How have past downgrades of professional status for other occupations affected pay and job security
Executive summary
Past downgrades or removals of occupations from skilled-worker sponsorship in the UK have led employers and advisers to warn of recruitment disruption, transitional protections for existing visa-holders, and pressure on alternative routes such as a Temporary Shortage List; the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) recommended downgrading dozens of occupations and identified 82 for further TSL review [1] [2]. Analysts and law firms say the July 22, 2025 rule change raising the Skilled Worker threshold to RQF Level 6 disqualified around 180 previously eligible roles for new sponsorship and created a limited, time-bound TSL that may blunt but not remove labour-market impacts [3] [2].
1. Policy shock: what the downgrade actually was and who it affected
On 22 July 2025 the UK raised the minimum skill threshold for new Skilled Worker sponsorship back to RQF Level 6 (degree level), removing roughly 180 lower‑skilled occupation codes from routine sponsorship eligibility; the government created a Temporary Shortage List (TSL) to cover some RQF 3–5 roles temporarily while the MAC reviewed 82 occupations for stage‑two consideration [3] [2]. The MAC explicitly recommended downgrading 29 occupations to RQF 1–2 (making them ineligible even for the TSL) and moving four occupations from RQF 6+ into RQF 3–5, taking them out of general Skilled Worker scope [1].
2. Immediate practical effects: recruitment headaches and transitional carve‑outs
Employers and immigration advisers reported immediate consequences: organisations had to rework hiring and workforce plans, rely on transitional carve‑outs for staff with Certificates of Sponsorship (CoS) assigned before the cutoff, or seek TSL inclusion — a process requiring evidence of shortage and workforce/skills strategies [4] [3]. Law firms warned that while individuals already sponsored before July 22 retain rights to extend in‑route, new applicants for removed codes can’t be sponsored unless their occupation is on the TSL or meets other narrow exceptions [4] [3].
3. Pay and job security: signals, not settled outcomes in available reporting
Available sources do not provide direct empirical measures of pay or job‑security changes after the downgrades (not found in current reporting). Trade and legal commentary instead identify likely channels: employers facing recruitment constraints may raise pay or turn to more contract hires in the short term; conversely, reduced sponsorship routes can squeeze labour supply and incentivise substitution toward automation or domestic recruitment strategies [3] [2]. The MAC’s staged process and the temporary nature of the TSL suggest any pay effects would be uneven across occupations and contingent on whether a role is placed on the TSL [1] [2].
4. How governments and employers planned to blunt risks
To mitigate disruption, the government embedded transitional protections for workers already in‑route and proposed the time‑limited TSL to preserve sponsorship for some RQF 3–5 roles until 31 December 2026, conditional on employer commitments to domestic recruitment and anti‑exploitation safeguards [3] [2]. The MAC required evidence submission and workforce strategies as part of Stage 2 review — signalling that inclusion on the TSL would carry employer obligations that could affect hiring costs and practices [1].
5. Conflicting pressures: employers, fiscal policy and political agenda
Commentary frames the policy as part of a broader White Paper strategy to reduce legal migration while funding domestic training — a political objective that drives tighter sponsorship rules even as employers warn of labour shortages [3] [2]. DLA Piper and other advisers note simultaneous increases in sponsorship costs (e.g., Immigration Skills Charge changes) that raise the employer cost of hiring migrants, which could offset upward wage pressure or push firms to hire contractors or invest in automation [5] [3].
6. What to watch next: evidence gaps and potential indicators
The key missing pieces in current reporting are empirical labour‑market outcomes by occupation — wage growth, contract versus permanent hiring shifts, and unemployment spells for affected workers (not found in current reporting). Useful indicators to monitor are MAC Stage 2 outcomes for the 82 occupations, TSL final content and conditions, changes in sponsorship costs (noted to rise in December 2025), and sectoral recruitment metrics cited by employers [1] [5] [3].
7. Bottom line for policymakers and affected workers
The downgrade restructured legal pathways for migrant workers quickly and predictably increased compliance and planning burdens for employers while offering limited transitional protection to current visa‑holders; available sources do not yet document realized changes in pay or job security, but they show clear mechanisms (TSL inclusion, higher sponsorship costs, workforce strategy requirements) through which wages and employment patterns could shift if shortages persist [1] [3] [5].