"Unskilled" labor is a myth
Even the origins of the term are steeped in racism & sexism
It’s finals time at Harvard, so for today’s newsletter, I’m inviting you all to be part of the chaos!
Below is an excerpted version of a policy proposal I wrote for my Food Law & Policy Seminar class, taught by the brilliant Emily Broad Leib. It’s a continuation of a post from Studio ATAO last year that read, “There are no ‘unskilled’ jobs, only undervalued people,” and I promise you will be aghast at just how racist, sexist, and totally unfounded the entire premise of “unskilled” labor in our society.
Some sections of this policy proposal have been removed for brevity, so if you want the piece in full with sources, feel free to email me for a PDF. Admittedly, this is a tad…drier…than what you’re likely accustomed to from this newsletter; I tried my best to use the Smart Brevity framework to make this as painless as possible. I won’t be offended if you just scroll down for a meme instead 🥲
✅ Main Proposal
Remove the existing “unskilled,” “semi-skilled,” and “skilled” labor classifications currently used by the Department of Labor. Instead, utilize the existing Worker Occupational Categories to address federal worker policies.
🎯 Key Findings
The three-tiered “unskilled,” “semi-skilled,” and “skilled” labor classification system (“Classification System”) was born of racism and sexism.
The Classification System was introduced to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) via its Statistics Department in 1910 by Alba Edwards. When the demographics of those working technically “skilled” occupations were found to consist of too many formerly enslaved folks as well as “children, young persons, and women,” it was enough for Edwards to “render the occupations semiskilled, even though each of them did contain some skilled workers.”
The Classification System uses arbitrary proxies to determine “skill.”
Delineations between skill levels draw upon ambiguous competencies such as “decision-making judgment” and complexity of tools and equipment being used, which are highly subjective. When contextualized against Edwards’ observations (above), and the disconnect between the federal DOL and workers on-the-ground, these fuzzy descriptors are more indicative of politically coded bias than insights into worker skill.
Other proxies include requirements for formal education, training, or years of experience despite rising degree inflation. For example, a 2015 study found that 67% of production supervisor job postings required a college degree – even though only 16% of the existing workforce had one. Again, these requirements are more indicative of employer preferences (or responses to social pressure) than the reality of skills needed for a particular occupation.
The Classification System impacts critical worker services, such as immigration and disability.
Immigration: It is difficult for “unskilled” workers to acquire citizenship due to their lack of “skill.” The 1965 Hart Celler Act, known for ending decades of discriminatory immigration policy such as the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, still prioritized “skilled” laborers. As a result, “unskilled” laborers are funneled into programs like the H2-A (agricultural) and H2-B (non-agricultural) visa program, both of which are rife with abuse and exploitation. Between 2000 and 2021, employers using H2-B visas stole $1.8 billion in wages.
Disability: The ambiguity of the Classification System makes it easy to deny worker benefits. For example, if you are an “unskilled” worker that has been farming for a decade, but previously operated a forklift (considered “semi-skilled), you can be denied disability benefits because the Department of Labor expects you to have transferable skills for other semi-skilled jobs, regardless of the realistic probability for you to obtain such a role.
The Classification System is not codified in statute or regulatory law but exists as an informal framework for the DOL.
An alternative, more robust occupational classification system already exists.
The DOL also uses Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system (e.g., food service, manufacturing) to understand the U.S. workforce. This contains 23 major groups with 458 broad-level and 867 detailed-level occupations.
📣 Why This Matters
The Classification System stagnates worker pay and allows for mistreatment.
For immigrant workers, the difficulty of securing non-H2 visas for work in the U.S. pushes them into accepting H2 visa options riddled with low pay and precarious work conditions. Even for those with an H2 visa, workers are tied to their employers to stay in the country, enabling exploitation. Those unable to obtain H2 visas remain undocumented and are often paid less than the federal minimum wage.
For non-immigrant workers, the Classification System is used by the DOL to set industry standards for appropriate compensation for different occupations. For example, fast food workers are classified by DOL’s Occupational Information Network (O*NET) as “unskilled.” As a result, fast-food workers are some of the lowest-paid in the U.S. Even those working full-time live near the poverty line and require public assistance to access basic necessities like food and shelter.
Furthermore, the Classification System does not distinguish between workers of the same occupation who may be more skilled than their counterparts, hampering their ability to acquire higher wages. For example, dishwashers are classified as “unskilled” by O*NET. Even at the 90th percentile, dishwasher pay is only $34,870 – less than double the 10th percentile ($19,200). Compare this to carpenters, who are also manual laborers but classified as “skilled.” In 2021, the 10th percentile earned less than $31,880, while the 90% percentile earned $80,940 – a 2.5x increase.
The Classification System undermines professions disproportionately made up of BIPOC and women.
Many supposedly “unskilled” jobs are critical to a functioning society: cooks, domestic caregivers (childcare, elder care), farmers, janitors, cashiers, warehouse workers, and meatpacking workers, just to name a few. During the COVID-19 pandemic, these jobs were named “essential,” with President Trump even signing an Executive Order to keep meatpacking plants open.
These roles were historically occupied by children, enslaved or previously enslaved folks, immigrants, and women explicitly because they were viewed as sources of free or cheap labor. Continuing the Classification System perpetuates a cycle of undervaluing these essential job functions and widening the racial and gendered wage gap. In 2019, the median Black worker earned 24.4% less per hour than their white counterparts; in 2022, women earned 18% less than men.
The Classification System is known to be an indicator of social mobility.
Sociologists and historians regularly “use occupational statistics to create an index not of economic specialization, but of ‘social’ mobility.” The implementation of the Classification System starting with the 1910 Census was part of the Bureau’s effort to differentiate workers based on social and economic class – not just what industry they were part of. “Owners” were further differentiated from regular “wage workers” as part of this.
