The Fork

Last week in Cambridge, Massachusetts, a couple curving blocks from Harvard Square, university administrators, academics, and bureaucrats convened the latest event of the National Dialogue on Workplace Flexibility, spearheaded by the White House and sponsored by the Women’s Bureau of the U.S. Department of Labor.  

With the National Dialogue, the Women’s Bureau has taken the lead in advancing the Obama administration’s workplace flexibility agenda, travelling across the country to gather information about the relevance of workplace flexibility to a wide range of industries and workers.

Opening the Boston event, Women’s Bureau head Sarah Manzano-Diaz delineated the demographic trends that implore a shift in the structure of the workplace.  The reality to which business must adapt is that parents are increasingly pressed by the need to balance work and family obligations.

The panelists who followed Diaz proved that many university workplaces have responded by crafting flexible work arrangements to retain employees whose contributions are invaluable but whose caregiving obligations can be incompatible with the rigid work schedules of yesteryear.  University administrators from Harvard and Columbia emphasized that flexibility is crucial to the needs of the contemporary workforce.  Their remarks indicated that a formal flexibility policy – even one that guarantees staff only an avenue to request a flexible work arrangement – could be beneficial to recruitment and retention, and, accordingly, the efficiency [and, in my view, empathy] of business operations.  

After a breakout session, IWPR researcher Dr. Bob Drago concluded the event with a speech that briefly summarized the history of the work-family as an academic subject, cited the significance of Kathleen Christensen’s efforts at the Sloan Foundation to the development of the field, and appropriately mentioned former Harvard president Larry Summers’ notorious statement concerning women and science, eliciting a gust of guffaws from the Cambridge crowd.  Although most of the dialogue focused on the need for flexibility among university employees (the subject of a recent WAMU story), Drago observed the particular importance of flexibility to “student-parents” and noted a recent IWPR study showing that the availability of child-care on college campuses is not only inadequate but in decline.  

Drago finished by calling on workplace flexibility advocates to expand and augment their alliance by engaging the support of groups that have not been a part of the conversation and applauded the Women’s Bureau for their work to this end.  This was the theme of a memorable moment from Manzano-Diaz’s introduction in which she declared workplace flexibility a  “worker’s” – not just a “women’s” – issue.  Although the audience was largely female, the scope of the dialogue encompassed all working Americans.  

To read Manzano-Diaz’ summary of the recent Dialogue event in Chicago that focused on the manufacturing industry, click here.

Today, WAMU’s Pete Thompson reports on the increasing relevance of workplace flexibility to businesses striving to maximize productivity in order to gain a competitive advantage over emerging economies.  The story relies heavily on the insight of LIsa Horn, a leader of the Moving Work Forward Initiative for SHRM, who, in Thompson’s words, maintains that workplace flexibility “could be one crucial way to compete globally into the next century, against countries such as India and China.”  Buttressing this argument, the story notes that businesses that have implemented workplace flexibility have seen a 19% increase in productivity and relates how Texas tax firm Ryan LLC managed to achieve “one of its best years in 2009, despite the recession,” due in part to the implementation of flexible work policies that spurred greater productivity and slashed the firm’s turnover rate by 67% from 18% to 6%.

However, Thompson writes that many businesses remain reluctant to invest in workplace flexibility because of concerns about potentially high initial costs associated with the development of technology to monitor the output of workers and free them to work remotely.

As global competition grows, pressuring more firms to introduce policies that are proven to improve efficiency, it seems likely that workplace flexibility really is starting to be seen as a “great business imperative.”  

The National Dialogue on Workplace Flexibility continues in Chicago today, April 14. Conversation will focus on how flexibility can benefit employers and employees in the manufacturing industry. You can watch the event via a live webcast that will likely be archived following its conclusion at 1:30 p.m. EST.

The next event in the National Dialogue is slated for next Wednesday, April 20.  Building on Joining Forces, the recently announced White House initiative intended to raise awareness about the “unique needs” of military families and galvanize action by businesses and communities to “ensure military families have the support they have earned,” the event will feature discussion about the need among members of military families for workplace flexibility and highlight successful policies pioneered by business to encourage their attachment to the workforce.

Last Tuesday, marking the beginning of Women’s History Month, the White House released Women in America, a statistical compendium that quantifies pertinent demographic, health, employment and income trends among women.

