New study reveals triple disadvantage for workers from lower socio-economic backgrounds

The study, published in the journal Sociology, shows that these workers are not only less likely to enter top professions, but also earn less and face poorer working conditions than their wealthier peers, even when doing the same jobs.

Researchers analysed data from 3,336 people in higher managerial and professional roles in the UK between 2021 and 2023. They found that those from less privileged backgrounds scored consistently lower on key indicators of job quality, including promotion prospects, job complexity, workload, and relationships with managers and colleagues.

Importantly, the findings reveal that these disadvantages persist across professions. Workers from lower socio-economic backgrounds were more likely to be employed in sectors such as IT and engineering, which typically offer better working conditions, while those from wealthier backgrounds were more likely to enter finance and law, where job quality can be lower. Yet even within the same profession, job quality was consistently poorer for those from lower class origins.

Professor Mark Williams, from the Centre for Research in Equality and Diversity at Queen Mary University of London, said:

“This research shows that workers from lower socio-economic backgrounds face a triple penalty. They are less likely to enter elite professions, and when they do, they not only earn less but also experience worse working conditions than their wealthier peers.”

Professor Williams added that employers have an important role to play in tackling these inequalities:

“Many assume socio-economic background is difficult to measure, but the best single indicator is simply the job a person’s parent did while they were growing up. The same applies to job quality, which can be measured in simple, robust ways. Yet these issues remain invisible to many managers and employees. Collecting good data is the first step towards change.”

The researchers used data from the UK Working Lives Survey, funded by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD). The CIPD was not involved in the research.

Read the full paper here: https://doi.org/10.1177/003803852513395