen my career opportunities’ (44.9 per cent), ‘to get myfirst job in this type of work’ (35.6 per cent), ‘to get a better job in this type of work’ (34.7 per cent);but only 15.3 per cent said their boss had advised them to take the qualifications (European Survey,Annex B, Table B14).

4.2 Strategies: training

4.2.1 Trainees and apprenticesOf the seven firms represented in the bosses’ survey, only two had any formal trainees or apprentices.Perhaps surprisingly, these were firms of respectively a hundred and 120 employees. The two largefirms had no trainees. This contrasts with the overall agro-food survey, where just under half (48.5 percent) of firms had apprentices/trainees and the average number of these in the firms which had themwas seven. These were primarily in skilled crafts, production line and sales (European Survey, AnnexA, Tables A11-13, and see Tables A14-17 on other aspects of apprenticeships).

15

Both were male aged under twenty-five, one a recent school leaver and the other a current employeebeing transferred to a different section. One was training for a skilled craft, via part-time study,outside work premises, during working hours. The other was being trained both for the productionline and unskilled manual work, following a course provided on work premises, during and afterworking hours. He would be awarded a qualification for things he already knew (Scottish VocationalQualification level 2, which is work-based).

4.2.2 Continuing vocational trainingBoth bosses and workers were asked about training in the previous twelve months. Training wasdescribed as courses on the firm’s premises; courses outside the workplace; conferences, seminars,workshops or similar; on the job training, someone showing someone else how to do something; timeat work for personal study; distance learning; rotation of posts at work (for training purposes); andscheduled discussion groups with colleagues to talk about ways of doing the job better. Respondentswere also invited to add any other types of training engaged in.

Whereas all the firms had provided training, the average percentage of workers estimated to havereceived it was 78.3, which accords closely with the three-quarters (nineteen) of the workers surveyedsaid they had received it. Twelve of these were manual, craft and production line workers. Bycontrast, only just over half the workers in the whole agro-food sample had received training (seeEuropean Survey, Annex B, Table B15).

Of the Scottish workers, the average number of hours spent on training over the year was 69.2 (with arange of three to three hundred hours), estimated at 3.8 per cent of paid time (compared with theworkers in the whole agro-food survey who had received training, who reported having spent 66.4hours in training, or 1.8 per cent of paid time - see European Survey, Annex B, Table B17). Firms, onthe other hand, said that on average 2.1 per cent of paid time was spent on training, and it is probablethat the workers, overall, who volunteered for the survey were more involved in training than thosewho did not take part.

4.2.3 Training plansBosses were asked if their firm had a training plan and if so how long the plan had been in existenceand what percentage of turnover was allocated to training.

All seven firms had a training plan and the average length of such plans was 4.8 years (with a range oftwo to ten years), so the idea of a training plan for most firms was quite a recent innovation. Thelargest firm, with 13,000 workers, had had a training plan only for four years, but the smallest, withforty employees, had had one for six years. The other large firm, with 5,000 workers, had the longestin existence, at ten years.

Only five bosses were in a position to estimate its annual value as a percentage of turnover, and theaverage was 0.64 per cent.

In the overall agro-food survey, on the other hand, only 38.6 per cent of firms had a training plan,though the estimated value of those that existed was 1.09 per cent of turnover and the plans had beenin existence for an average of 6.1 years (see European Survey, Annex A, Tables A30, A31, A32).

4.2.4 Certification of existing competencesIn the United Kingdom this would most commonly take the form of National or Scottish VocationalQualifications, which range from level 1 (basic) to 5 (higher degree equivalent). Four of the sevenfirms said that they had such a scheme, comprising the two largest and the two smallest firms.

In the overall survey of the agro-food sector, however, only 20.6 per cent certified existingcompetencies (European Survey, Annex A, Table A33).

16

4.3 Analysis of training

4.3.1 Types of trainingBoth bosses and bosses were asked about types of job-related training in the past year: bosses whatthey had provided in percentage terms and workers what they had received (percentages total morethan 100 because of workers receiving more than one kind of training (table 11).