In promoting the report, the Obama administration has emphasized that it will inform a more efficient approach to managing relevant government programs.  In the White House’s press release, OMB Director Jacob Lew notes that “consolidating” data on the economic situation of women will allow the government to “target … resources to deliver the best results for women, families, and all Americans.”

Although the report does little more than compile previously collected data (the data on workplace flexibility is from 2004), it is “the first comprehensive federal report on women” since a commission chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt produced one at the behest of President Kennedy almost fifty years ago.

The release of the report has garnered considerable media attention, the majority of which has focused on the fact that although women have surpassed men in educational attainment, the gender disparity in pay remains significant.  However, the report’s scope is much broader.

Page 31 touches on workplace flexibility, reporting that although women and men are equally likely to have access to flexible work arrangements, White and Asian workers are more likely to benefit from flexibility because they tend to be employed in occupations in which it is more prevalent:  “In May 2004, the proportion of White and Asian workers in occupations in which they could vary their schedules exceeded that of other groups.  About 30 percent of employed Whites and Asians could vary their work hours, while the proportion was closer to 21 percent among Black workers and those of Hispanic ethnicity.”

To accompany the report, the White House launched a website that summarizes and contains links to the supporting data.

Further Reading:

Reporting for the Christian Science Monitor, Daniel B. Wood highlights key statistics and discusses the Obama administration’s plans to promote the report in the coming weeks.

Gail Collins opines on the significance of the report in her Thursday column, “Girls and Boys Together,” arguing that establishing policy to support work and family balance is integral to closing the wage gap between men and women.

On March 4, the Center for American Progress will host a discussion on the new report featuring officials from the Obama administration and work-family researchers.

Last Thursday, the Department of Labor’s Women’s Bureau and the White House Council on Women and Girls convened another event of the National Dialogue on Workplace Flexibility to highlight successful strategies for providing flexible work arrangements to hourly workers and the broad benefits that result from such strategies for employers and employees.

Addressing the California crowd remotely, First Lady Michelle Obama connected workplace flexibility to the White House’s effort to enhance America’s economic competitiveness.  The Pasadena Star-News quotes Obama as saying,  “We know workplace flexibility affects not only how we work and live, but how businesses … and the country compete.”

In her keynote, Department of Labor Secretary Hilda Solis argued that workplace flexibility improves the economic security of low-wage working parents strained by the threat of unemployment and the difficult balance of work and family while benefiting business.

The following day, February 18, the Department of Labor hosted a regional event in Seattle to examine the role of workplace flexibility in addressing the specific needs of workers employed in the health care industry.

Related Links:

Caroline O’Connor summarized the event in her blog post for the California Federation of Labor.

The Department of Labor’s page promises video and other material from the event.

Secretary Solis previewed her speech in an op-ed run by the Pasadena Star-News on the eve of the event.

Beige Luciano-Adams reported in greater detail about the event for the Pasadena Star-News.

Dr. Ellen Kossek of Michigan State University posted her response to the event on the Custom-Fit Workplace’s blog.

Corporate Voices for Working Families posted on their blog about the event in Pasadena as well as the regional event held in Seattle, Washington, the following day.

National Partnership for Women and Families responded in a press release, applauding the event in Seattle for its focus on the health care industry.

Cali Williams Yost acclaimed Secretary Solis’ speech in her response.

In a recent post, a White House blogger framed workplace flexibility as vital to the competitiveness of American business.

Posted by:  Meghan McCauley, Work-Life Policy Unit, Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law

DOL Secretary Hilda L. Solis and Women’s Bureau Director Sara Manzano-Diaz kicked off a series of regional meetings intended to bring the conversation from the White House Forum on Workplace Flexibility across the country.  The October 20^th event brought the voices of over 200 small and medium-sized businesses, employees, advocates, union leaders, researchers, and government stakeholders together in Dallas to explore best practices for workplace flexibility.  Small businesses are growing in the Dallas Fort-Worth area faster than any other place in America.  The event allowed speakers and participants to discuss the evolution that has occurred in the American workplace – and to focus on real workplace flexibility opportunities and challenges for small businesses.  Quoting President Obama, Manzano-Diaz noted, “we no longer have our parent’s workplace.”

