The Precariat and the Pandemic: Assessing the Well-Being of Metro Orlando's Hospitality Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Recently, the COVID-19 pandemic has served as a catalyst for precaritization highlighting the instability plaguing many American workers. As the rapid spread of the virus led to the closure of businesses, both temporarily and permanently, the nation reached record high levels of unemployment. The effects of the pandemic have fallen unequally among different groups forcing women, people of color, and low-income, precarious workers to endure the brunt of the economic downturn. In particular, the hospitality industry, comprised of those employed in restaurants, bars, event/convention centers, theme parks, and the like, was and continues to be the hardest hit by the effects of COVID-19. We explore the experiences of 454 hospitality industry workers in the Metro Orlando, Florida area during the COVID-19 pandemic using data collected using an online survey. The purpose of this research is twofold. First, it seeks to identify the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic upon hospitality workers in the metro Orlando area across the dimensions of employment status, financial stability, mental health, housing, and food security. The second aim of this research adopts Kalleberg and Vallas' recommendation for analysis of hierarchies in precarious work by identifying differential outcomes across the aforementioned dimensions along the lines of race, gender, and income type (salaried, tipped, hourly) to explore stratification within the precariat. Findings reflect the potentially devastating consequences of precarity and expand upon conceptualizations of the precariat by offering empirical evidence of disparities within this group.

Precarious work is characterized as “employment that is uncertain, unpredictable, and risky from the point of view of the worker” (Kalleberg 2009:2). More specifically, Vosko (2010) defines precarious work as employment which exhibits at least two of the following features: lack of worker protection, low wages, high employment insecurity, and low levels of control over areas such as wages, hours, and working conditions. Precarious work incites a process of precaritization which extends beyond the workplace into social spaces leading to what Arnold (2013:468) refers to as “social precarity” or, more commonly, precarity. The concept of precarity describes a condition produced by neoliberal economic and political structuring which has allowed employers to demand pliability of workers through unfair wage setting practices, attacks on union membership, and the dismantling of an already underdeveloped social safety net leading to the inevitable increase in precaritization over the past four decades (Greenstein 2019; Grimshaw 2011; Howell and Kalleberg 2019; Schmitt et al. 2008). Although recent scholarship notes tremendous growth in precarity among workers since the 1980s, and particularly since the Great Recession, the increase in employment of this sort is not novel (Frase 2013; Betti 2018; Kalleberg and Vallas 2018; Thelen 2019). Rather, precarity is the norm among industrial capitalist societies, while the stable, long‐term employment experienced under Fordism serves as the exception to this rule.

Recently, the COVID‐19 pandemic has served as a catalyst for precaritization highlighting the instability plaguing many American workers. As the rapid spread of the virus led to the closure of businesses, both temporarily and permanently, the nation reached record high levels of unemployment. The effects of the pandemic have fallen unequally among different groups forcing women, people of color, and low‐income, precarious workers to endure the brunt of the economic downturn. In particular, the hospitality industry, comprised of those employed in restaurants, bars, event/convention centers, theme parks, and the like, was and continues to be the hardest hit by the effects of COVID‐19, due in part to the precarious nature of hospitality work (Del Valle 2020; Rajesh 2020). The industry, which disproportionately employs women and people of color, was responsible for 8.2 million layoffs from March to April of 2020 and had the highest unemployment rate at 39 percent during this time (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2021). The outcomes produced by the COVID‐19 pandemic offer insight into the effects of precarious work and the degree of instability experienced by those who labor in these positions.

The purpose of this research is twofold. First, it seeks to identify the effects of the COVID‐19 pandemic upon hospitality workers in the Orlando metropolitan area across the dimensions of employment status, income, access to social services, ability to pay basic living expenses, and mental health. While national level data has been collected across many of these dimensions, this study offers a circumscribed view of these effects as they pertain to the most precarious of workers during the pandemic. Additionally, Orlando's massive tourism industry combined with the state's conservative pro‐business economic and political landscape offer a unique backdrop upon which connections between precarity and neoliberal practices can be made. The second aim of this research adopts Kalleberg and Vallas' (2018) recommendation for analysis of hierarchies in precarious work by identifying differential outcomes across the aforementioned dimensions along the lines of race, gender, and income type (salaried, tipped, hourly) to explore stratification within the precariat.

The implications of this research are both empirical and theoretical. To our knowledge, previous research has not empirically evaluated the impact of large‐scale natural disasters or public health crises upon this group. Sparce research exists examining the role of the 2008 Recession in increasing precarious work, though this research does not explore the experiences of workers during this time (Kalleberg and Vallas 2018). Because most of the work in this area is conceptual and theoretical, we offer new insights into this class perspective by applying the theory to contribute empirical exploration of the precariat. Further, by examining stratification within the precariat, we expand upon its conceptualization by addressing critiques by leading scholars in the field which note the overlooked heterogeneity of the group.

Literature Review

The continued increase of precarious labor has spurred the development of theory regarding the precariat. Standing (2014), who conceptualizes the precariat as an emergent and “dangerous” class, argues that a new class structure is developing in advanced industrial societies in which the unrelenting exploitation of the precariat by employers and state and federal governments serves as the foundation for the neoliberal state.

Standing's conceptualization of the precariat has been met with criticism by scholars such as Jan Breman (2013) who spells out her dissent for the conceptualization in her article titled “A Bogus Concept.” Namely, Breman argues that Standing offers a largely Western view and lacks clarity in the distinction of between the precariat and the proletariat. Similarly, Frase (2013) maintains that Standing's class conception does not meet the Marxian and Weberian standards of a class because the precariat does not inhabit a unique position within the system of production and distribution, although, as we will delineate, Standing has outlined the distinctions of the precariat across these dimensions.

