Does this sound like a standard hotel advertisement in Tuesday's Evening Standard? It could well have been except for the attractive salary: £19,000 a year, plus overtime possibilities, bonus and other incentives, rising to £19,750 later in the year. The ad was, of course, SouthWest trains recruiting staff for their ailing fleet. It seems surprising, taking into account this excellent starting salary, that I am still regularly confronted with the message: 'Due to a shortage of staff, the 7.26 service to London Waterloo is cancelled.'

The hotel sector is very people oriented and yet suffers from a high turnover. Thus staffing levels, recruitment, training, skills, attitude and so on are high on the list of key issues. A recent report in the Independent stated that nationally some 39,000 chef vacancies remain unfilled with a high proportion of these being in the Southeast. Shocking? Having spent nearly 10 years in hotel operations I am not really surprised and would suggest that, although perhaps not quite at those levels, there is also a large shortage of waiters and other positions at the bottom of the hospitality hierarchy.

The Hospitality Training Foundation (HtF) is (or was, but more about that later) the industry's National Training Organisation (NTO). It is recognised by Government as the employer-led voice on all issues relating to hospitality training, education and qualifications. The HtF has published a number of reports including the 'Labour Market Review 2000' in which it concluded:

• The hospitality industry accounts for 6.3% of total employment, representing some 1.7m people, in Great Britain. Of that total the highest proportion, 219,000 or 13.1%, works in the Southeast
• The industry suffers from an above-average labour turnover (partly inevitable due to the seasonal nature of the sector) - unsatisfactory pay being the most cited reason for leaving the industry.
• The industry is a low-paying industry: comparing weekly earnings for manual workers in hospitality versus all industries shows a variance of £100 (1999 figures). The variance for nonmanual workers is even larger at £123 per week.
• The percentage of nonmanual workers earning less than £350 per week in the hospitality industry is 89.4% versus 62.2% in all other industries.
• It is anticipated that the number of people employed within hospitality will grow by 300,000 from 2002 to 2009.

The report concludes with the statement that the link between pay, recruitment and retention is clear but fails, in my opinion, to recommend the necessary action points required for the industry to become a more attractive employer.

Another issue undermining the industry's attractiveness is of course the hours of work that are often required by employers. When the UK finally agreed to comply with European legislation relating to maximum working hours (48 hours per week), hoteliers came running out with the so-called 'opt out' clauses as an addendum to employees' contracts. Although it was not compulsory to sign, the concept was sold rather cunningly by highlighting the fact that employees would not be able to work overtime (and therefore employees could potentially lose money) if they did not sign the paperwork. To this day I am still puzzled how this argument persuaded supervisory and managerial staff, on 'hours as required' contracts in any case, to sign this document as well (I know I did). A few years on and the European Commission has now deemed this practice unlawful and it seems likely that when the working time directive is renewed in 2003, the 48 hour working week will become law without the possibility of applying any opt-out clause.

The effect of all these negative points in London has been that hotels are, on the whole, staffed by a extremely high proportion of foreign staff when it comes to positions such as cooks, waiters, chambermaids, receptionists and banqueting porters. They are usually Europeans who want to brush up on their English for about a year (and are frequently sponsored by parents who top up their son or daughter's annual salary of around £9,000), immigrants in search of a better life and an increasing number of eastern Europeans. Admittedly some of these will consider the hotel industry as a long-term prospect but I feel confident in saying that the vast majority would not contemplate spending the rest of their working lives in the hotel business.

To further underline the negative image of the hospitality industry, the nation has been subjected to 'fly on the wall' TV documentaries which have featured everything from the Adelphi Hotel in Liverpool to the working practices of chef Gordon Ramsay. These programmes showed the industry in a negative, albeit mostly realistic, light. On the other hand, Jamie, Gary and Ainsley have taken hospitality (cooking) to the dinner table in British households. I was recently confronted by an 18-year-old family friend who, attracted by the latter programmes, worked for six months as a commis chef in one of the large international hotels but has now chosen a different career path describing his kitchen experience as slave labour, too many hours and insufficient pay.