With both parents working in 48% of households, the issue of balancing work and family has become a greater challenge.  In recognition of this challenge, the Women’s Bureau is celebrating its 90^th anniversary by helping the Administration bring its top priorities to improve the economy and increase the productivity of the American workforce to the forefront, including:

• Fostering workplace flexibility to create a work/family balance;
• Promoting higher pay for women through green, nontraditional and other jobs in areas such as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics;
• Narrowing  the wage gap; and
• Improving the working and living conditions for all women.

Christina Tchen, Director & Executive Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement and the White House Council on Women and Girls, stressed that balancing work and family impacts all people “up and down the wage scale.”  Tchen reiterated President Obama’s recent statements that workplace flexibility is not just a women’s issue but also a matter of economic competitiveness.

Tchen suggested that employers “open dialogues” with their employees to determine the best flexibility practices to meet their specific workplace needs. Evidence suggests that implementing a range of flexibility practices can benefit businesses’ productivity by reducing turnovers, training requirements, and absenteeism.  Indeed, flexibility can help support a stronger American workforce that is competitive in the world market.

The National Conversation will continue with an event focusing on workplace flexibility for the healthcare industry in Atlanta on November 10, 2010.

More information about the National Dialogue is available at http://www.dol.gov/wb/media/natldialogue.htm

Select Materials from the National Dialogue include:

• U.S. Department of Labor – Fact Sheet on Women
• U.S. Department of Labor – Women’s Bureau Priorities Fact Sheet
• White House Council on Women and Girls – Work-Flex Event Starter Kit: Resources
• Obama Administration’s Fact Sheet – Standing Up for Women and Families
• Council of Economic Advisors Report – Work-Life Balance and the Economics of Workplace Flexibility—March 2010
• Obama Administration’s Fact Sheet – Support for Women Entrepreneurs
• U.S Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration
  Report For the White House Council on Women and Girls – Women-Owned Businesses in the 21st Century
• U.S. Small Business Administration Fact Sheet – Women-Owned Small Business WOSB) Program
• U.S. Small Business Administration Fact Sheet – Small Business Jobs and Credit Act

Note: A webcast of the National Dialogue will be available soon on the DOL website.

On August 31, Ezra Klein blogged about the dearth of vacation days in the U.S. relative to other advanced economies, arguing that the difficulty of passing “social welfare legislation” and the absence of universal access to paid vacation accounts for the disparity.

Reihan Salam at the National Review countered that the lack of paid vacation follows from the fact that cash compensation in America is significantly higher than the OECD average.  Salam goes further to contend that the lack of paid vacation in the U.S. represents a collective preference for higher wages and actually gives workers and their employers “flexibility” to determine an appropriate compensation package:

Paid vacation is best understood as a form of non-cash compensation. It’s not obvious that we should collectively choose more paid vacation over more pay, and the lack of mandatory paid-vacation gives employers and employees more flexibility to choose an arrangement that works for them.

Klein replied that the population that accounts for our relative wealth is the same population that has access to paid vacation.  He also takes issue with Salam’s rosy portrait of employee-employer relations:

Broadly speaking, employees with the power to demand more paid vacation do so, and employees without the power to demand more paid vacation get less — or in some cases, no — paid vacation. A law guaranteeing paid vacation would primarily tilt the playing field toward low-income workers, rather than against them, as is the case now.

Sparked by Klein’s reinvigorated “campaign for mandatory paid vacation,” Matthew Yglesias entered the discussion to suggest that mandating vacation for “low-productivity workers” won’t impart them any leverage in the labor market because the cost of providing paid vacation will simply be reallocated from a different fraction of their total compensation.  Yglesias proceeds to propose two arguments for mandatory paid vacation:

One is that it would arguably be a way of forcing workers without families to subsidize workers with families, which might be a good idea since parenting is hard work that creates real value for our enduring human community. The other is that perhaps employers would be able to make up the lost output from paid vacation by getting people to waste less time while on the clock.

While there may be a formidable budget deficit facing our country, there are surpluses in vacation leave banks across America.  Americans work long hours, accumulate paid vacation, but don’t pursue leisure, even though the pursuit of leisure can be regarded as concomitant to the pursuit of happiness, a distinctly American ideal.

