» Network Home

Julie Schwartz Weber November 20th, 2009

Today is a special day at the Sloan Work and Family Research Network.  We have just published our 20th policy brief on work-family matters!  Our latest brief, “Opportunities for Policy Leadership on Fathers,” discusses the current state of policy relating to working fathers and explores legislative trends in the United States.  This brief also compares policies in other countries around the world, many of which are on the cutting edge of implementation of father-specific policies.

It is our hope that this new brief and our previous 19 briefs are helpful resources that provide you with objective, high quality policy information on current work-family issues.   Highlights of our policy brief collection include briefs on flexible work schedules, military families, paid family leave, paid sick days, part-time work, and telework.

And, if there is a work-family topic in which you are interested that we have not yet addressed over the past four years of providing work-family policy briefs, please let us know!  We are here as a resource for you.

• New on the Network , Policy , Publications
• Comments(1)

Julie Schwartz Weber November 11th, 2009

The Community Service Society of New York (CSS) and A Better Balance (ABB) just released a report entitled “Sick in the City: What Lack of Paid Leave Means for Working New Yorkers.”  This report concerns the importance of paid leave, particularly in light of the recent H1N1 outbreak.  In this report, authors Jeremy Reiss (CSS) and Nancy Rankin (ABB) analyze 8 years of data extracted from annual surveys concerning lack of paid sick leave for working New Yorkers, outline economic and public health arguments in support of paid sick leave legislation, and conclude with a call to pass paid sick leave legislation.  Highlights from their report include the following:

1. Nearly half (48%) of working New Yorkers do not receive paid sick days, while 44% receive no paid vacation.  A full 39%–or 1.3 million workers in New York City–receive no paid leave (sick or vacation).
   • 66% of low-income workers in New York City lack paid sick leave, with Latinos faring the worst; more than 7 out of 10 Latinos lack paid sick leave.
   • 60% of low-income working moms in New York City lack paid sick leave for themselves and for their children.
2. Availability of paid sick leave is declining across income spectrums.
   • Where 56% of the near-poor had paid sick leave in 2007, only 33% have it in 2009.
   • Where 82% of moderate to high-income workers had it in 2004, only 63% have it in 2009.
3. Workers in unions are more likely to receive paid sick leave; 64% of those in union jobs have paid sick days versus 48% of those in non-union jobs.
4. Workers in small businesses in New York City are the least likely to receive paid sick leave; nearly two-thirds of those in businesses with 10 or fewer employees lack paid sick leave.  The authors underscore that these small businesses hire over 26% of all New Yorkers.
5. Workers in the service sectors, construction and manufacturing are the least likely to receive paid sick leave, with a full 68% of working New Yorkers lacking paid sick leave in the leisure, hospitality, retail and wholesale areas.
6. When no paid sick leave is provided, low-income workers who take time off to care for themselves or a sick child are more likely to be threatened with retaliation in the form of docked pay, job loss, or suspension.
7. The lack of paid sick leave results in public health consequences, including the spread of contagious illnesses, like H1N1, and higher health care costs. Low-income workers without paid sick leave are more likely to go to work sick, and more likely to rely on emergency room visits to tend to routine medical issues. Even when these workers have health insurance coverage, the ER provides care outside of work hours and does not jeopardize job security.
8. Most New Yorkers, across income and political party lines, support the passage of a paid sick law.

For more information on paid sick days, generally, visit our mini-brief and topic page on the matter.

• Child Care , Low Wage , Medical Leave , Policy , Publications , Research , Sick Leave
• Comments(2)

Featured Guest Blogger November 3rd, 2009

Marcy Karin is an Associate Clinical Professor of Law and Director of a new Work-Life Policy Unit of the Civil Justice Clinic at the ASU Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. Her research interests include workplace law, policy, and practice, civil justice and litigation, and women’s legal history. She is also an active member of the national work-life law and policy community. Please note that the views of our guest bloggers do not necessarily reflect the views of the Sloan Work and Family Research Network.