Table 11 Types of training in the last twelve months reported by bosses and workers

Types of training Bosses Rank Workers RankCourse on the firm’s premises 35.6 1 57.9 1On-the-job training, someone showing someoneelse how to do something

33.8 2 52.6 2

Course outside the workplace 18.8 3 42.1 3Rotation of posts at work (for training purposes) 5.0 4 15.8 5Conferences, seminars, workshops or similar 3.8 5 .0 0Scheduled discussion groups with colleagues totalk about ways of doing the job better

2.5 6 10.5 6

Distance learning 0.4 7 .0 0Time at work for personal study 0.3 8 N/aPersonal study, either at work or elsewhere N/a 21.1 4Total percentage (bosses only) 100N 8 19

There is agreement in terms of ranking between the two groups, with courses on the firm’s premisesand on-the-job training comprising the majority of activity, followed by courses outside theworkplace. The differences in amount arise because workers took several types of training within thesame year and the greater number taking courses outside the workplace reflects the higher-than-average educational and occupational level of the respondents. One question was not the same forboth bosses and workers. ‘Time at work for personal study’ came bottom of the rankings and with avery small score for bosses, but 20 per cent of workers, who were asked about personal study ‘eitherat work or elsewhere’, said they did this, and it is probable that they meant that they did some of theirstudying at home or in a library.

The overall survey shows that fewer agro-food firms trained their workers (only three-fifths,compared with all the Scottish firms) and those that did trained fewer than the Scottish firms (45.4 percent compared with 78.3 per cent). On the other hand, those who did were most likely to provide in-house (41.8 per cent) and external courses (16.6 per cent), and only 23.6 per cent on-the-job training(European Survey, Annex A, Tables A18-20, 23). There was, therefore, much more emphasis ontraining but slightly less formal training in the Scottish firms, and much more on-the-job training thanin Europe as a whole. This apparent difference, however, may arise from differing perceptions ofwhat constitutes ‘training’. Furthermore, 35.7 per cent of the workers in the agro-food survey saidthey had received on-the-job training, although at the same time 48.7 per cent had taken in-house and32.5 per cent external courses (European Survey, Annex B, Table B16).

4.3.2 Costs of trainingBoth bosses and workers were asked who had born the cost of training (table 12).

Table 12 Bosses’ and workers’ reports on funding of training

Fees paid by firm Bosses WorkersYes, all of them 88.9 55.6Yes, some of them 11.1 5.6No, none of them .0 5.6There were no fees (training provided from staffingbudget)

.0 33.3

17

N 9 18

Eight of the bosses said that the firm paid all the course fees for their workers’ vocational training andone said that it paid for some of the fees. This is similar to the overall agro-food survey (see EuropeanSurvey, Annex A, Table A21 and Annex B, Table B18). Workers, however, claimed that one-third oftheir training was funded from the staffing budget. It is likely that bosses misinterpreted the question.

Both bosses and workers were asked about payment for the time spent on vocational training (table13).

Table 13 Bosses’ and workers’ reports on funding of time spent training

Firm paid for time spent on vocational training Bosses WorkersYes, all of it 77.8 88.9Yes, some of it 22.2 5.6No, none of it .0 5.6

N 9 18

The disparity here is hard to analyse in any meaningful way but again shows the slightlyunrepresentative nature of the employee sample. The overall agro-food bosses’ survey gives an almostidentical result (European Survey, Annex A, Table A22, see also Annex B, Table B19).

Bosses were asked if their firm supported workers who chose to study by themselves (table 14).

Table 14 Bosses’ support for workers choosing to study by themselves

Support provided Number of responsesNo, not at all 0Yes, by providing unpaid study leave 2Yes, by providing paid study time 2Yes, by paying course fees 6N (firms) 6

Of the six firms represented in the responses, all said that they paid course fees for such workers, twoprovided unpaid and two paid study leave. In the overall agro-food survey, on the other hand, almosthalf (46.1 per cent) provided no support for private study, although a further 29.7 per cent paid coursefees (European Survey, Annex A, Table A34).

