Griffith University, WOW, August 31, 2009
Prof. Lonnie Golden
Penn State University
Abington College
Affiliate, Labor Studies and Employment Relations
Lmg5@psu.edu

• Will the Future Employment Relationship of the Future be one of
Decent Working Time? (ILO Goals) : Can we get back to the promised future of more freedom?
• To answer, We must Blend Disciplines’ Approach: Econ, IR (HRER),
I-O Psych, OSH, etc. and Role of Academics
• Working Hours, Non-work Time, Control/Freedom and Well Being:
A Future of Better Work-Life Balance (WLB)? Or Worse? Happiness for All?
• Evidence, Samples re: WLB: Guidelines for Unions and/or
Government Policy—Legislation and Regulation and the Future of
Work and Spillovers
• Dangers vs. Opportunities—the case of the Fair Work Act’s NES and proposals in the US (Rights to Refuse, Request)—individual vs. collective approaches (customization vs. uniform standards)

"Everybody talks about the weather , but nobody does anything about it“…Mark Twain
Like the weather, patterns of working and time use are taken for granted, but they are and will be: a reflection of
Economic, Organizational, Individual, Cultural and
Institutional forces, that push or pull work arrangements in the direction that predominates.

Clear Commonality across most developed countries: Growing commitment among women and new younger entrants to paid labor force and maintained commitment among men…making the employment relationship of the future increasingly intertwined with households’ alternative pursuits, uses of non-work time…e.g., egalitarian parenting, life-long education, elder care, civic/social capital…but thus also an interest in work-life balance (WLB) …

•
Choice and influence re: working time;
• Family-friendly working time;
• Healthy working time.
– Emphasis on national, minimum standards for leaves, part-time work, work-sharing practices, etc.

• Multiple Goals, sometimes conflicting, sometimes reinforcing:
– Efficiency
– Equity
– Voice
– Growth?
– Unitarist commonality of interests (HRM win-win’s) vs. Pluralist inherent conflict.
– Role of unions (bargaining collectively) vs. role of Government (“state”)— substitution or reinforcement?
– Must “standards” be “uniform”?
– Rights to request and/or rights to refuse?
– Recent spread of de-standardized, fragmented time, extra hours uncompensated and flexibility on the terms of employer (Rubery et al, 2005).
– High performance (HP) Workplace practices result in:
• longer hours (White, et al, 2002)
• intensified working time, pace and workload (Green, 2002; Askenazy, 2004; Brenner,
Fairris and Ruser, 2004).

• Labor Supply
– individual preferences for both predictable and adjustable hours of work…need for “flexibility” will only grow…
• Daily
• Over life course (cycle)
– Worker “utility” will increasingly depend on not only income level and hours of discretionary time, but on ability to seamlessly transition between them, to time activities optimally.
– Behavioral econ revolution (e.g., Kelloway et al): : individuals work for compensation and consumption, yes, but also for:
• forward-looking incentives, potentially higher earnings or steeper trajectory.
• intrinsic value of the work itself and its content (including “process benefits”).
• Nonwage rewards (backward-looking reciprocity).
• net social outcomes (intended) by work.
• Labor demand— “hours-at-will”
– labor cost considerations, technological constraints;
– Short run perspective: Pure numerical flexibility, unencumbered by regs., vs. Longer run view: returns to providing employee centered flexibility as either productivity tool or employee benefit/workplace amenity (e.g., retention).
– Compensating wage differentials reward workers for doing hours-at-will, or reduce wage costs for employers who adopt and implement flexibility arrangements
• Institutions—to settle the inevitable “clash”
– Unions—as resistance vs. voice…weakening and less pervasive, even with recent organization successes…
– Policies—employee rights to request, rights to refuse to establish “voice” in absence of union power and presence.
• Penalties vs. rewards to employers.
– Can preferences be aligned better, with policies??

• Spillover, mediators, moderators, reinforcers, interactions, etc.
 Role theory and scarcity theory of role accumulation:
 Amount of human energy is fixed and diminishes with each role added…leads to
“role strain,” “overload,” conflict and further negative well being consequences
 Time based; strain-based; behavior based conflicts.
The general degree of Flexibility in the Workplace or Job for workers to meet daily personal needs, which affects health, healthy behaviors (Grzywacz et al, 2007; Barnett and Gareis, 2005).
Caruso et al (2006): risks of long hours are “influenced by … demands of the job,” such as the potential mediating effect of Control (over job): Butler, et al (2007), van der Hulst (2003),
.
Exacerbated by variability/unpredictability of work hours (Costa, Sartori and Akerstedt, 2006;
Henly and Lambert).
Work-Family Conflict…Work-Life Balance…Integration/Fit/Enhancement…in Future?