Military families have acute needs for workplace flexibility. Dealing with multiple deployments, war-related disabilities and injuries, frequent moves, geographic isolation from services at bases, transitions back to civilian life, and other service-related needs impact servicemembers and their families in a real way. Military families also struggle with many work-life stresses that all families face. As The Shriver Report: A Woman’s Nation correctly notes, “policies that ease the strains on service members’ families” must be enacted.

Last week, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (NDAA 2010) into law. The NDAA 2010 includes the Supporting Military Families Act of 2009, which expands the qualifying exigency and military caregiver provisions of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). President Bush enacted these provisions last year in the first successful attempt to amend the FMLA.

Under the 2008 FMLA expansion, eligible employees are allowed to take up to 12 weeks of job-protected time off for any qualifying exigency arising out of the fact that the spouse, son, daughter, or parent of an employee is on active duty (or has been notified of an impending call to active duty) in the National Guard or Reserves in support of a contingency operation. Department of Labor regulations define a qualifying exigency to include short-notice deployment, military events and related activities, childcare and school activities, financial and legal arrangements, counseling, rest and recuperation, post-deployment activities, and any other service-related activity that the employer and employee agree is a qualifying exigency.

The 2008 law also created military caregiver leave, which allows an eligible employee (spouse, son, daughter, parent, or next of kin of a covered servicemember) to take up to 26 weeks of job-protected time off to care for a wounded servicemember.

The NDAA 2010 expands the scope of who may take time off under the 2008 provisions. Specifically, the new law allows:

• family members of active duty members of the regular Armed Forces to use qualifying exigency leave when the servicemember is deployed to a foreign country. (The 2008 law only applied to family members of the National Guard and Reserves who were called to active duty in support of a contingency operation.);

• federal employees to use qualifying exigency leave. (Only certain federal employees were allowed to use it under the 2008 law.);

• military caregiver leave to be taken for veterans who served within 5 years of the date of medical treatment, recuperation, or therapy. (The 2008 law only applied to servicemembers who were currently in the military.); and

• military caregiver leave for existing or preexisting injuries that are aggravated in the line of duty during active duty service. (The current regulations deny coverage for these injuries.).

The expansions took effect when the President signed the law. Proposed regulations from the Department of Labor and the Office of Personnel Management, which will be drafted in consultation with the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs, should be issued shortly.

At the bill signing ceremony, President Obama noted that this law “reaffirms our commitment to our brave men and women in uniform and our wounded warriors.” This is just the first of many laws that President Obama will likely sign that reaffirm this commitment and provide military families with access to additional time off and other types of workplace flexibility. We can also expect the President to fulfill his campaign promise to support the needs of all workers as they struggle to find a work-life balance. Stay tuned for more action from the Obama Administration in the months and years to come. In the meantime, employers should revise their FMLA policies to reflect the NDAA 2010, as well as notify employees of these changes.

For more stories about the flexibility needs of military families, listen to the remarks of Dr. Shelley MacDermid Wadsworth, Kelly Hruska, Sheila Casey, and Patricia Kempthorne at this 2008 Workplace Flexibility 2010 briefing.

• Military , Policy , Uncategorized
• Comments(0)

Featured Guest Blogger October 28th, 2009

Andrew Kang is a Graduate Policy Assistant at the Sloan Work and Family Research Network. This is a continuation of PART I: The Current Health Care System in America and PART II: The American Health Care System and Families.

How Health Care Costs Affect Businesses:

Since most people get their health insurance through their jobs, employers are saddled with most of the burden of rising health care costs and insurance premiums. As employees’ shares of the cost of insurance increase, it is easy to ignore the financial expenses employers are absorbing on their employees’ behalf.

• Health insurance expenses are the fastest growing cost components for employers.
• In 2008, employer health insurance premiums increased by 5%, twice the rate of inflation.
• Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have been rising four times faster than workers’ earnings since 1999.
• This increase places corresponding downward pressure on salary increases, new hiring, and capital investment.
• For small businesses, health insurance premiums have increased 12% annually. Rapidly rising health insurance premiums are the main reason cited by small firms for not offering coverage.
• Surging health care costs slow the rate of job growth, contributing to a recessionary economy) and making it more expensive for companies to add new workers.
• The high cost of health care for businesses also suppresses wage growth for current workers by increasing total compensation costs.
• As health care costs rise as a percentage of operations expenses, corporate operating margins are reduced, which limits the capacity of companies to grow through investment in research, plant and equipment.
• High medical insurance costs place American firms at a disadvantage in world markets where they compete against companies with much lower health care costs in the nations where they operate.

