4.2.4 - Globalisation and Work

Global labour markets and life chances

Globalisation matters for work because firms, money, information and goods move more easily across borders than before. For workers, that means jobs are shaped not only by local employers but by global competition, global supply chains and global demand. Sociologists are interested in this because work is not just a source of wages. It also affects housing, health, social status, family stability and future opportunities.

One major UK effect has been deindustrialisation. Heavy industry and manufacturing have declined, while service-sector employment has grown in retail, finance, hospitality, education, health and logistics. This shift has not been socially neutral. Stable industrial jobs often supported trade union organisation, relatively clear occupational identities and strong local communities. When those jobs disappear, worklessness can rise and the consequences can spread beyond the individual worker to whole places and generations.

The significance of worklessness is therefore central. Losing work often means losing income, but it can also mean losing daily structure, adult status, informal networks and confidence. In former industrial areas, long-term unemployment or insecure replacement jobs may reduce young people's expectations and narrow their life chances. Globalisation therefore affects class inequality partly through where secure jobs remain and where they disappear.

Supply chains, migrant labour and the race to the bottom

Globalisation also changes work through offshoring and outsourcing. Offshoring moves production or services to another country, usually where labour is cheaper. Outsourcing hands parts of production or services to another firm, which may itself operate across several countries. In both cases, employers gain flexibility, but workers may face greater insecurity because jobs can be moved, broken up or subcontracted more easily.

Transnational corporations are central here because they coordinate production across borders. A company can keep design, branding or finance in a wealthy country while locating labour-intensive production in countries with lower wages and weaker regulation. This is why sociologists link globalisation to sweatshop labour, anti-union practices and dangerous conditions in some supply chains. Klein highlighted how powerful global brands can distance themselves from the workers who actually make their products.

Migration is part of the same picture. Global labour markets pull migrant workers into agriculture, construction, hospitality, social care and the NHS. Employers often depend on this labour, especially in sectors with difficult conditions or low pay. Castles and Kosack argued that migrant workers can operate as a reserve army of labour: recruited when needed, but left especially vulnerable when economic conditions worsen. This can create ethnicised labour-market divisions, where some groups are concentrated in the least secure work and are then blamed for problems produced by employers or the state.

Globalisation can also be gendered. Export manufacturing, care work and domestic labour often rely heavily on women, while low pay and weak protections make that work easier to exploit. So the global labour market does not simply sort people by skill. It also interacts with class, ethnicity, gender and immigration status.

Perspectives on global work

Different sociological perspectives disagree about what globalisation means for workers. Marxists see it as an extension of capitalism into new regions and new labour markets. The new international division of labour places higher-value control functions in some places and low-paid, labour-intensive work in others. Sklair (2001) argued that a transnational capitalist class benefits from this arrangement because major economic decisions are made by elites operating across borders rather than by democratic communities. From this view, globalisation weakens labour by turning the reserve army of labour into a global one.

A Weberian approach focuses less on ownership alone and more on market situation, skills, status and social closure. Workers with scarce qualifications, digital expertise or managerial power may gain from global markets because their skills travel well and command high rewards. Others face downward pressure because they have less bargaining power and are easier to replace. Standing (2011) is useful here because his idea of the precariat captures workers living with unstable hours, weak rights and uncertain futures.