Perhaps the most problematic critique of Standing's conceptualization, however, is that it entangles too many heterogeneous groups into one unified category, overlooking the stratification among them (Frase 2013). Although this developing conceptualization of the precariat as a class may fall short in this regard, the distinctions of this group made by Standing are still useful. Jorgensen (2015) suggests, the precariat should be approached by researchers as a social identity rather than a unified social class, leaving room for the exploration of Standing's theorization without overlooking the existing heterogeneity among the precariat. As such, this research pulls from and explores Standing's works to define and characterize the precariat and precarious work, while approaching analysis with the understanding that the precariat represents an emergent social identity, rather than a social class.

The Precariat

Standing's conceptualization consists of a developing hierarchy including seven groups, wherein the precariat makes up the lowest and largest rung of employed citizens. Atop this class structure is the plutocracy, consisting of only a few billionaires who wield unprincipled power largely gained through the monopolization of patents and rent extraction. Below the plutocracy are the elites, also characterized by extreme wealth, though their wealth and power are typically maintained through catering to the interests of the plutocracy at the expense of those in lower classes. According to Standing's conceptualization, it is these two groups that make up what is commonly referred to as the 1 percent.

Next in this emergent class structure are the salariat. This group has experienced secure labor accompanied by in‐work benefits such as health care and retirement benefits. Although the salariat are wage laborers, they too have accumulated more of their wealth through rental extraction than wage earnings. For this reason, there is a large disconnect between the salariat and the other laboring classes, which fall below them. The proficians exist just below the salariat in the class hierarchy. This group is largely comprised of freelance and contracted professionals who have earned high incomes by “selling themselves frenetically,” thus risking high levels of burn out and corruption (Standing 2018:4).

The proficians are followed by the proletariat who make up what has historically been thought of as the working class, a group which is now diminishing, giving way to the emergence of the precariat. The precariat are unstable wage laborers with few worker protections and little to nothing in the way of in‐work benefits or a social safety net. The final group in Standing's theorized hierarchy are the lumpen‐precariat, an “invisible class” of people including those such as the unemployed and homeless. The precariat and the lumpen‐precariat are similar in terms of their lack of access to stable lifestyle conditions and often many basic comforts; however, one key differences between these groups is their relationship to higher classes. While the lumpen‐precariat are theorized as a discarded “underclass,” the precariat on the other hand serve as the foundation for the neoliberal state (Standing 2016:26). As such, the existence of the precariat is crucial to maintaining wealth and power among higher classes.

Distinctions of the Precariat

Standing (2014) differentiates the precariat from other classes based on its relations of production, relations of distribution, and relations to the state. In terms of production, precarious work is largely defined by its instability. While the proletariat, otherwise known as the “old working class,” experienced stable long‐term employment, the precariat is expected to provide flexible labor, leading to unstable employment and wage insecurity. The precariat is also the first group of workers which have been required to have a higher level of education and training than is necessary for the labor they perform, leading to alienation, increased status frustration, and lack of career identity (Standing 2014; Standing 2015; Standing 2019).

The precariat's relations of distribution are also distinct in that they must rely almost entirely on paid wages rather than benefiting from state‐based or employer‐provided benefits. Because of this, the consequences of job loss have grown exponentially, leading to increased fear surrounding job security. These qualities have made it difficult for precarious workers to envision a future and largely impact decisions such as purchasing a home, marriage, and having children (Kalleberg 2009). In addition to reduced access to state‐ and employer‐provided benefits, the precariat is less likely to have social support to rely on in times of crisis, leading to increased dependence on charities and lenders to provide “discretionary hand‐outs for survival” (Standing 2014:971).

The third distinction of the precariat class is its relations to the state. The flexibility and informalization required of the precariat have led to the reduction of rights and protections for workers. Those in precarious work are unlikely to have employment contracts, usually have few rights and protections in terms of their work, and, as a result, receive low and unstable wages which fluctuate with the market and demand (Standing 2014). This is especially relevant in states with right to work laws, such as Florida, where union membership is low and workers are provided fewer protections due to the increased power of employers (Ahlquist 2017; Greenstein 2019; Howell and Kalleberg 2019).

Effects of Precarity

Precarious employment often brings with it a host of struggles including an inability to pay basic living expenses, a higher likelihood of exposure to risky working conditions, and greater risk of job loss. The culmination of these experiences has been linked to poor mental health where research has consistently found a positive relationship between job insecurity and negative mental health outcomes including depression, anxiety, emotional exhaustion, and poor life satisfaction (Ferrie et al. 1998, Pearlin and Bierman 2013, Mai et al. 2018, Llosa et al. 2018.) Most recently, Bhattacharya and Ray (2021) found a positive relationship between precarious work and the number of days participants in their study reported poor mental and physical health. They go on to suggest that these findings support Karasek (1979) popularized job demand control model, which purports that worker anxiety increases as autonomy decreases.

Risky and short‐term decision‐making have also been linked to employment in low‐wage and unstable jobs, a factor which has great potential to further exacerbate these negative outcomes (Whitehead et al. 2016). Because the precariat is unable to envision fruitful and autonomous futures, decisions often prioritize present satisfaction over future gains, leading to higher‐risk behaviors such as binge drinking, unsafe sex practices, and reduced physical activity, which may further exacerbate these poor mental and physical health outcomes.

Further contributing to reduced well‐being, Pugh (2015) argues that personal relationships are negatively affected by precarity. As neoliberal values of flexibility and continued change become internalized by workers, ideals such as loyalty and commitment, not only within the workplace, but also in personal life become devalued resulting in strained and unstable personal relationships. Through this process social supports are reduced, furthering precarity's negative effects on well‐being.