Health Care For Profit

In America, health care is not considered a right, but a privilege to be earned. And as a privilege, a lot of money is made by providing it.

• In 2007, health-related companies in the Fortune 1000 earned nearly $71 billion.
• The medical establishment (hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, health insurers, medical device manufacturers, etc.) spend nearly $6 billion per year on advertising.
• Pharmaceuticals and medical equipment ranked third and fourth, respectively, in terms of profits as a share of revenue.
• From 2000-2007, the annual profits of America’s top 15 health-insurance companies increased from $3.5 billion to $15 billion.
• The 50 largest nonprofit hospitals or hospital systems made a combined net income (profit) of $4.27 billion in 2006, nearly eight times more than five years earlier.

Facts About Medical Malpractice:

Much has been made of the effect of medical malpractice jury awards, settlements, and rising premiums on the cost and quality of health care. However, there is little evidence establishing conclusive links. Meanwhile, medical malpractice premiums continue to increase at a rate that puts economic pressure on practitioners. The question is, does this influence outcomes?

• A new Dartmouth study suggests that medical malpractice jury awards and settlements are not responsible for raising insurance premiums or health care costs.
• The GAO recently found that access to care was generally not impacted by increasing cost of medical malpractice lawsuits.
• The GAO concluded that liability laws have positive effects on doctors’ behavior, and are frequently the only means by which the consumer can hold the medical establishment accountable.
• The Congressional Budget Office estimated that malpractice costs account for less than 2% of the national health spending.
• There is little research to support anecdotal reports that rising malpractice costs contribute to defensive medicine creating barriers to care and reduced quality of service.

With so much information circulating about heath care in America, it’s easy to lose sight of the forest for the trees. It’s difficult to navigate these thick woods of interested party rhetoric to gain a true understanding of the system, its strengths and its weaknesses, but only then can we make a proper evaluation of the best possible changes.

The information contained in this blog was obtained from the following sources:

Beider, P. & Hagen, S. (2004). Limiting tort liability for medical malpractice. Retrieved from the Congressional Budget Office web site: http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4968&type=0

Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. (2007). Health care costs, a primer: Key information on health care costs and their impacts. Retrieved from: http://www.kff.org/insurance/upload/7670.pdf

Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. (2008). Employee health benefits: 2008 annual survey. Retrieved from: http://www.kff.org/insurance/7672/index.cfm.

Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, (2005). Background brief: Medical malpractice policy. Retrieved from: http:/www.kaiseredu.org/topics_im.asp?id+226&imID+1&parented+59

National Coalition on Health Care. (2009). Facts about health care: Economic costs fact sheets. Retrieved from: http://www.nchc.org/facts/economic.shtml

Rowland, D. & Hoffman, C. (2009). Health care and the middle class: More costs and less coverage. Retrieved from he Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation web site: http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/7951.pdf

• Policy , Publications , Research , Uncategorized , Workplace
• Comments(2)

Featured Guest Blogger October 21st, 2009

Andrew Kang is a Graduate Policy Assistant at the Sloan Work and Family Research Network. This is a continuation of last week’s entry, PART I: The Current Health Care System in America.

Ultimately, the high cost of health care is borne by families, both working and nonworking. Rising costs and inefficiencies are passed on to the consumer.

Health insurance for workers:

• Nearly three out of four middle-income families are insured through their employers – coverage that is jeopardized by rising unemployment during the recession.
• The recession will cause an estimated 7 million Americans to lose their health insurance coverage.  If unemployment rises to 10% (as many predict), an additional 6 million will lose their health insurance.
• The annual health insurance premium for a family of four is $12,700 per family, an increase of 78% since 2001.
• Health insurance premiums increased 119%, with the employees share increasing 117%, between 1999 and 2008, compared to cumulative inflation of 44% and wage growth of 29% during the same period.