4.3.3 Selection of employees for trainingBosses were asked the various bases on which workers were selected for training and workers wereasked the bases on which they themselves had been selected for training (table 15).

Table 15 Bosses’ and workers’ reports on bases of selection for training

Bases of selection for training Bosses Rank Workers RankNo selection, everyone in particular jobs has to do it 88.9 1 50.0 1No selection, anyone who is interested/eligible cando it

55.6 2= 22.2 3

People who need specific skills are selected 55.6 2= 27.8 2People with potential for promotion are selected 44.4 3 .0 0People apply to attend, but only some are selected 22.2 4 5.6 4=Individual study (i.e. no selection) 11.1 5 5.6 4=N 9 18

Again the disparity reflects the nature of the employee sample, in which six of those answering this

18

question were white-collar workers or managers. The stringent health and safety requirements in thefood-processing area account for the fact that eight of the bosses said that everyone in particular jobshad to receive training; but out of the twelve manual, craft and production line workers who receivedtraining, only eight said that they had had no choice. One had chosen to do it, one had applied foradditional training, and three had had only training that they applied for. An additional method ofselection was by line managers.

The overall agro-food survey shows rather more emphasis on the selection of people needing specificskills (62.5 per cent), and fewer (53.8 per cent) gave training to all in particular jobs, without selection(European Survey, Annex A, Table A24). The experience of Scottish workers and the whole agro-food sample is broadly similar; those who had received vocational training because all had to do itconstituted 42 per cent, with only 26.7 per cent selected because they needed specific skills and 22 percent because they chose to (European Survey, Annex B, Table B20).

4.3.4 Evaluation of training carried out in the past yearBosses and workers were again asked matched questions, rating on a scale of 1 to 5 (from least tomost useful) the vocational training carried out in the past year on the issues of ‘helping them to dotheir present jobs better’ and ‘helping them with career progression’ (table 16).

Table 16 Bosses’ and workers’ evaluation of usefulness of training carried out in the last twelvemonths

Usefulness of vocational training Bosses WorkersFor helping them to do their present jobs better 4.6 4.3For helping them with career progression 4.1 3.4N 9 17

Both groups were very satisfied overall with the effect of the training in helping their jobperformance, but workers were less likely than bosses to feel that it advanced their careers. Theoverall agro-food results are similar (see European Survey, Annex B, Table B21).

Bosses’ third option was ‘helping the firm to adapt to future demands’, which scored a high 4.2.Workers’ third option was ‘for getting a different type of job’, scoring a rather low 3.2, which is notsurprising since training is generally geared to the kind of job currently undertaken and focuses onspecific rather than transferable skills.

The overall agro-food survey shows that bosses were also very satisfied that the vocational trainingthey had provided had improved workers’ performance (4.4) and helped the firm (4.0) but less likelyto say that it had helped workers’ career progression (3.3) (European Survey, Annex A, Table A25).

Both groups were asked about training for the specific skills which workers had been asked to assessin the context of their jobs and their own abilities. Bosses were asked which skills were focused on,using a scale of 1 (great emphasis) to 5 (not covered) and workers were asked which skills trainingthey personally thought they needed in order to do their jobs better (table 17).

