Over the weekend this article in The New York Times talked about how some companies are choosing to cut back hours rather than laying people off. All four of the employees profiled, plus the three experts quoted, were women.
The article suggests that these new part-time positions might offer good options for working mothers, many of whom are ambivalent about working full-time. I like the idea of women having more choices in the workplace; however, things get dicey when the motive is cost-cutting, rather than a true shift towards better work-life balance for employees. Managers may be more likely to cut back hours for women with children, who they perceive as desiring a less demanding schedule, or who they have already “mommy tracked.”
Women who work full-time in corporate environments tend to be up for more advancement, better long-term career building, and more stimulating projects. Two studies, one in Britain and one in Australia, suggest that part-time work has a scarring effect on women’s long-term earnings. The British study indicates that women working part-time earn 40% less per hour than their full-time working male counterparts, and receive 40% less training. (I haven’t been able to find a comparable study for the US — if anybody knows of one, please email me at mamabeeblog at gmail dot com.)
That suggests that the new part-timers mentioned in the Times article and others in their situation will be at a disadvantage, potentially lowering the number of women who assume leadership positions in the corporate world. And, as I’ve said before, I think having more mothers at top positions in companies is good for women at every level because increases the likelihood of better benefits, including child care, lactation rooms and paid family leave.
I would have liked to hear in the article whether the employee sample they interviewed was representative (i.e. mostly women affected), or whether they just didn’t have the time to find a more balanced group.
Of course having a part-time job is better than having no job at all, and in this economy maybe we should be thankful for small favors. And a study from the Pew Research Center indicates that a majority of mothers say they would be happier working part-time, which counts for a lot. But I wonder how carefully the women polled thought about the long-term ramifications of working part-time? If they knew how much their income and opportunity might decline over a period of years, would they still choose this option? And how would they feel if it wasn’t a choice at all, but part of expense reduction by their company?
Related links:
- A 2007 New York Times op-ed from Linda Hirshman that talks about how the 2000 economic crisis affected women in the workplace.
- The Juggle solicits ways to help avoid the mommy track from readers. (The comments on this one are the interesting part — I tend to agree with the person who says that actual post is kind of degrading.)
- EJ Graff talks about “The Working Mommy Trap” on Tom Paine Common Sense.
Hi Mama Bee-
You raise some really important caveats regarding the concept of part-time/reduced time as part of what’s know now as “flexible downsizing”. There are issues about whether all employees would be equally likely or expected to go to reduced time, and there are issues regarding whether downtiming has different effects when it’s chosen by the mom/parent or initiated as part of a company’s cost-cutting efforts.
Probably the biggest unique factor right now, and one that many downsizing experts are only becoming aware of, is the idea that nearly every organization is experiencing pressures to downsize, cut costs, and reduce their operations to adjust to decreases in everyone’s business. When many organizations are downsizing, and when organizations ask everyone to downtime, it’s about making sure that most people have a job even if it is at reduced time and salary, rather than having some keep the full job while others have none. That’s a whole different issue from gender discrimination, mommy-tracking and work life fit.
It’s difficult to switch out of a perspective where it’s about an individual’s job, or your own career, to a perspective where it’s about the entire economy, and then to reconsider what the likely effects of shared downtiming might be.
For example, research has demonstrated that when individual women go to part-time, their wage rates decrease, as do their opportunities for advancement. But we *don’t* know what happens when everyone at a firm (not just a few women), shifts to a reduced work schedule (less than full time but still more than half). When an individual woman goes part-time, a common assumption is that she has put her career behind her role as a parent. When all or a large chunk of employees at a firm reduce their hours, what is inferred about their motivation? About their commitment to a career? About how much they need a job?
We simply don’t know.
I think that the idea that downtiming may be helpful to working moms/and dads is largely an effort to find a silver lining in the idea that to keep a job, one might need to accept somewhat less of a job. … It is also an argument that fits what we’ve been taught to see as an individual issue and an individual decision.
I’m looking forward to someone arguing that downtiming may be a way for us collectively to experiment with more realistic work expectations, more time with families, and a financial constraint that encourages us to do more with less and to live more simply. Maybe I’m dreaming, ….
I am a big advocate of alternatives to layoffs, and thus downtiming. … I’ve written about this on my own blog http://www.AuthenticOrganizations.com. I’ll let Cali Yost, the Work-Life Fit expert who is the biggest advocate of downtiming, know about your post— maybe she can look at the caveats you raise and help us with ways to avoid any sexist abuse of these strategies.
Great, thoughtful post…. Thanks so much.
CV — This is a great comment — thanks so much for writing. I completely agree that down-timing could help improve the lives of many people if it is applied fairly. This is an interesting article from the CEPR website about how down-timing can help the economy and why it should be part of the stimulus plan.
And I don’t think you’re dreaming. I understand, for example, that Best Buy has turned to a results-oriented approach focused on outcomes rather than hours; employees are encouraged to put in the time they need to complete an assignment, but also to work flexibly and remotely if they choose. Innovations like that seem to me to be a harbinger for work-life balance improvements, including reducing the number of hours people work overall.
Here’s hoping for better, fairer solutions for everyone! Great management/business blog, by the way. I’m adding you to the blogroll.
Best,
Mama Bee
Pingback: Flexible Downsizing and Sexism: Should we be worried? — Authentic Organizations
Pingback: Response to Mandatory Layoffs Post « The Mama Bee
Pingback: Response to Mandatory Part-time Post « The Mama Bee
Pingback: Helping the Economoms, And Everyone Else Too « The Mama Bee
Pingback: The Truth About Part-Time Work « The Mama Bee