Stratification Among the Precariat

As noted by Kalleberg and Vallas (2018), literature regarding the unequal effects of precarity based on race, ethnicity, and gender is lacking in spite of known pervasive employment inequalities. Reduced selectivity in one's employment, which has historically been experienced by women and people of color, and especially women of color, is almost certainly reflected in the outcomes related to precarious work. Although research concerning disparate outcomes of precarity is sparse, literature regarding outcomes related to low wage work have found that racial and ethnic minorities experience higher levels of wage stagnation, low levels of generational wealth, poor health outcomes, and instability in areas such as food and housing.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities

Racial and ethnic minorities are over‐represented in precarious work leading to high levels of wage stagnation, low levels of generational wealth, poor health outcomes, and instability in areas such as food and housing. A 2018 report found that people of color constitute 60% of low‐income working families in the United States despite making up only 41% of all working families nationwide (Jarosz and Mather 2018). The effects of this overrepresentation can be seen in a comparison of the median net worth of white, Black, and Hispanic families which found that from 2013 to 2016, the gap in median net worth between white and Black families grew from $132,800 to $153,500, an increase of almost $21,000, while the difference between white and Hispanic families grew from $132,800 to $153,000, an increase of over $18,000 (Jaroz and Mather 2018).

A 2015 study by Alba and Barbosa analyzed trends in occupational mobility and found that foreign and U.S. born Asians as well as U.S. born Hispanics are slowly closing the gap in the occupational hierarchy and moving into positions of higher status and higher pay. However, less upward occupational movement was found among Black Americans. Importantly, results found that as Black and Hispanic men obtained positions of higher status, income still did not equal that of white men in the same job. In particular, Black men had the largest income disparity compared to those of the same gender in the same occupation. While minority women, especially Black and Latino women, earn the least overall for equivalent jobs, the disparity compared to white women is far less than that between white and Black men. Alba and Barboza (2016) note that these differences are the result of “stratifying processes at earlier life stages” such as disparities in education and suggest that discrimination in the labor market likely plays a significant role in this stratification as well (Jaroz and Mather 2018).

Gender Disparities

Historically, women have been overrepresented in low wage jobs, generally consisting of positions in service work or those which require emotional labor and are largely responsible for disparities in pay (Grimshaw 2011). These differences are illustrated by gender pay gap where women are paid 82 cents per dollar earned by men. While the gender pay gap narrowed steadily during 1980s and 1990s, over the last two decades the difference has remained steady (Graf, Brown, and Patten 2018). This disparity remains in spite of the fact that women now earn more college and graduate degrees than men and persists into higher paying occupations as well (Institute for Women's Policy Research 2020).

Analysis of gender pay disparities over the last 50 years by the Institute for Women's Policy Research (2020) found that if the gender pay gap continues to increase at the current rate women will not receive equal pay until 2059. However, when the rate of growth in pay for Black and Hispanic women were compared separately, results found that their wait would be drastically longer. Pay for Hispanic women would not reach the same rate as men until the year 2,224 and Black women would not receive equal pay until 2,130. The study notes that although gender integration into different fields has progressed, it is still a major contributor to the pay gap.

Women are also far more likely to take a significant amount of time off after birth or adoption, creating an additional barrier to pay increases and occupational mobility. A 2016 survey found that the median length of time taken off work after a birth or adoption was 11 weeks for mothers and only 1 week for fathers, also noting that mothers were twice as likely to say that taking time off negatively affected their job (Graf, Brown, and Patten 2018). Additional research has found that these factors have made women more likely to be laid off during times of economic downturn. As Kalev (2020) explains “women and minorities tend to fill the most marginal, low‐authority positions and to have shortest tenures, and so they lose their jobs at disproportionately high rates” (7).

Precaritization in the Hospitality Industry

While precarious jobs are geographically widespread and exist across several industries, such forms of employment are found in far higher concentration in Southern states (Grimshaw 2011). Standing (2019:9) argues that jobs produced by tourism carry a high degree of responsibility for the consistent growth of the precariat and refers to the industry as a “vast edifice of exploitation and economic insecurity.” Jobs in the hospitality industry exude precarity in numerous ways related to wages, scheduling, benefits, and worker protections.

Hospitality workers typically earn wages through hourly or tipped earnings. The median hourly income for hospitality positions in the Orlando metro area at the time of this study ranges from $9.20/hour to $12.58/hour, depending on one's position within the sector (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2019). Of the 15 job positions within the hospitality industry listed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 10 positions have median hourly wages of $11 or less. Pay for tipped workers varies enormously and is almost entirely dependent upon the generosity of customers. Hourly wages for tipped workers vary from state to state, however the federal minimum hourly wage for tipped workers is $2.13. Many states offer a higher hourly wage than what is required though few states pay tipped workers an hourly wage that is equal to or above the federal minimum wage for hourly workers of $7.25 per hour (Department of Labor 2022). The minimum wage for tipped workers in the state of Florida was raised to $6.98 in September of 2021, however, at the time this research was conducted the state minimum wage for tipped workers was set at $5.54 per hour (Department of Labor 2022).

To offer perspective, The Cost of Living Calculator, created by The Massachusetts Institute for Technology purports that one adult living in Orange County must earn at least $12.70/hour or $26,418 annually to meet a basic standard of living. For an adult with one child this number increases to $25.19/hour or $52,395 annually, double the median income of the area's highest paying hospitality positions (Glasmeier 2019; United States Census Bureau 2018).

