The American Workplace Stuck in 1950’s

Alternet

 
It's not your grandfather's labor market.
What changed? A generation ago, a typical American household consisted of a
family with two parents: a working father, who often earned enough to support
the entire family, and a stay-at-home mother. Today, however, most households
with children need the incomes from two jobs to make ends meet. One of the most
significant trends over the past 50 years has been the movement of women,
especially mothers, into the paid labor force. Now that most women have entered
the workforce, a two-parent, middle-income family has a husband working
full-time and a wife working approximately three-quarters of full-time.
Complicating efforts to manage work-life responsibilities, employer work
schedules can be inflexible and many working women must work irregular hours
that include nights, evenings and weekends. One-third of working women work
shifts that differ from those worked by a spouse or partner. Between 1979 and
2004, the combined annual hours of work among families with children rose by 18
percent, the equivalent of every family putting in an additional 13.5 weeks of
full-time work per year.
Today, in 70 percent of households, all adults work, resulting in an
increasing number without a stay-at-home parent or primary caretaker. While
family dynamics and living arrangements have changed, the typical requirements
of work have not, creating a mismatch between workplace expectations and
workforce needs. Nearly half of all employees report conflicts between jobs and
other responsibilities, more so than a generation ago, and many workers do not
have access to opportunities to balance work-life responsibilities, such as
paid sick days, family and medical leave, or flexibility in the workplace.
Today, workers need to be able to make use of a variety of work-life
policies. Our national work-life policies must also address the needs of people
living alone, a living arrangement that has grown dramatically since the 1950s,
when only 9 percent of households consisted of people living alone. By 1970,
people living alone represented 17 percent of households. In the 1990s, the
number had grown to 21 percent, more than all other types of living
arrangements. By 2005, 26 percent of households consisted of people living
alone, and the percentage exceeded that of households made up of married
parents and their own children. People living alone also need time off to deal
with responsibilities of extended family and other obligations. Unlike the
occupants of households with more than one adult, people living alone must deal
with these obligations on their own.
A new labor standard for paid sick days
Despite these shifts in our society and labor force, only about 50 percent
of workers are offered paid sick days. A mere 39 percent of low-wage jobs offer
any paid sick days for personal illness, compared to 79 percent of jobs held by
higher-wage employees. While many higher-income workers also benefit from the
Family and Medical Leave Act adopted during the Clinton-Gore administration,
workers who cannot afford to go without the income from work are less likely to
use the federally guaranteed unpaid leave. Nearly three-quarters of all workers
who benefit from family and medical leave policies earn $30,000 or more annually.
Among workers who needed leave but did not take it, not being able to afford
unpaid leave was the most commonly reported reason.
Even occasional job-protected unpaid sick days or leave to handle community
or household responsibilities are not an option for many low-wage workers.
Workers fear job loss or disciplinary action (such as fewer or less desirable
shift assignments) for taking time off. Only about one-third of all jobs
provide employees complete or much control in scheduling work hours. About 38
percent of jobs held by low-wage and low-income employees are low-flexibility
jobs, compared to 19 percent of other jobs.
Our public and private policy must acknowledge this reality and provide ways
to turn low-wage jobs from bad jobs into better jobs. Given these gaps, a new
labor standard -- like the national minimum wage created by federal law --
establishing a universal right to take time off for short-term illness would
strengthen our labor market and turn millions of bad jobs into better ones.
A comprehensive set of work-life policies would be a significant step in
enhancing our labor market standards. Strengthening the labor market in this
way requires that decision-makers acknowledge these changes in our labor market
and living arrangements, including the growth of single, single-parent, and
two-working-parent households.
No single policy will address all situations, so policymakers and employers
must consider a full menu of options that meet varying needs.
Workplace flexibility an emerging idea
Emerging work-life policies redefine success in the workplace to include a
worker's ability to meet work and other obligations. For example, leaders in
the United Kingdom
established the right of workers to request flexible working arrangements in
the Employment Act of 2002. This act makes it possible for workers who are
caring for children under the age of 6 to request flexible work arrangements
from their employers, but it does not obligate an employer to grant a work
request. U.K.
leaders created this right to accommodate the needs of caretakers and their
employers and to encourage dialogue about and consideration of flexible work
solutions that work for both parties. In 2006, after broad agreement about the
success of the act, leaders expanded it to allow "carers" of adults
to request flexibility.
Surveys of employers and employees about the impact of the U.K. law show
widespread satisfaction. Both employers and employees report that the vast
majority of requests are granted. Moreover, the government officials' analysis
of the survey results finds that employers understand the benefits of work-life
policies for the workplace and employees. In the United
States, policymakers and employers are exploring
replication of the U.K.
law with legislation and practice, incorporating better use of technology,
cross-training, and employee engagement practices to ensure that workers have
appropriate levels of workplace flexibility.
Employers benefit from adopting new policies
While many U.S.
employers do voluntarily provide some flexibility for workers when they have an
emergency, too many workers do not have the flexibility and predictability of
scheduling they need to accommodate other life activities. Employers may feel
that it is difficult to meet unanticipated need for time off, and small
businesses in particular may be reluctant to deal with additional staff
planning for time off. Yet, many employers have used public and private policy
to balance these competing interests.
Despite an initial investment, costs for implementation of workplace
flexibility are relatively small compared with the workforce, economic and
community benefits that result. Employer benefits include improved employee
retention, positive human capital outcomes and a more productive workforce, all
of which can lead to stronger financial performance, especially for retail
companies whose employees often have a direct relationship with customers.
Employers also see improved productivity and "positive business
results" after implementing work-life policies. For example, researchers
reporting on a 2002 Watson Wyatt study found that "companies that provide
more flexible work arrangements" could see as much as a 3.5 percent rise
in shareholder value.
In addition, work-life policies can improve mental health and reduce stress,
and thus reduce employee health care costs. Stress at work can increase
employees' unscheduled absences, and health care expenditures are nearly 50
percent greater for U.S.
workers who report high levels of stress.
Public dialogue critical for policy change
Recent evidence of public concern about both public capacity to manage
work-life policy and interference in employment policy suggests that a new
dialogue about these policies will be required for successful implementation.
Funders and other stakeholders should support research designed to develop a
dialogue that builds public will.
No single policy can solve the current mismatch between labor market
standards and changes in workforce and workplace practice. Supporters of policy
solutions will need to recognize employer and public concerns and develop a
public dialogue to meet the needs of today's workforce and labor market, and to
produce positive social and economic results for all of us.
Sarah Sattelmeyer is senior research associate and Margy Waller is
executive director at The Mobility Agenda. They are co-authors, along with
Heather Boushey and Layla Moughari, of a new report: Work-Life Policies for the
Twenty-First Century Economy.