The Superintendent of the Census, Francis Walker, described the “social value” of the statistics as indicative of “the habits of a people, their social tastes, and moral standards.” Edwards echoed these sentiments, using occupation as an “all-purpose indicator that would describe the total life experience of a worker and his family.”
This self-fulfilling prophecy still stands today. In 2021, the CEO-to-typical-worker pay ratio was 399 to 1. White families have nearly 10x the wealth of Black families. Even after workers retire, social security is calculated based on average monthly earnings across a worker’s lifetime and perpetuates financial instability for those in low-wage jobs.
⏮ The Backstory
The “unskilled,” “semi-skilled,” and “skilled” labor classification system originated in the early 20th century as a way of more accurately capturing the productivity of the American workforce. Since 1820, the U.S. Census Bureau has been collecting data on the occupations of both free and enslaved people across the agriculture, commerce, and manufacturing industry. By 1870, the data was offered at geographical cross-sections (e.g., cities and states) and subdivided according to ethnicity, age, and gender. In 1890, the Census Bureau also attempted to include unemployment figures in the report.
Given the rapidly changing nature of the workforce due to the Industrial Revolution, the occupational classification system was significantly reorganized in 1910. The Census Bureau introduced two new questions: one concerning the worker’s industry (e.g., agriculture), the other on their position (e.g., “employee,” “employer,” or “working on own account”). It was also at this time that the manufacturing sector was divided into “specified occupations,” “semi-skilled operatives,” and “laborer” – part of the basis of today’s Classification System.
At the Department of Labor, Alba Edwards had taken over the statistics department, where he initially introduced six “Social Economic Groups.” Three were reserved for the “professional” or “mental” workforce (i.e., today’s “white collar” workforce), which were not organized by “skill” but rather factors like “property, credit, and business and executive ability.” The term “skill” was only used for manual laborers, or where “muscular force” was paramount. “Skilled” workers referred to tradespeople, while “semi-skilled” meant apprentices and machine workers, and “unskilled” were laborers and servants.
In 1930, 14 million people worked in just four “unskilled” occupational groups: agriculture, domestic work, factory labor, and “other” – compared to just 7.9 million in the “semi-skilled” occupation. Race was a leading indicator of this divide: 75% of all African Americans worked in “unskilled” occupations versus only 20% of non-immigrant white Americans. Agricultural work formed the largest group of “unskilled” laborers – unsurprising given its deep history of slavery. The wealthy and influential in the U.S. who made their fortunes from plantation economics have always had a vested interest in keeping agricultural work as close to a system of slavery as possible. The Classification System was a way to do just that.
Against the backdrop of the Great Depression, the occupational data collected by the Census Bureau became the subject of additional scrutiny. Occupational divisions were introduced, explicitly dividing laborers within the same industry along socioeconomic lines. “Owners” were now distinct from “workers,” and the “unskilled,” “semi-skilled,” and “skilled” designations initially meant for just the manufacturing sector had extended beyond to other “mental” workforces. An additional major change happened in 1940 with the elimination of the “manufacturing” sector, replaced with “proprietors,” “craftsmen,” “operatives,” and “laborers.”
The U.S. has operated on this classification system since then, implicitly shaping social expectations of “blue-collar” versus “white-collar” workers. Although the actual difference between the required “skill” levels in these positions has been, at best, fuzzy from the beginning, the wage divide between “unskilled” versus “skilled” laborers proves that perception can often trump reality. In 2021, the Economic Policy Institute found that the wage gap between low-wage workers versus high-wage workers had nearly tripled.
Today, the Classification System affects all parts of workers’ lives – from their immigration status to worker pay and benefits to disability services and social security payments. Just as enslaved or formerly enslaved people, women, and immigrants made up the “unskilled” categorization more than a century ago, the same marginalized groups still comprise the bulk of our “unskilled” professions. As we continue to see looming worker shortages in these “unskilled” roles that cannot be immediately automated, the industries that have relied on these workers are digging deeper into our incarcerated workforce. The National Restaurant Association, for example, just received a $4.5 million grant from the Department of Labor to train incarcerated young adults with the technical skills for food service work.
🏁 The Bottom Line
The Classification System in the U.S. draws from a history of racial, gendered, and socioeconomic divisions that continue to divide our workforce today. The outdated and harmful language of “unskilled” work fails to accurately represent essential work performed by the vast majority of the U.S. workforce. Changing the Classification System is a crucial step toward recognizing and valuing the dignity of all workers.
Weekly Meme Roundup
Only one meme again, I promise we’ll be back to 5 in the summer. But in all seriousness…where is the least toxic place for me to get my Ph.D. in food, identity, and social justice?
Personal Things from the Week
Listening to: Seven Lions in preparation for his concert in May!
Watching: Parts Unknown: Singapore in preparation for my upcoming Fulbright research year abroad.
Reading: A whole lot of queer theory as I work on the second chapter of my book proposal, titled Fruity As Hell: Food As Power & Subversion in Queer Protest.
Eating: Had an incredible meal at Umami Omakase in celebration of receiving the Fulbright scholarship!!
Drinking: Bitter melon tea for my stomach, which is the first thing to protest when I’m stressed 🫠
Nice thing I did for myself this week: Began making dinner reservations in New York City because ya girl is headed back to the Big Apple for the summer!
I am not sure as I haven’t researched it. But I would be curious to find out!
HI Jenny, this is so interesting to me, I live in Australia and I can see similar phenomena here as well. Not just with the White Australia Poilcy that was recently abolished in the 1960's but also the treatment of indigenous Australians and Non Anglo-Euro people here who seem to always work in these industries for minimum pay.