Low wages are further exacerbated by inconsistent scheduling. Thelen (2019) notes the increased use of “just in time” scheduling. This practice schedules employees based on fluctuating market demand and often provides workers with <24 hours' notice before being required to arrive at work. Similarly, the use of on‐call shifts characterizes many jobs in the industry. Such “shifts” do not pay employees unless they are called in to work, though workers are required to remain available throughout some or all of the day in the event they are needed by their employer. Failure to arrive if called in, can result in termination or a reduction in hours. These inconsistencies in both wages and scheduling reduce workers' autonomy by exerting extensive control over their time and creating circumstances where wages are constantly in flux, resulting in an increasingly uncertain future.

Contributing further to this subjection, the bulk of hospitality jobs do not offer workers any type of in‐work benefits such as paid time off, sick days, family leave, health insurance, or retirement. This has, in part, been attributed to the lack of union membership among hospitality workers, rates of which are among the lowest in the nation where only 2.9 percent of hospitality workers are unionized (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2020). The lack of worker protections in this industry have resulted in frequent violations of worker's rights. A 2017 study by the Economic Policy Institute reports growing instances of wage theft nationwide, noting that workers in Florida and tipped workers, in particular, are the most likely to experience minimum wage violations, losing over $1 billion annually. A recent study of tipped workers conducted by One Fair Wage (2021) found that these issues are only worsening with 34% of workers in their study reporting an increase in violations of their rights compared to the year prior.

The impacts of the COVID‐19 pandemic upon the hospitality industry have been referred to as constituting “an unprecedented existential crisis” (Rajesh 2020:2). Jobs in the hospitality industry accounted for 39 percent of all layoffs at the onset of business closures related to the COVID‐19 pandemic and recovery of these jobs has been inconsistent (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2021). After increasing from May to November, the industry saw a decrease of over 500,000 jobs in December of 2020, which did not begin to recover again for almost 2 months. As of April 2021, the hospitality industry nationwide employed 3 million fewer individuals than it did prior to the pandemic.

Pro‐Business Political Landscape

The effects of this economic crisis have been especially prominent in tourist destinations such as Orlando where a booming hospitality industry coupled with a pro‐business economic and political landscape has led to the embodiment of precarity on a large scale. The Orlando metro area includes Orange, Seminole, and Osceola counties and is one of the most popular tourist destinations in the world (World Travel and Tourism Council 2018). In 2018, the area was visited by a record breaking 75 million tourists (Cordeiro 2019). As the number of visitors to the area rose, so too did the number of those employed by the tourism industry. Prior to the COVID‐19 pandemic, the hospitality industry comprised the largest sector of the area's job market, employing 280,000 workers as of December 2019, an increase of 5 percent from the year before (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2019). Despite its tremendous financial impact on the area, wages for workers in hospitality jobs drag drastically far behind many others.

While the economic landscape of Central Florida has, in many ways, led to the growth of low wage jobs, the political impact of the GOP and its attacks on unions have effectively prevented the implementation of many worker protections which could lead to higher wages as well as various other provisions for many workers in the state (Shermer 2009). As one of the nation's first Right to Work states, Florida lawmakers have developed a business‐friendly environment, much of which has been at the expense of already low‐wage workers (Shermer 2009). Florida Trend (2021), the state's award‐winning business publication, notes that “Florida's government and economic development leaders are continually at work to ensure that this state's business climate remains favorable to companies of all sizes and configuration,” also stating that “burdensome regulations have been cut across the board” (6).

The effects of such an unregulated business environment on workers can be seen in the aforementioned reports of underemployment and below livable wages. While the deregulation of businesses and Right to Work laws are generally supported by conservative legislators as the cause of Florida's continuous economic growth, reports show that this growth comes at the expense of the area's workers (Knight 2018). Although the economy may be growing, it is clear that workers are not being protected and the wealth being generated is not spread evenly, leading to high rates of underemployment, as well as stark income inequality state‐wide.

For hospitality workers in metro Orlando, the precarity of the industry is exemplified by wages which have remained stagnant despite the rapidly increasing cost of living, a dilapidated unemployment system, and a lack of worker protections against actions such as wage theft and layoffs. The COVID‐19 pandemic offers a glimpse into the effects of precaritization upon hospitality workers in metro Orlando when met with unforeseeable circumstances as well as how these outcomes are stratified within the precariat.

Methods

The purpose of this research is to identify the effects of the COVID‐19 pandemic upon hospitality workers in the metro Orlando area across the following dimensions: employment impact, income and access to social services, ability to pay basic living expenses, and mental health. An additional aim of this research is to identify differential outcomes across these dimensions based on race, gender, and income type. This was done using a quantitative research design. Data were collected using a 10‐minute online survey which was created using Qualtrics. Additionally, various demographic questions were included to allow for analysis of stratification within the target population. Approval to conduct this study was received from the university's Internal Review Board (Study ID: STUDY00001712).

Dependent Variables

Several dependent variables are included in this research across the domains of employment and income impact, ability to pay household expenses, and mental health. Each domain contains several associated variables which were analyzed independently.

Employment and Income Impact

Respondents were asked if their employment status changed after COVID‐19‐related business shutdowns. Change in employment status was measured categorically using the following response options: “No changes, I am still working,” “I have been officially laid off,” “I have been officially furloughed,” and “I am still employed but unable to work due to closures.” Variables related to income impact included changes to monthly income and asked whether the respondent had been paid by their employer since business closures, and, if so, for how many weeks. Monthly income before and after business closures was measured categorically and was coded where <$500 = 1, $500–$1,000 = 2, $1,001–$1,500 = 3, $1,501–$2000 = 4, $2001–$2,500 = 5, $2,501–$3,000 = 6, $3,001–$3,500 = 7, over $3,500 = 8. Respondents who reported being furloughed or unemployed were asked if they had applied for unemployment benefits. Those who had applied were asked if they had experienced any of the following difficulties when applying unemployment website crashed, busy phone lines for an hour or more, difficulty gathering information needed to apply, difficulty understanding how to apply.