19

Table 17 Bosses’ report on focus of skills training and workers’ assessments of training need

Skills Bosses’ emphasis Workers’ assessmentof training needed

Score Rank % RankHaving specific knowledge 3.6 1 81.0 1Working in a team 3.2 2 61.9 9Managing people 3.1 3 76.2 2=Having a flexible attitude 2.9 4= 52.4 12Being accurate 2.9 4= 66.7 5=Being well organised/systematic 2.8 6 57.1 10=Being logical 2.3 7 71.4 4Using a computer 2.2 8 66.7 5=Being good with numbers 2.0 9= 57.1 10=Being mechanically minded 2.0 9= 23.8 15Having physical fitness 1.9 11 33.3 13Dealing with customers/public 1.8 12= 66.7 5=Having nimble fingers 1.8 12= 19.0 16=Being imaginative 1.7 14 76.2 2=Being caring 1.4 15 28.6 14Writing correct grammar 1.2 16 66.7 5=Speaking foreign languages 1.0 17 19.0 16=

N 9 21

Note that when asked which skills were most important in their firm, bosses had prioritised ‘having aflexible attitude’, ‘working in a team’, ‘being accurate’, ‘being well organised’ and ‘being logical’(see table 9). ‘Having specific knowledge’ was ranked eighth, and yet training was focused on thisabove all else (as in the European Survey, Annex A, Table A26). This presumably means that this wasthe site of the most important skill gaps perceived by firms.

Workers were asked with which skills they felt training could most help them to do their jobs better.Some gave negative responses, not because they necessarily felt certain skills were unimportant butbecause they felt they did not need training in them, so some of the disparity between bosses’ focusand workers’ self-assessment of training needs is explained to some extent. Certain categories,however, differ strikingly between the two groups. Skills rated low by bosses but given positiveresponses by a majority of workers include ‘being imaginative’, ‘writing correct grammar’, ‘beinggood with numbers’ and ‘using a computer’. The last three refer to basic skills needs (a level of ITcompetence is becoming a basic skill to add to literacy and numeracy) and the low value put on themby bosses reflects other research evidence that bosses give too little basic skills training (see UKReport 1).

Workers in the overall agro-food survey also felt that they needed specific knowledge (80.5 per cent);to be well-organised (64.3 per cent); to be able to use a computer and manage people (each 62.5 percent); to work in a team (61.8 per cent); and to be accurate and know how to deal with customers(60.7 per cent). Far more, however, thought they needed foreign languages (46 per cent), and writingcorrect grammar was rated last (see European Survey, Annex B, Table B23).

Bosses were then asked to evaluate the success of the training in those skills which they had rated 3, 4or 5 in terms of focus and workers were also asked to evaluate their skills training (table 18).

20

Table 18 Bosses’ and workers’ evaluation of success of training (N = the number who had givenor received training in this particular skill)

Skills in which training was given Bosses Workers

Mean N Mean NDealing with customers/the public 4.3 3 4.1 7Having physical fitness 4.0 3 3.8 5Having specific knowledge 3.9 8 4.3 16Managing people 3.7 7 3.9 9Being well organised/systematic 3.5 6 4.4 14Being good with numbers 3.5 4 3.7 7Being accurate 3.4 7 4.3 11Using a computer 3.4 5 4.3 7Working in a team 3.3 7 4.0 14Being logical 3.3 4 3.7 14Having a flexible attitude 3.2 5 4.3 12Being mechanically minded 3.2 5 3.5 6Being imaginative 3.0 1 3.5 10Being caring 3.0 2 4.1 7Writing correct grammar 3.0 1 3.7 7Having nimble fingers 2.8 4 3.7 6

It is notable that, although bosses expressed a high degree of satisfaction overall (see table 16), this isnot reflected in their assessment of training for specific skills. Just as they valued the skills inherent intheir jobs more than did bosses, workers also valued the training more highly in all categories except‘physical fitness’ and ‘dealing with customers/the public’ (both rated the most satisfactory by bossesand the only two skills to score an average of 4 or more - but provided by only three bosses). Forskills training provided by five or more of the bosses, those rated the most satisfactory were ‘havingspecific knowledge’, ‘managing people’, ‘being well-organised/systematic’, ‘using a computer’ and‘being accurate’. Given that 3 represents ‘satisfactory’, however, bosses were in generally contentwith the outcomes of training, if not as enthusiastic as some of their workers.