What about uninsured workers?

• Over 8 in 10 uninsured people come from working families.
• On average, the uninsured are 9-10 times more likely to forego medical care because of cost and twice as likely to have medical debt.
• Among all personal bankruptcy filings, the average medical debt was $12,000.  Sixty-eight percent of those people had medical insurance, and 50% of all personal bankruptcy filings were partly the result of medical expenses.
• From January to March 2009, 44.9 million persons of all ages (14.9%) were uninsured at the time of interview, 57.7 million (19.2%) had been uninsured for at least part of the year prior to interview, and 32.1 million (10.7%) had been uninsured for more than a year at the time of interview.
• Thirty-six percent of families living below the poverty line are uninsured.  Thirty-four percent of Hispanic Americans, 21% of Black Americans, and 13% of White Americans are uninsured.
• Eleven million uninsured people come from the middle class, accounting for a quarter of the nation’s non-elderly uninsured.

Facts about the quality of care we receive:

• Although nearly $2.4 trillion per year is spent on medical care, many people receive less care than they need, more care than they need, or the wrong kind of care.
• Patients fail to receive needed services 46% of the time.
• Patients received services they did not need 11% of the time.
• Patients received recommended preventative care and screenings 49% of the time.

• Total national costs of preventable adverse medical events are estimated to be $35 billion per year.
• There are over 250,000 hospital-acquired pneumonia cases and 23,000 related deaths every year.
• One third of US patients reported a medical, medication or laboratory error in the past two years.

Next week:  PART III: Health Care and American Businesses

The information contained in this blog was obtained from the following sources:

Cohen, R., & Martinez, M., (2009). Health insurance coverage: Early release of estimates from the national health interview survey, January - March 2009.  Retrieved from the Center for Disease Control web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/insur200909.htm

Goldman, D., & McGlynn, E. (2005).  U.S. health care facts about cost, access, and quality. Retrieved from the RAND corporation web site: http://www.rand.org/pubs/corporate_pubs/2005/RAND_CP484.1.pdf

Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation (2008).  Employee health benefits: 2008 annual survey, September 2008. Retrived from: http://www.kff.org/insurance/7672/index.cfm.

Himmelstein, D. U., Warren, E., Thorne, D. and Woolhandler, S. J. (2008). Illness and injury as contributors to bankruptcy. Retrieved from: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w5.63/DC1

McGlynn, E., Asch, S., Adams, J., Keesey, J., Hicks, J., DeCristofaro, A., & Kerr, E. (2003).  The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States.  New England Journal of  Medicine, 348(26), 2681-2683.

National Center for Health Statistics. (2007).  Health, United States, 2007: with chartbook on trends in the health of Americans, 2007.  Retrieved from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services web site: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus07.pdf

Rowland, D., & Hoffman, C., (2005). The impact of health insurance coverage on health disparities in the United States: Human development report. Retrieved from the United Nations Development Programme web site:  http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2005/papers/hdr2005_rowland_diane_and_catherine_hoffman_34.pdf

Rowland, D., & Hoffman, C. (2009).  Health care and the middle class: More costs and less coverage.  Retrieved from The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation web site: http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/7951.pdf

Next week:  PART III: How the American Health Care System Affects American Businesses

• Policy , Publications , Research , Workplace
• Comments(2)

Featured Guest Blogger October 7th, 2009

Mary Curlew is a Policy Assistant for the Sloan Work and Family Research Network.

The Statutes by Theme series joins our already successful Policy Briefing and Bills by Theme series. Our aim in providing this series is to give legislators and other interested groups a concise, timely, and user-friendly way to find statutes related to work and family topics such as breastfeeding in the workplace, telework, and flexible work schedules.

More specifically, this new product will:

• highlight related statutes in one particular state;
• make it easier to compare legislation between states; and
• illustrate varying legislation language and content

We hope you find this new product helpful. Please take a look and let us know what you think!