Ability to Pay Living Expenses

Measures related to ability to pay living expenses included food and housing security, access to healthcare and confidence in one's ability to pay upcoming expenses. Food security was measured using two questions from the USDA's U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module. These measured respondent's ability to afford healthy and balanced meals and the frequency with which they had to skip or cut the size of meals because there was not enough money for food. These questions were measured using a five category Likert scale. Response options included “always,” “most of the time,” “about half the time,” “sometimes,” and “never.” Housing security included one dichotomous measure which asked whether the respondent had missed a rent or mortgage payment since COVID‐19 business closures.

Access to healthcare included two measures. First, participants were asked to select whether they had been forced to forgo any of the following since the COVID‐19 pandemic due to an inability to pay for medications, medical procedures or devices, medical testing, or a doctor's appointment. Next, participants were asked if they had any chronic health conditions and whether they had gone untreated for reasons related to COVID‐19 business shutdowns.

Confidence in ability to pay household expenses included four questions regarding ability to pay utilities next month, concern about the need to rely on friends, family, credit cards or loans if needed, access to money from friends or family if needed, and fear of being unable to pay backlogged living expenses. These questions were measured using a seven category Likert scale. Categories were coded where strongly disagree = 1, disagree = 2, somewhat disagree = 3, neither agree nor disagree = 4, somewhat agree = 5, agree = 6, and strongly agree = 7.

Mental Health

Outcomes related to mental health were measured across five categories. These included anxiety, depression, fear about the future, loneliness, and increased arguments with family and friends. These variables were measured dichotomously, asking respondents whether or not they had experienced an increase in any of these areas since COVID‐19 business shutdowns.

Participants

The survey was voluntary and collected no identifying information. The sample was limited to workers aged 18–65. While many people continue to work after the age of 65, two very important social welfare safety nets are available to people aged 65 and older that can lessen economic burdens. These are Social Security (which is actually available to people beginning at age 62 at a reduced benefit amount), and arguably more importantly, Medicare, which is available to citizens at age 65 (Medicare Benefits 2021; Retirement Benefits 2021) Participants were required to have earned the majority of their income in the hospitality industry prior to the shutdown of businesses related to the COVID‐19 pandemic. The hospitality industry was defined to include jobs at the Orange County convention center, theme parks, museums, bars, restaurants or other food service establishments, hotels, motels, or other forms of lodging. Additionally, participation required that employment was in Orange, Osceola, or Seminole county. Participants were not compensated for their participation.

Sampling

Social media and targeted snowball sampling were used to recruit participants. The lead researcher contacted qualified participants who then referred other qualified participants within their own network. The survey was also shared using various regionally and industry specific social media groups. Survey dispersion began in May 2020, 2 months after Florida businesses began shutting down. Responses were collected for an 11‐week period ending in August 2020 and resulting in 501 responses. A total of 23 respondents did not continue the survey beyond qualifying questions and an additional 24 respondents completed less than half of the survey. Due to the incompleteness of these data they were not included in analysis. The analytic sample included 454 participants. As of March 2020, there were an estimated 278,500 people employed in the tourism and hospitality sector in Central Florida (Bilbao 2021). Using this estimate for the population, the recommended minimum sample size for a survey at a 95% confidence level and a 5% margin of error is 384.

Analysis

Survey data were analyzed using SPSS. Descriptive statistics were used to meet the first aim of this research, providing an overview of hospitality workers' experiences during the COVID‐19 pandemic. These included measures of frequency and central tendency which allowed for identification of common experiences among participants as well as examination of the demographic composition of the group. The second aim sought to identify stratification between groups within the precariat. Independent samples t‐tests were conducted to analyze mean differences along the lines of race and gender. One‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine whether significant differences were present based on income type. Where significance was identified between income types, Tukey's honest significant difference post‐hoc test was conducted to further specify which groups experienced differential outcomes.

Results

Participant Demographics

The demographics of the 454 hospitality workers that compose the sample are displayed in Table 1. The median age of participants was 29 and were most commonly employed at a theme park. To allow for further analysis on gender and race/ethnicity given the sample distribution, analysis on gender was restricted to those identifying as a man or a woman. Over half of survey participants were women, accurately reflecting women's representation in the hospitality industry nationwide. Racial diversity was limited and underrepresents people of color in the hospitality industry. Initial analysis based on race resulted in no significant findings, likely due to the small sample of non‐White participants. A dichotomous variable to measure race and ethnicity was constructed where 0 = non‐Hispanic, white and 1 = Hispanic or racial category other than white, resulting in significant findings.

Table 1

Participant Demographics (N = 454)

	Percentage
Median age	29
Gender
Man	33.8
Woman	63.7
Transgender	.7
A gender not listed	.5
Prefer not to say	1.2
Race
American Indian or Alaska Native	.5
Asian	3.3
Black or African American	6.3
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander	.5
White	82.2
Two or more races/Other	7.2
Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino	20.2
Not Hispanic or Latino	79.8
Sector of employment
Stand‐alone Restaurant/Food Service or Food Truck	29.6
Stand‐alone Bar/Club	9.7
Hotel/Motel or other lodging	24.6
Theme Park	32.7
Convention Center	3.1
Museum	.3
Income type
Tips	42.4
Hourly wages	49.7
Salary	7.9

Less than a fifth of the sample (12.9%) were working at the time of the survey. The overwhelming majority of participants were furloughed or still employed but unable to work due to business closures at 51.2% and 21.5%, respectively. Among those out of work, only about a third (34.9%) received any pay with nearly half reporting only 1–2 weeks of pay (48.1%) (Table 2).