In the overall agro-food survey, bosses’ ratings were similar to the Scottish ones (except for physicalfitness) in placing customer care (4.2) as the most successful area for skills training. This wasfollowed by specific knowledge (4.1), team-working and accuracy (both 3.8) (European Survey,Annex A, Table A27). The workers’ assessments are similar in ranking but overall they rated aspectsof training lower: only ‘having specific knowledge’ (4.2) and ‘being well-organised’ (4.0) werecomparable with the Scottish results (see European Survey, Annex B, Table B22).

4.4 Skills acquisition and mobilityAn important issue for bosses is that, having been trained, their workers do not take their new orupgraded skills to another firm, possibly in the same area and indeed a competitor. Fear of ‘poaching’is well-justified.

Hence, bosses were asked if, in general, their trainees and apprentices wanted to stay with their firmwhen they had finished their training. One boss said yes and the other that some did and others didnot. Both the current trainees were very likely to be asked to stay on after completing theirapprenticeships, which is to be expected given the investment in their training; but whether or not theywill, or for how long, remains to be seen.

Concerning workers who had recently received continuing vocational training, bosses were asked ifthis made them any more or less likely than other employees to leave the firm. Of the nine bosses,three said they were slightly more likely to stay with the firm, three that they were much more likelyto stay and three that it made no difference. In other words, these bosses did not particularly fear that

21

training would harm the firm through losing it employees. The overall agro-food survey gives asimilar result, with only 10.8 per cent of bosses feeling that trained employees were much more orslightly more likely to leave, 37.3 per cent believing it would make no difference and 51.8 per centthinking they would be slightly or much more likely to stay with the firm (European Survey, AnnexA, Table A28).

Asked the reason for their responses, all five bosses who answered this question said that trainingmade workers feel more loyal to the firm, four that they got a pay increase after completing a coursethree that their career prospects in the firm improved and one that they had more marketable skills (inwhich, presumably, they took pride but did not wish to sell elsewhere). The results for the EuropeanSurvey are similar, though fewer said workers got a pay rise after completing a course (see Annex A,Table A29).

In a question unrelated to work-provided training, workers were asked if they ever thought of workingin a different type of job altogether (not necessarily in a different firm, though). Their answers havebeen collated with their access to training in the past year (table 19).

Table 19 Workers’ feelings about changing job compared with receipt of training in the lasttwelve months

Attitude to job change

All workers Workerstrained in

the last year

Workers nottrained in

the last yearNo, never 2 1 1Sometimes, but not seriously 18 14 4Yes, I’d like to change 4 3 1Yes, I’m determined to change 1 1 0N 25 19 6

It is hard to make much of a small sample which is further broken down into categories, but taking‘never’ and ‘not seriously’ together, twenty workers were content to stay in their jobs, but a quarter ofthese had not received training in the last year. The five who would like to or were determined tochange included four who had received training and one who had not. The effect of training isinconclusive; but in any case, the word ‘job’ is ambiguous, as it can be interpreted as ‘post’ or‘employment in a particular firm’.

Workers who did not say they were determined to move were also asked if they were interested inbeing promoted at work. These results have also been collated with receipt of training within the lastyear (table 20).

Table 20 Workers’ attitude to promotion, compared with receipt of training in the last twelvemonths

Attitude to promotion

All workers(%)

Workerstrained in

the last year

Workers nottrained in

the last yearYes, I’d like to move on as soon as possible 2 2 0Yes, at some time in the future 4 2 2It depends on what is on offer 10 10 0No, I’m happy as I am 5 2 3There’s no chance of promotion here 4 3 1N 25 19 6

It should be noted that none of the four who said there was no chance of promotion were thinking ofchanging jobs and only one of the two who would like to move on as soon as possible was thinking ofchanging jobs. There is no conclusive evidence here to show an effect of training on future aspirationsin terms of either changing job or seeking promotion.

22

For agro-food workers in general with regard to leaving the job or seeking promotion, see theEuropean Survey, Annex B, Tables B10-11.

4.5 External support for trainingBosses were asked a number of questions in this area concerning compulsory levies, bosses’associations and informal co-operation (Table 21).