In the course of my research for this article and my work experience within the industry I have been constantly confronted by national organisations, hospitality bosses and HR managers who say that the solution to resolving the recruitment crisis lies in training and education. In my view this is an incorrect assessment. For sure these are important matters and are of great assistance towards achieving a more attractive sector but they do not, in my view, address the root of the problem.

Perhaps the most high profile initiative launched some years ago (which confirms my opinion) was the Investors in People Award (IIP). This award recognises employers who are committed to putting in place a number of practices that, in theory at least, aim to ensure a healthy work environment and that training and promotion opportunities abound for its entire staff. Ultimately this award would ensure a primus inter pares (first among equals) status for companies when recruiting staff. As such the scheme was meant to reduce staff turnover, provide better trained personnel and, finally, ensure satisfied guests which in turn would boost profit. The scheme's logo featured on many job advertisements but today any mention of the scheme in relation to hospitality has more or less gone. Although the system still exists I hardly see any hospitality company promoting the programme anymore. Why not? Well, my hunch would be that to all intents and purposes the programme was good but faced with staff turnover levels unprecedented in any other industry it became an immense task for already thinned out HR departments to ensure that training records/programmes were maintained, appraisals carried out and development opportunities for staff explored. Falling interest in the scheme by management and the swathes of foreign workers unfamiliar with the scheme meant the IIP award slowly but surely disappeared from the industry's horizon. It therefore failed to deliver its aims.

It appears, however, that our industry's representative organisations have not learnt from this.

During the early part of April the Government dissolved all National Training Organisations (NTO). They are being replaced by so-called Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) which are employer-led UK-wide bodies licensed by the government to identify skills shortages and deliver action plans to tackle them. Their aim is to reduce labour turnover, plug holes in the skills map and help employers and individuals make informed career choices. It is yet to be decided if hospitality will get an SSC all by itself or whether, more likely, it will form part of a more universal sector such as tourism.

As stated earlier I agree that all these points are important and are introduced with a lot of good intentions, but the failure of IIP in this industry must have shown that the real issues are not being addressed. The issues of working hours and pay is high on the list of employees and must be recognised as probably the most important reason for the industry's poor image and subsequent recruitment problems. So why is nobody responding to these issues? Perhaps some companies, rather than hospitality representing institutions, are already trying to make a change in their own way.

When I recently flicked through the pages of the Sunday Times' annual '100 best companies to work for' I noticed that once again Pret a Manger (the healthy, fresh-produce-using, sandwich-selling retail chain) made it high on the list. Their secret? Fairly straightforward: an appealing image, starting hourly salary of £5.25 which could go up to as much as £14,000 a year, flexible hours to suit staff and a strict adherence to maximum daily working hours. My impression as a regular customer is that staff appear happy in their work and this generally translates into good or even excellent service. A not unimportant factor in this respect is of course that punters are quite happy to pay a premium for a product that is widely available through other retail outlets.

It is, in my view, these work ethics and standards issues which have made Pret a Manger the top sector employer and hotels can learn from their example. It is naturally very pleasing to see that, in addition to Whitbread, Hilton have joined the top 100 and this indicates that certain hotel companies are on the right track. Let's hope they are joined by some more next year!

In order not to jeopardise investment interest in our industry it is clear that it cannot be simply a matter of reducing hours and increasing salaries. Taking the example set by Pret a Manager I would certainly promote the idea that hoteliers become more relaxed about minimum salary levels, working hours, multitasking and, I personally rate this as a very important issue, recognise experience. The latter should give those who are happy to stay in a position without pursuing a 'career' an income that recognises their accumulated experience. These measures may ultimately give the hotelier a higher payroll but, and this is the case to argue, it is likely that associated costs will reduce. Reason being that the hotel would become a more attractive employment proposition (as opposed to sitting behind the till in a supermarket), have more satisfied employees (and ultimately more satisfied guests), reduce the level of staff turnover and have fewer costs involved in the recruitment process, induction and training. These measures, together with emphasising the good points about our industry might ensure that we become more attractive as an employer. Ultimately satisfied staff will equal more satisfied customers that should equate to a premium revenue stream. A la Pret, actually!

The above are of course just suggestions but that something needs to happen is abundantly clear. Otherwise your guests might, at some point in the future, be confronted with the following statement over the Tannoy: 'Due to a shortage of chefs, we are sorry to announce that breakfast is cancelled'.