Table 2

Employment Impact

	Percentage
Change in employment status
No changes, I am still working	12.9
I have been officially laid off	14.4
I have been officially furloughed	51.2
I am still employed but unable to work due to closures.	21.5
Paid by Employer‐ Since lay‐off, furlough, or closure
Yes	34.9
No	65.1
Number of weeks paid by employer
1–2 weeks	48.1
3–4 weeks	30.8
5–6 weeks	9.8
7–8 weeks	5.3
More than 8 weeks	6.0

Income

Of the 82.7% of participants who applied for unemployment, 61.9% received it. It is important to note here that surveys were first distributed in May 2020, 2 months after the start of the pandemic. The well‐documented problems with the Florida unemployment system were experienced by most participants with only 5% of applicants reporting experiencing no problems. The most common difficulties reported were an unresponsive website (89.4), phone lines that were bust for an hour or more (65.2%), and difficulty with understanding how to apply (44%).

There were no significant differences among income type based on gender or race/ethnicity (Table 3). That is, within the sample, gender and race/ethnicity are not correlated with a particular income type.

Table 3

Income Type by Gender and Race/Ethnicity

	Hourly Wages	Tips	Salary
Gender
Women	51.6	41.5	7.0
Men	43.8	45.3	10.9
Race/Ethnicity
White, non‐Hispanic	48.6	43.5	7.9
Hispanic or non‐White	50.4	40.2	9.4

Note: Values are percentages.

However, the income type is significantly correlated with income. There is a clear hierarchy of average monthly income based on income type both before and after the COVID‐19‐related restrictions (Table 4). At the top of this hierarchy are salaried employees, followed by tipped workers and then hourly workers at the bottom (F = 66.91, p < .001). While all groups saw significant drops in income post restrictions, those drops in income were most severe among tipped employees highlighting the particularly precarious nature of workers who primarily rely on tips from patrons as opposed to wages from employers (F = 50.86, p < .001).

Table 4

Mean Monthly Income by Income Type

	Before***	Current***
Hourly	3.53 (1.52)	1.86 (1.33)
Tips	5.59 (1.96)	2.16 (1.79)
Salary	6.56 (1.56)	4.08 (2.77)

Notes: Mean with standard deviation in parentheses. 1 = <$500, 2 = $500–$1,000, 3 = $1,001–$1,500, 4 = $1,501–$2,000, 5 = $2,001–$2,500, 6 = $2,501–$3,000, 7 = $3,001–$3,500, 8 = Over $3,500. ***p < .001.

While there are no significant differences in terms of gender and income types, there are significant differences in women and men's incomes before and after business closures (Table 5). The difference between mean incomes prior to business closures is .8 and decreases to .71 after closures indicating a slight decrease, yet still significant, pay gap based on gender. There were no significant differences in changes in income based on race/ethnicity.

Table 5

T‐Test Between Women and Men's Monthly Income

	Women	Men	t	df
Income before business closures	4.42 (1.971)	5.22 (2.168)	−3.708***	393
Income after business closures	1.91 (1.443)	2.62 (2.198)	−3.819***	386

Notes: Standard Deviations appear in parentheses below the mean. 1 = <$500, 2 = $500–$1,000, 3 = $1,001–$1,500, 4 = $1,501–$2,000, 5 = $2,001–$2,500, 6 = $2,501–$3,000, 7 = $3,001–$3,500, 8 = Over $3,500. ***p < 0.001.

Ability to Pay Expenses

Participant were asked whether they had been able to pay for several basic living expenses including housing, food, and healthcare since business closures related to the pandemic. Over 40% of participants reported being able to afford healthy balanced meals only about half the time or less, while over a fifth of participants (21.5%) reported skipping or reducing the size of meals. Forgoing doctor's appointments were also common among participants (36.2%) and close to a quarter of participants reported missing a rent or mortgage payment (11%).

To continue this line of inquiry, participants were presented with five statements measuring their confidence in paying their bills without help from others or relying on credit. Analysis showed no gender differences on these measures, however there were very clear racial/ethnic differences (Table 6). Specifically, white, non‐Hispanic respondents were more likely to believe that they would be able to pay their bills next month and they were more likely to believe that they could borrow money from family or friends if needed. Respondents who were Hispanic or non‐White were significantly more likely to express fear that they would have to rely on credit cards or loans from friends and family (loans they are less confident in being able to procure) and are more fearful that they will not be able to catch up on backlogged expenses once work resumes.

Table 6

T‐test Ability to Pay Household Expenses by Race/Ethnicity

	White Non‐Hispanic or Latino	Non‐White or Hispanic/Latino	t	df
I am sure I will be able to pay my utilities next month	4.87 (1.954)	4.04 (2.069)	3.853***	400
I worry that I will have to pay household expenses through means such as credit cards or loans from family or friends	3.97 (2.135)	4.69 (2.135)	−3.145**	397
If I needed to, I could borrow money from family or friends to cover household expenses	4.52 (2.067)	3.73 (1.913)	3.600***	399
I fear that I will be unable to pay backlogged rent, utilities, or other essential payments after businesses resume	3.56 (1.969)	4.39 (1.944)	−3.913***	397

Notes: Values are means with standard deviations in parenthesis. 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Somewhat disagree, 4 = Neither agree nor disagree, 5 = Somewhat agree, 6 = Agree, 7 = Strongly agree. **p < .01, ***p < .001

Among income types, significant differences were evident with only one variable, being able to borrow money from family and friends (F = 10.764, p < .000). Specifically, hourly wage workers were significantly more likely to agree with this statement as compared to both tipped and salaried workers.