Table 21 Bosses’ knowledge of external support for training

External support for training Exists Planned No plans Don’tknow

Compulsory levy on all employers 0 0 3 2

Employers' association runs courses 3 0 1 1

Informal cooperation 3 0 0 2

N=5

Asked to give their opinions of these options, no bosses favoured a compulsory levy on all bosses andthree thought it a bad idea; three thought that it a good idea that bosses’ associations should runcourses and three favoured informal co-operation. Two, however, did not know.

In the overall agro-food survey, on the other hand, 29.7 per cent of bosses said firms were subject to acompulsory levy and plans for one were reported by a further five per cent. A similar number (30.1per cent) said that employers’ associations ran courses and 29 per cent reported informal co-operation.Their opinions of these collective arrangements were similar to those in the Scottish sub-set(European Survey, Annex A, Tables A35-36).

4.6 Evaluation and recommendationsFinally, both bosses and workers were asked to show the extent to which they agreed or disagreedwith statements concerning continuing vocational training in general, followed by an open-endedquestion in which they could comment about CVT in their industry or firm in particular.

23

4.6.1 Evaluation of CVTThe scores and rankings for both bosses and workers are in table 22. The higher the score, the higherthe general agreement with the statement.

Table 22 Bosses’ and workers’ attitudes towards continuous vocational training (CVT)

Bosses Workers

Attitudes to CVT Score Rank Score RankTraining should be provided in paid time 4.4 1 4.2 1Everyone needs training and retraining throughouttheir lifetime

4.3 2= 4.0 4=

You learn a lot of useful things on CVT courses 4.3 2= 4.1 2=This country needs a better trained workforce 3.9 4 4.1 2=Employers should be made to train their workers 3.6 5 4.0 4=I wish we had more CVT in this firm 3.5 6 3.5 6Workers should be prepared to use some of their freetime for training

3.0 7 3.2 9=

The unions should provide more CVT 2.9 8= 3.3 8The unions should put pressure on employers toprovide CVT

2.9 8= 3.4 7

It’s difficult to find out what CVT courses areavailable

2.7 10 2.9 11

It should be up to individuals to decide if they wanttraining

2.0 11= 3.2 9=

I’d rather work than go on a course 2.0 11= 2.8 12CVT is the job of the government 2.0 11= 2.6 13Most CVT is a waste of time 1.9 14 1.8 14People who already have a job don’t need CVT 1.6 15 1.6 15N 7 24

Both bosses and workers were in accord that training should be provided in paid time, although therewas agreement from both that workers should be prepared to use some of their free time for training.Other areas in which both groups were in strong agreement include the lifelong learning agenda asapplied to training, the usefulness of CVT, the wish to have more in the firm and the need for a bettertrained workforce in general. The agro-food sector in general supported all of these ideas (EuropeanSurvey, Annex A, Table A37, Annex B, Table B24).

There are also many areas where both groups disagree with the statement, including the ideas thattraining, is mostly a waste of time, is not as enjoyable or worthwhile as working and is unnecessaryfor people who already have a job.

Workers (especially in the whole agro-food sample, see European Survey, Annex B, Table B24) weremore in favour than bosses of trade union involvement, either in providing CVT or putting pressureon firms to provide it, and much more in favour of individuals deciding for themselves if they wantedtraining. Judging by the general enthusiasm for CVT, this might well refer more to wishing to havemore choice of training than any antipathy to it.

4.6.2 Additional comments concerning CVT in the firmOnly one boss made such a comment: that attaining other skills brought no rewards from the firm; andone employee (a fish gutter): ‘'The United Kingdom needs much more CVT to catch up with the EUand USA in industrial productivity. Catching up in this area in the long term would be profitable forbusiness and improve pay and conditions for workers. Firms could catch up with innovation and beable to charge more for goods and services generating more capital and profit and better share values.’