Over at The Conversation, Gail Collins and Timothy Egan recently held forth on this topic.  At the close of the dialogue, Collins somewhat ironically envisions a policy to reduce unemployment and get Americans on vacation, which Egan cleverly calls, “The Gail Collins Back to Work Relief Act:”  “I don’t generally base sweeping economic theories on Luxembourg.” Collins begins, “But it did make me wonder. If Congress required businesses to give all their workers generous vacation benefits, more people would have to be hired to take up the slack. Corporate profits might drop, but right now our problem is that corporate profits are chugging right along while 9.5 percent of the workforce is unemployed.”

This is actually reminiscent of a serious proposal advanced by economist Dean Baker almost one year ago:  “The unemployment rate is 10.2 percent and virtually certain to rise even higher in the months ahead. [. . .] Fortunately, there is an easy and quick way to begin to get these unemployed workers back to work. It involves paying workers to work shorter hours. The mechanism can take the form of a tax credit to employers. The government can give them a tax credit of up to $3,000 to shorten their workers’ hours while leaving their pay unchanged. The reduction in hours can take the form of paid sick days, paid family leave, shorter workweeks or longer vacations. The employer can choose the method that is best for her workers and the workplace.”

Moreover, subsidizing leave time to mitigate rising unemployment is actually effective policy in Germany.  Germany’s exceptional economic growth rate is attributed in part to their decision to extend “the ‘Kurzarbeit’ or ‘short work’ program to encourage companies to furlough workers or give them fewer hours instead of firing them, making up lost wages out of a fund filled in good times through payroll deductions and company contributions.”  A flexible labor market is key to weathering fluctuations in consumer demand.  However, by subsidizing employment during times of slumping demand, Germany has discovered a model to preserve labor force attachment and buoy demand in the face of economic recession.

Given our economy and legislative climate, subsidized vacation (or funded furloughs) may seem like a sandcastle in the sky.  But perhaps it is deserving of a closer look or least suggests the need for further inquiry into the relationship between the structure of work and economic efficiency.

Because antidiscrimination laws have largely eliminated “outright sexism” as an obstacle to career success for women, David Leonhardt contends in a recent column for the New York Times that today “the main barrier is the harsh price most workers pay for pursuing anything other than the old-fashioned career path.”  This includes parenthood, the responsibilities of which fall disproportionately on women.   Leonhardt proceeds to suggest that greater access to workplace flexibility could reduce the effect of the parenthood penalty on the careers of working parents.

Here are some responses:

“Feminist at Fault?” Nancy Folbre, New York Times

“The U.S. Needs Paid Parental and Pregnancy Leave,” Brian Gresko, Huffington Post

“Why Working Mothers Fall Behind,” Daniel Indiviglio, Atlantic

“The Times Opts Out of the ‘Opt Out’ Narrative,” Joan Williams, Huffington Post

“The Motherhood Gap.” Monica Potts, American Prospect

“Reader Feedback:  Work and Parenthood,” David Leonhardt, New York Times

One evolving effect of technology is the integration of work and life.  Technology enables personal concerns to infiltrate the workplace (Google applications, Facebook, etc.) and professional concerns to infiltrate the home (email, incessantly breaking news, etc.).  In addition, it has liberated some workers from the limits of place, permitting them the opportunity to work wherever they can access 3G, 4G, or wireless service.   Many have reacted with skepticism to this development, arguing that the benefit of telework must be weighed against the potential cost to family and self of a constant, unremitting pressure to work.

Heavily advertised on the website of the New York Times is a new smart phone from Nokia that allows users to “switch between work and personal mode with the push of a button.”  The Nokia E73 Mode phone is the market’s confirmation of the dichotomy of work and life.  Being dramatic:  it is a gesture of sympathy for the spillover effect, a response to the desire for a separation of the spheres.  Just as people transition between work and life mode, Nokia implies, so should their smart phones.

A recently released survey by Deloitte found that “Sixty percent of employees suggest that technology plays an important role in helping them meet their professional and personal demands, which is enabling them to trust their employers more.”  It does seem that technological development has been beneficial to work-life balance.  It will be fascinating to see how technological innovation responds to the needs of working professionals.  Perhaps engineers can play a role in reducing the conflict between work and life.