Impact on Mental Health

Sudden drops in income while coping with a pandemic can certainly lead to impacts on mental health. Increases in fear of the future (78.6%) and anxiety (78.1%) were the most commonly reported changes, however, increased feelings of depression (60.3%) and loneliness (51.2%) were also reported by more than half of participants (Table 7). These increases were particularly true among women. Women were more likely to have experienced increases in all areas measured and the difference was significantly higher as compared to men for anxiety, fear about the future, feelings of loneliness, and having arguments with family and friends. The biggest difference reported between women and men was in increased arguments with family and friends.

Table 7

Reported Increases in Poor Mental Health Outcomes

	Anxiety	Depression	Fear About the Future	Feelings of Loneliness	Increased Arguments
Total	78.1	60.3	78.6	51.2	45.4
Gender
Women	83.7***	62.4	83.3***	53.9*	51.2***
Men	67.2	54.7	69.3	43.8	33.6
Race/Ethnicity
White, non‐Hispanic	78.1	60.1	79.5	53.6	46.8
Minority	78.0	59.1	77.2	45.7	41.7
Income type
Hourly wage	77.2	60.7*	78.6	57.8**	49.0
Tips	80.1	63.6	80.1	47.2	43.2
Salary	73.5	41.2	70.6	32.4	35.3

Notes: Values are percentages. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

There were no significant differences reported based on race/ethnicity. Among income types, tipped workers reported the highest increase among the groups in terms of anxiety, depression, and fear of the future. As they had the biggest drops in income among the groups, this finding is not surprising. The only significant differences were among increases in feeling depressed and being fearful of the future where salaried workers reported significantly lower levels of increased experiences with these feelings as compared to both tipped and hourly workers.

Discussion

This research takes a localized approach to identifying the effects of the COVID‐19 pandemic upon hospitality workers and identifies disparities in these effects based on race/ethnicity, gender, and income type. Findings reflect the potentially devastating consequences of precarity and how these consequences impact groups unequally. The neoliberal structuring of Florida, responsible for the pro‐business landscape of the state provides few protections for workers, many of whom were laid off or furloughed during this time with no pay at all.

This was compounded further with an unemployment system which was grossly underprepared to handle such drastic increases in claims, and which local lawmakers have admitted was designed to fail (Wamsley 2020). Laid off workers reported spending hours on hold, still never speaking with an agent, websites continued to crash, and people fell through the cracks (Noguchi 2020). This left many workers with no aid during a global crisis leading to devastating outcomes such as housing instability, food insecurity, and poor mental health. Although the sizeable CARES act was passed in April of 2020 those who were qualified for direct assistance received a single payment of only $1,200 after what was several weeks of unemployment for many workers who live paycheck to paycheck. In the interim, some workers were forced to rely on the generosity of others for provision and have since found themselves again in this position.

The mental health outcomes reported here cannot be understated. More than half of all participants reported increased feelings of anxiety, depression, loneliness, and fear for the future. Literature has documented the negative mental health outcomes associated with employment in insecure jobs prior to the pandemic (Strazdins et al. 2004). While the mental health of participants prior to the pandemic is unknown, it is likely that participants may have already been experiencing many of these outcomes, as the result of their precarity, only to be worsened by the effects of COVID‐19. The marked increases in poor mental health outcomes among tipped workers, more so than hourly or slaaie workers, attests to the devastating mental health effects when an already precarious position is met with crisis.

A recent study regarding the mental health of food services workers who remained employed during the pandemic found that 37% of their participants reported three out of five symptoms of PTSD (Rosemburg et al. 2021). These findings are especially noteworthy because they suggest that the poor mental health outcomes derived from these experiences will not simply fix themselves as life and work begin to return to normal. While the majority of participants in this study were not working at the time the survey was dispersed due to business closures, shortly after this time, businesses in the area began to reopen and hospitality workers became some of the first to return to work amidst the ongoing pandemic. As the state of Florida quickly reopened the precarious positioning of hospitality workers, as well as workers in various other unstable jobs, was highlighted through the designation of these workers as “essential” despite the egregious treatment many of these employees has just experienced at the hands of employers and the state and federal governments.

Disparate outcomes were also identified based on gender and race. Women showed drastic income differences compared to men both before and after business closures. Historically, women have been overrepresented in low wage jobs, generally consisting of positions in service work or those which require emotional labor. The feminization of labor, among jobs requiring less education and training and that are emotive in nature, has long been associated with declining employment conditions, reduction in wages, and increased instability (Cornwall, Gideon and Wilson 2009).

The inconsistent scheduling which characterizes this line of work, further contributes to the increased precaritization of women as compared to men. This is, to a great degree, the result of societal expectations of women which regard them as primarily responsible for childcare and management of the household. Among precarious jobs, and particularly in the hospitality industry, an inability to offer complete flexibility in scheduling make it difficult to accrue full time hours or receive raises in pay or promotions. These additional responsibilities placed on women outside of work also make them more likely to need time off work to tend to the needs of others. Because paid time off and sick days are an extreme rarity among precarious jobs, wages are lost each time a day of work is missed.

Stratified outcomes based on race/ethnicity were identified among participants' confidence in their ability to pay expenses. More specifically, non‐Hispanic White participants were significantly more confident in their ability to pay all utilities, borrow money from friends or family if needed, and to pay backlogged expenses after businesses resumed. These findings attest to a higher level of precarity experienced by people of color produced by structural inequalities.