24

5. CONCLUSIONS

As noted above, it is difficult to draw useful conclusions from such a small survey; comparisons withthe overall European survey, however, do show to what extent the Scottish sample reflects the overallsituation in the agro-food sectors surveyed in each country. The discussion following concerns theEuropean agro-food survey in general: where the Scottish survey differs significantly, this will bemade clear.

The majority of bosses stated that they had recruitment problems but there were significantdifferences between the Scottish and the general survey. In Scotland the greatest difficulties lay infinding unskilled manual and production line workers, whereas these were much less of a problemelsewhere. From conversations with representatives of the fish-processing industry, it seems likelythat, as these occupations entail direct contact with fish, they are seen as undesirable because of thesmell, which can be difficult to get rid of. In the European survey as a whole, fish-processing wasseen as the least desirable occupation, probably for this reason. Since there is almost full employmentin the United Kingdom, workers can more easily choose not to take such unpopular jobs even though,certainly in Shetland, the rates of pay are well above the minimum wage (even though bosses said thatperception of low pay was the most important factor in recruitment problems). In Iceland, migrantworkers are an important part of the fish-processing production lines, but this solution was favouredby few bosses anywhere, despite industry moves to implement it in Shetland.

The main factors attracting workers to the industry, as agreed by both bosses and workers, weresecure employment and good pay. An unexpected result was that workers also agreed that the workseemed interesting. Since bosses ranked this lower than workers, it might aid recruitment if theytapped into any latent interest by advertising various aspects of the job as well as pay, conditions andthe work environment, especially as workers had positive perceptions of the food processing industryin general. Furthermore, although occupations in food processing were ranked below almost all otherssuggested in the questionnaire, they were not ranked as ‘bad jobs’ but somewhere in the middle,compared to high-status and well-paid occupations such as doctor and lawyer. Workers were alsosatisfied with their own jobs, especially because they gave opportunities to work with other people,were secure and the work was interesting. This is an important factor in recruitment potential, asworkers in Scotland in particular generally used informal ‘word-of-mouth’ methods of gaininginformation about firms.

There are differences between the Scottish and the general survey on likely recruits to hard-to-fillposts, which reflect the different kinds of skill shortage. In Scotland, it was thought that young peoplewere more likely to fill posts whereas in general, since the European shortages were for postsdemanding longer experience and more qualifications, older people were expected to apply. In bothcases, however, the likelihood would be that unemployed people needing training and peopletransferring from other firms, and therefore already trained, would be the most likely recruits.

The provision of initial training, therefore, would seem to be necessary for most firms; there wasgeneral agreement that a better-trained workforce was needed, and that training and retraining werenecessary throughout working life; but the options most favoured by bosses to overcome skillshortages and skills gaps involved no effort or investment on their part. Hence, providing crèches andproviding training were little more popular than encouraging immigration. The idea of a compulsorytraining levy on employers was unwelcome, although this does exist in some countries. On the otherhand, outside Scotland, apprenticeships were quite common.

Nevertheless, Scottish workers were much more likely than others to cite training opportunities as apositive aspect of their jobs, and it appears that training is much more common in Scotland than in theother countries surveyed, partly because of labour turnover and the need to induct newcomers andpartly because of the extremely stringent regulations governing all parts of fish processing, whichnecessitate on-going training in health, safety and hygiene. In general the workers were polarisedbetween qualified and non-qualified, but in Scotland workers were more likely to have or be studyingfor vocational qualifications and were more likely to say that their boss had advised them to do so. Allthe Scottish firms had a training plan compared with just over a third in the overall survey and weremore likely to certify existing competences. If the Scottish survey is at all representative, it does

25

appear than training and on-going learning are taken more seriously in the Scottish fish-processingsector than in agro-food generally.