• New on the Network , Policy , Publications
• Comments(3)

Featured Guest Blogger October 5th, 2009

Juliet Bourke is a partner at Aequus Partners. She works with leading organizations to develop and implement organizational change strategies to promote equity and diversity, deliver training programs, and conduct workplace investigations and mediations. Juliet Bourke is also a part-time chairperson with the Government and Related Employees Appeals Tribunal, in which capacity she conciliates and determines workplace disputes. Please note that the views of our guest bloggers do not necessarily reflect the views of the Sloan Work and Family Research Network.

I recently experienced the visceral alienation of those who fall outside the “work/family” paradigm and it brought me up short. Of course I have written about a “work/life” approach–in an effort to be inclusive–but if I am honest I probably had more of my heart in the “work/family” camp.

My wake-up call came about this way:

Last month, I was commissioned to write an on-line opinion (for a national news service) about the recently introduced “right to request flexibility” (“r2r”) laws in Australia.  Under this law, from January 1, 2010, eligible employees will have the right to request of their employers access to a flexible work arrangement.  The legislation also provides that an employer must respond in writing in 21 days and that a request can only be refused on “reasonable business grounds.”

I’m a big fan of the r2r, but I titled my opinion “Looking past a golden opportunity” to highlight some research we had conducted that found that  3 months out from the start date of the r2r, the majority of employees and managers are unlikely to be aware of their new rights. Given that the legislation provides a workable framework for transparent conversations about flexibility and evidence-based decision-making I see this knowledge gap as problematic. And that was the focus of my article–or so I thought.  What was picked up by the deluge of on-line comments was the unfairness of legislation which gives rights to some people (namely parents with children under school age, or children under 18 with a disability), and not others. For example:

• “It’s always the breeders who take the rights. What about special consideration for those caring for aged or infirm parents or siblings or partners? When I hear ‘family friendly practices’ I want to vomit.”
• “Those of us who choose to benefit the planet rather than selfishly pass on our own equally worthwhile genes, by remaining childfree get what? Stuff all …”

I was stunned.  I had struck a nerve, but not the one I had intended.  I had thought that readers would see the logic of a legislative starting point that was relatively narrow in nature, i.e., one that would allow employers to get used to the new regime and then lead to expanded rights over time for all carers, which is exactly what had happened in the United Kingdom.  What (some) readers saw was exclusion: working parents are in an inner circle that is deemed worthy of primary support and they are not.

It struck me that they are right.  So many of our legislative initiatives have working parents at the center, working families (e.g., those with elder care responsibilities) in the outer ring, and working “lifers” (do we even have a name for this group?) left out. This carries over into workplace policies.  We may entitle the policy “work/life”, but what we really mean is “work/family”, and what gets pride of place even in this group are “parents”.  How can we expect employees to behave in a collegiate way towards each other if our workplace practices endorse a hierarchy of “needs”?  I may have opened a can of worms here, but isn’t it time we face-up to the practical consequences of paying lip-service to the work/life agenda?

• Flexible Schedules , Policy , Publications , Workplace
• Comments(6)

Featured Guest Blogger September 28th, 2009

Adria B. Martinelli has practiced employment law in Delaware since joining Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor in 2001 as a senior associate in the Employment Law Section. She is also a regular speaker on employment-related topics, and trains individual employers in various areas of employment law, including sexual harassment, performance evaluations and documentation, and exceptions to at-will employment. Adria serves as an editor of the Delaware Employment Law Letter and writes for the Delaware Employment Law Blog. Please note that the views of our guest bloggers do not necessarily reflect the views of the Sloan Work and Family Research Network.

On August 27, the Ohio Supreme Court Court issued its opinion in Allen v. Totes/Isotoner Corp.  The plaintiff claimed she was terminated for taking breaks to pump breast milk, which was a violation of Ohio’s Pregnancy Discrimination Act.  In its two-page opinion, the majority said that the employee was fired for not following company policy on breaks, period.  End of story, plain and simple.