Orlando's neighborhoods remain highly segregated despite the vast racial and ethnic diversity of the area and the median income in non‐White neighborhoods is drastically lower than predominately White areas (Wolf 2018). This means that non‐White and Hispanic participants are likely surrounded by friends and families in similar financial situations to themselves leaving them with fewer resources in a time of crisis. Further, differences in generational wealth, where, on average, White families have eight times the wealth of Black families and five times the wealth of Hispanic families mean that people of color are far less likely to have family members able to be given a leg up.

Hohle (2015) argues that these disparities are not the direct result of neoliberalism but that neoliberalism itself was developed in response to the economic success of Blacks and has since been used as a tool for the maintenance of racial oppression. Though the reasoning behind the adoption of neoliberal economic and political structuring goes beyond the scope of this research, it is clear that, under this structure the experience of precarity is exacerbated for people of color. Practices such as red‐lining, employment discrimination, mass incarceration, and housing discrimination have ensured chronic instability in many facets of life and increasing the likelihood of unstable employment while simultaneously reducing access to support.

The neoliberalism is a structure built to, not only allow for, but require, the existence, expansion, and exploitation of the precariat as well as the stratification among this group. It has prioritized the needs of businesses and profit over citizens by actively working to prevent the implementation of worker protections while simultaneously dismantling the already minimal social safety net, leaving workers little to nothing in the way of resources when confronted with unforeseeable circumstances. These practices have proven profitable for big business and those in positions of power and have been allowed to persist under the guise of a White elitist “business is booming” narrative, which suggests that market growth equates to individual well‐being.

The commodification of tourist destinations, such as metro Orlando, shape communities based on the market domination of the hospitality industry, rather than the needs of those who work to keep it alive (Gibson 2009). Such domination is made possible through the structuring of institutions to regard inequalities as necessary and normalized market forces and uses ideologies of individualism and personal responsibility to place blame on the individual (Greenstein 2019; Grimshaw 2011; Howell and Kalleberg 2019; Schmitt et al. 2008). However, the effects of the COVID‐19 pandemic identified here demonstrate the erroneous nature of such ideology. Precarity is a condition produced by current institutions which have forced workers to partake in an unstable balancing act in order to maintain a basic standard of living. Even those in higher paying positions are not afforded the luxury of stability. The localized approach taken by this research illustrates the experiences of and stratification within the precariat against a political and economic backdrop of neoliberalism which favors corporations and profit over workers and their well‐being.

Limitations

This study sought to solicit the opinions of an understudied group of workers during an incredibly challenging time. Unsurprisingly, this made recruitment extremely difficult particularly since many hospitality locations were shut down or operating at limited capacity during data collection resulting is a smaller than desired sample size. While consistent patterns in the data emerged, a larger overall sample size and, particularly more racial and ethnic diversity within the sample, are necessary to make further significant conclusions. The use of a dichotomous race/ethnicity variable is certainly less than ideal, and it must be acknowledged that conducting analysis in this way homogenizes varied experiences of individuals from differing racial and ethnic groups. However, due to the sample's sparce diversity, statistical analysis required the collapsing of this variable to make any conclusions on the basis of race/ethnicity.

The nonrandom method of survey dispersion makes it difficult to determine representativeness of the sample and limiting the generalizability of the sample. The use of an online survey may have limited participation and representation due to shutdowns and financial hardships related to the pandemic. Services such as Internet and cable are often the first to go during times of financial hardship so it is possible that a larger than normal number of people had no Internet access at home. Further, individuals without an Internet connection at home would have had difficulty accessing an online survey as a result of dining room closures across many businesses which typically offer public access to Wi‐Fi. Finally, the regionally specific Facebook groups on which the survey was shared generally represented mostly White, middle to high income areas. Due to these limitations, it is possible that actual outcomes were more negative than represented in the data including further stratification based on race/ethnicity, gender, and income type.

These limitations notwithstanding, this study is the first that we are aware of to give a voice to the workers that this region economically relies on and these findings provide a glimpse at the catastrophic impact the pandemic has had on already stressed workers. These findings also contribute to the development of theory regarding the precariat in two main ways. First, we provide empirical evidence of the instability which characterizes the precariat as well as its consequences when faced with unforeseen obstacles. Second, we expand upon this theory by conceptualizing the precariat as a group with varied experiences and provide evidence of such variation along the lines of race and gender as well as income type.

Conclusion

Under this structure, hospitality workers, who maintain the tourism industry, are forced into precarity while rendered powerless over their well‐being. While the COVID‐19 pandemic has been the catalyst for the difficulties which have been identified by this study, these experiences are exemplary of the potentially catastrophic results which can ensue in the individual lives of the precariat at any given time as the result of an unexpected illness, accident, or, among many hospitality workers, just a few too many slow days at work. As such, these findings should not be understood as the result of a pandemic. Rather, they should be understood as the result of a neoliberal economic and political structure which has implemented unfair wage setting practices, prevented collective bargaining, and shifted funding away from a much‐needed social safety net. As these results show, such structures have led to the precaritization of many individuals, resulting in low access to healthcare, increased likelihood of housing instability, food insecurity, and poor mental health.

Because this region, and the state as a whole, rely so heavily on the hospitality industry for economic gains, the well‐being of the workers needs to be prioritized. Florida did recently see the successful passing of a minimum wage increase which resulted in an increase to $10 per hour beginning in September of 2021, with additional annual dollar increases scheduled until a $15 minimum wage is reached in September of 2024. While wages have increased for some, unfortunately housing prices have also skyrocketed. The current average rent in the Orlando metropolitan area is $1,650 per month, a nearly 25% increase over the previous year (compared to an 11.5% increase nationally) (Fraser 2022). This increase in housing costs negates any wage gains and increase the precarity of workers. To truly assist the workers in this industry, lawmakers must prioritize affordable housing in addition to increases in wages and benefits for workers to lead more stable lives.