One of the risks of providing training, of course, is that workers might be ‘poached’ by another firmwhich thereby gains a competitive advantage by obtaining skilled workers without having itself toinvest in their training. The bosses in this survey, however, expressed few such fears and none did inthe Scottish survey, partly perhaps because training has to be carried out by all (or most) firms andpartly because workers themselves appreciate training opportunities. It appears that, as long as firmsprovide a reasonable level of pay, and security of employment and a good working environment, theyhave much to gain and nothing to lose from providing training - whether this consists of courses, on-the-job learning or other kinds of provision, and particularly if provided in paid time (which bothbosses and workers thought important).

There is a notable contrast, however, between the skills that bosses (and indeed workers) thought weremost important in their firms and the kind of training provided. Transferable skills, includingflexibility, team-working, accuracy, organisation and logic, were generally ranked above specificknowledge, and these were the skills which many workers identified as needing improvement in theircases. Nevertheless, when asked about training needs and provision, both bosses and workers gave topranking to specific knowledge. There appears to be a mismatch here, although it is fair to point outthat many workers did report receiving training in transferable as well as specific skills. It is alsolikely that the real importance of specific skills training, especially in health, hygiene and safety,leaves too little in the training budget for other skills.

In conclusion, training in the Scottish sample is afforded a high degree of importance and is providedfor the majority of workers. There are problems in recruitment, which appear largely outside thecontrol of firms, for the more unpopular types of job and there is a question mark over the skillstraining actually delivered, which focuses on specific rather than on transferable skills.

6. CASE STUDY

The North Atlantic Fisheries CollegeShetland is unusual in that it is able to manage all aspects of fishing and fish farming, includingcatching and farming, processing, training and quality control, but the long-term conservation andsustainability of the sector is extremely important for the islands. The need for the conservation ofstocks as well as the efficient operation of processing had led to a partnership, perhaps unique,between the Shetland fishermen, the fish processors and the North Atlantic Fisheries College, based inShetland, which lies at the heart of the North Atlantic fishing grounds and has one of the most modernfishing industries in Europe.

The college was built in 1992 and constitutes Shetland’s biggest and most forward-thinkinginvestment in the future of fishing and fish farming. It provides training in all aspects of the fishingand fish processing industry, and offers a wide range of courses, including marine biology,environmental science and food science, business studies and fish handling. It is, therefore, claimedthat everyone in the Shetland fish industry, from fishermen, through fish processors on the factoryfloor, to factory managers are among the best trained in the industry. The college works closely withthe Shetland Seafood Quality Control company so that its training encompasses the correct qualitycontrol guidelines in the handling and processing of fish.

It offers a very wide range of courses, from short one day practical training sessions of particular useto firms, to one year full-time post graduate degrees (MSc) and PhDs, and a large number of shortercourses leading to vocational qualifications relevant to the fishing and fish processing sectors.

In addition to providing training, the North Atlantic Fisheries College carries out research and productdevelopment, thus offering expertise and innovation to the local fish processing industry andcontributing to its development.

Its research is often carried out in partnership with local industry sectors. For example, it recently

26

carried out studies into the sustainability of the pelagic fishery in co-operation with the local pelagicfishing fleet. There is ongoing research into the ways in which fishing and fish farming may becomemore environmentally friendly, that is, both sustainable and more humane. The techniques of fishfarming are another research area of particular importance, since farmed fish are particularly prone todisease and parasites. When wild fish are contaminated by escaped farm fish, there are potentiallycatastrophic consequences for the wild fish population and therefore for the livelihood of fishermen.The college recently became the University of the Highlands and Islands Millennium Institute's centrefor applied fisheries research

The college has facilities and staff dedicated to the development of new products and techniques,including restocking. In one instance, lobsters are reared to maturity and then released into the wild toboost local stocks.

7. REFERENCES

Dench, S, Hillage, J, Reilly, P and Kodz, J (2000), Employers Skill Survey: Case Study - FoodManufacturing Sector. Sheffield: Department for Education and Employment

Food Standards Agency, http://www.food.gov.uk

Scottish Fisheries Statistics (2000), http://146.192.208.188 sfs2.pdf

Shetland Fish Processors’ Association, http://www.sfpa.co.uk