Apparently this is not so, judging on the uproar this decision has created in the blogosphere:

Totes/Istoner Boycott Urged:  Breast-Feeding Moms Take the Gloves Off
Oh, Those Lactation Regulations
Ohio to Nursing Mothers:  Get Those Breasts on a Schedule
Lactate on Your Own Time, Lady
Lactation, Breastfeeding, Discrimination and Accommodation
When Breast Milk Production Doesn’t Fit Like a Glove With an Employer’s Schedule

It appears many out there misapprehend the nature of the protections provided under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.  While Isoner’s actions certainly seem unduly harsh and unreasonable, they were not illegal.  On the federal level, the PDA was an amendment to Title VII, enacted in 1978, which clarified that discrimination based on “sex” included discrimination based on “pregnancy or related conditions.”  Most states, including Ohio, have amended their state law similarly, and follow federal law on the interpretation of their statute.

The PDA provides that you cannot treat employees differently because they are pregnant or have pregnancy-related conditions.  It doesn’t say you have to treat them better. So, in general, to state a discrimination claim the pregnant employee has to (1) show evidence of discrimination based on pregnancy, typically in the form of remarks pertaining to pregnancy or related condition; or (2) show that she was not afforded the same benefits or protections as non-pregnant employees. In the Isotoner case, the company had a policy on the breaks, and the plaintiff did not follow it. There was no evidence to suggest that Isotoner was unhappy with the fact she was breastfeeding–they just didn’t like the fact that she was away from her workstation without proper authorization. There was no evidence they would have treated a non-lactating employee differently if he or she took breaks of similar duration and without permission.

The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision was perfectly consistent with current law. The only shocking part about the case was the lower (appellate) court’s baffling conclusion that lactation was not protected under Ohio’s pregnancy discrimination laws, apparently based on the principle that a mother could discontinue breastfeeding if she chose to do so. Only the concurring decision by O’Connor on the Ohio Supreme Court bothered to address this absurdity. Of course lactation is a “pregnancy-related” condition! We don’t need the medical definition of “colostrum” to figure that out (but thanks, anyway, Justice O’Connor). The suggestion that because a woman could stop lactation if she wanted to is irrelevant; it does not negate the fact that if she chooses not to impede nature on this matter, it’s pregnancy-related. The public policy implications of such a ruling are insane–essentially punishing a mother for making the medically-recommended decision to continue breastfeeding her baby after she returns to work.

Much to the chagrin of women’s rights advocates everywhere, the PDA is limited in its protections. At the time it was passed, many companies were terminating female employees outright upon announcement of their pregnancy. It was thought then (and by some now) that it was enough to say “we’re going to treat you the same as any other employee.” Now, 30 years after the passage of the PDA, we’ve had plenty of time to observe that maybe we need more. Certain conditions related to pregnancy (nursing among them) are unique and require unique accommodations if we are to enable women (particularly new mothers) to succeed in the workplace.

Nursing moms may need up to 20 minutes every two to three hours to nurse, with less frequent breaks as the baby gets older. Typically, these requirements are not going to fit squarely into the employer’s existing break policy. There is unanimity among the medical profession regarding the health benefits of breast milk. Laws are in place in nearly every state protecting a woman’s right to breastfeed in public.  There is a gaping hole regarding a woman’s right to breastfeed (or pump) at work.  The PDA should be amended to (1) clarify that lactation is a “pregnancy-related condition” protected by the statute; and (2) require employers to “accommodate” pumping breaks of reasonable length and frequency.

• Breastfeeding , Policy , Workplace
• Comments(5)

Julie Schwartz Weber September 9th, 2009

The policy team is eager to announce that we are in the process of updating our older briefs that we originally issued in 2005 and 2006. The first of these updated briefs, Phased Retirement, is already online.

If upon reading this updated brief you are interested in learning even more about phased retirement, a unique part-time work arrangement for older workers during their transition to retirement, please also see our one-page Effective Workplace Series and our related Topic Page.

Please also stay tuned these next few weeks, as we will uploading updated briefs on Telework and Flexible Work Schedules!

• New on the Network , Policy , Publications
• Comments(0)

Featured Guest Blogger September 7th, 2009

by Liz Watson, Legislative Counsel, and Jessica Glenn, Communications Specialist, of Workplace Flexibility 2010.

