In this article, we base our definition of vulnerable workers on non-unionism and weak labour market bargaining power (reflected in being in the bottom half of the pay range, or below median pay) and report on the types of workplace problems they experience, and what they do about them.

There is little point in an academic debate over definitions when something needs doing about vulnerable workers rather than arguing about them. The TUC’s initiative nationally and in it’s Regions has provided a major impetus to highlighting a significant problem and in finally pushing the Government into action in providing equivalent rights for Agency workers. The wide-ranging evidence and analysis that it presents goes a long way towards reminding us as individuals and trade unionists of the amount of work that still needs doing. We can only add weight to the argument from our own analyses of vulnerability and migrant workers in the North of England. However, as trade unions get on with the job of working together to protect vulnerable workers we would argue it is worth pausing for at least a moment to reflect on how we define our terms because being clear in our analysis is a protection from all those who claim ‘exaggeration’ or argue that some workers are not vulnerable after all. Equally importantly, sound policy making in our unions and beyond depends on sound analysis in the first place. Finally, being precise in our approach can tell us what we don’t know as well as what we do.

This paper gives the background and key recommendations of the CoVE investigation into the shocking extent of vulnerable work and employment practices attacked as exploitative in the 19th century but still common today.