This year, workers and their families across the country felt the impact of serious economic downturn, with unemployment reaching a 26-year high. While recent news suggests things may be improving, we cannot forget that for many low-wage and hourly workers–who now represent over a quarter of the U.S. workforce–the recession only exacerbated their ongoing struggle to hold down quality jobs while caring for their families.

Low-wage workers face many of the same challenges that the rest of us face in reconciling our work, family and personal lives, but for many of these workers, it’s simply a whole lot harder. Low-wage workers are more likely to face involuntary part-time work, rigid or unpredictable schedules, or night, evening and weekend work, all of which can have serious consequences for families, including unstable and inadequate child care, poor health outcomes, family instability, missed work, lost and unstable income and job loss.

A persuasive case has been made that access to various forms of time off are critical to low-wage workers’ job quality, economic security, and family and individual health. More recently, research has shown that Flexible Work Arrangements (FWAs)–including meaningful input into work schedules, as well as predictable and stable work schedules–are also important parts of the solution. Although FWAs cannot ease all the complex struggles facing low-wage workers, they are a key part of a larger solution that will increase low-wage workers’ ability to raise healthy families and achieve financial security.

FWAs can help workers provide care for young children, aging relatives, and other loved ones while remaining effective on the job. They can enable workers to stay on top of their own medical care, which reaps benefits for employees and employers alike. FWAs can also help workers access advanced job training in order to expand opportunities for meaningful work and to build family assets. For employers, FWAs help achieve a more stable and predictable workforce and improve employee engagement and productivity.

This year, WF2010 has taken a close look at the role FWAs can play in improving job quality for low-wage workers and increasing workforce stability for employers across a range of industries, occupations and work schedules. In January, we hosted a community forum in partnership with Step Up Savannah, an initiative that works to reduce pervasive poverty in the community of Savannah, Georgia as an economic development strategy. During the forum, we heard directly from local employers, nonprofit and government agency representatives and community advocates about the challenges facing Savannah’s low-wage employees–specifically, the negative consequences that arise from a lack of needed control and predictability in their work schedules. We engaged in in-depth conversations on how innovative workplace flexibility policies can help Savannah’s low-income workers maintain meaningful employment while allowing the city’s employers to reduce turnover, enhance job performance, and increase their competitive advantage.

In July, we co-hosted a briefing with the New America Foundation that examined the particular challenges low-wage workers face in balancing the vicissitudes of life with work schedules that are often rigid or unpredictable. Panelists presented the latest research on scheduling challenges and best practice solutions to these challenges from the research and business community. The briefing also highlighted the increasingly powerful business case for expanding access to flexible work arrangements for low-wage workers. Employers now implementing FWAs for hourly and low-wage workers are reducing costs associated with turnover and overtime in addition to improving workers’ satisfaction and well-being and increasing productivity. We know that FWAs make a tremendous difference to low-wage workers and their employers and yet very few low-wage workers have access to FWAs.

Our goal is to identify which types of FWAs are most salient to low-wage workers and their employers across a range of industries, employers, and occupations and develop a range of public policy ideas for making those FWAs widely available. In the private sector, innovative pilot programs have explored what types of FWAs can make a significant difference in the lives of low-wage and hourly workers and to discover which FWAs can improve business outcomes. In our Public Policy Platform on Flexible Work Arrangements released this spring, we called for the federal government to begin a pilot program requiring federal contractors to offer hourly workers at least two types of FWAs and to fund similar pilots in the private sector, with both researchers and businesses at the helm.

Although FWAs are historically associated with middle and higher-income workers, innovators across a range of perspectives are working to change that.  (See an extended list of resources on FWAs for Lower-Wage Workers here).  In the coming months, we hope to contribute to this dialog a robust range of policy ideas to make FWAs more widely available to low-wage workers.

For more information on Workplace Flexibility 2010’s recent work, please see our July Network News interview with Chai Feldblum and Katie Corrigan.

• Flexible Schedules , Policy , Publications , Research , Workplace
• Comments(2)