• Ideal worker vs. Ideal Motherhood
• Formal adoption vs. informal supports and implementation—e.g., feelings of jeopardy if used.

• for a given level of leisure and income, utility is positive in the degree of flexibility (F), where a change in work schedule would not create the binding constraints that result in hours mismatches or impede worker efforts toward coordination of work, household and leisure activities:
• U = f(Y; L; F).
• The degree of responsiveness toward a worker’s preferred schedule may be represented by F
• Worker welfare increases in the degree that schedules can be self-adjusted to existing or new preferences. It decreases to the extent that the timing of work can be adjusted against their wishes, such as might be the case with mandatory overtime (particularly with no advance notice).

Where is Work-Family Being Taught?
Politics
Nursing
HR/LR
History
Legal Studies
Econ/Bus.
Anthropology
Social Work
Psychology
Women Studies
HD & FS
Sociology
0 10 20 30
Number of Schools
Component Course
40 50
Sweet, Stephen, Marcie Pitt-Catsouphes, Joshua Mumm, and Judi Casey. 2008. “Teaching Work and Family to Undergraduate Students: Catalyzing
Pedagogical, Curricular, and Programmatic Innovations.” Teaching Sociology 36: 58-65

◦
Quality of Work Life (QWL) module 2006, 2002
◦
2002 Sample = 1,796 employed adults
◦
2006 Sample = 2,988 employed adults
◦
◦ n = 959 employed adults
12

Almost half perceive no voice in scheduling work
Employer decides 44.79 %
Who set working hours
I decide within limits 40.18 %
Free to decide 15.03 %

One in 4 or so Workers are required to work OT
Mean days per month work extra hours
Salaried Paid by the hour ‘Other’
Male Female Male Female Male Female
7.7
6.9
5.4
3.2
6.5
5.0
Mandatory to work extra hours
Salaried Paid by the hour ‘Other’
Male Female Male Female Male Female
29.86% 24.52% 29.50% 22.69% 32.00% 16.67%

Recent Trends: Hours of Work: In GSS data, 2006
Between 2002 to 2006: Signs of gains for salaried workers, but not for MOT and WLB is suffering
How Often Do Work Demands Interfere with Family
Life - often or sometimes
How Hard it is to Take Time Off for Personal or
Family Matters - not at all hard or not too hard
How Often Respondent is Allowed to Change
Schedule - often or sometimes
2002 Hourly
2002 Salaried
2006 Hourly
2006 Salaried
Mandatory to Work Extra Hours
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Percent
Salaried workers’ advantage seems to be widening, with hourly workers losing some ground…although both groups report increased WF interference

GSS ISSP 2006: Key Time Trends
Preferences re: Work Hours and Money - same and same
Importance of Flexible Hours in a Job - very important or important
Who Set Working Hours - I decide (within limits or free to decide)
48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64
Percent
Somewhat of a gain in individual discretion to set own hours, and perhaps as a result, preferences for “same hours” have risen.
However, a surprising drop in the rated importance of having flexible hours.
1998
2006

Flexibility Measures
QWL:2006
ALL n=1687
CHNGTME (%)
Often 34.8
Sometimes 18.0
Rarely 15.2
Never 31.3
MUSTWORK (%) 25.3
FAMWKOFF (%)
Not at all hard 41.8
Not too hard 31.5
Somewhat hard 15.1
Very hard 10.9
Salaried n=606
44.8
19.6
12.0
23.2
24.9*
42.6*
33.1
14.2
9.4
Hourly n=871
20.0
18.3
19.1
42.4
27.0
39.6
32.8
16.0
11.5
Male n=821
37.7*
18.4
14.4
28.0
30.9*
42.5
30.6
15.3
10.5
Unionized workers have far less ability to alter their own starting and ending times of work; and find it somewhat hard to take off time in the day for family…and are not able to protect workers from mandatory overtime work
Female n=866
31.8
17.6
15.7
34.6
19.6
41.4
32.4
14.9
11.3
Union n=128
15.0*
20.5
14.0
50.0
26.2
28.1*
32.7
25.5
13.1
Non-Union n=936
36.4
17.8
15.1
29.7
23.7
43.0
31.4
14.2
10.7
White n=1260
37.5*
18.5
14.3
28.8
25.5
42.9
30.7
15.0
10.8
23.3
39.3
36.4
15.5
7.3
Black n=252
18.5
16.2
17.0
46.9
26.2
37.7
31.1
15.2
15.5
Other n=175
35.2
16.7
17.6
29.9

But Union workers are not significantly less likely to regard flexible working hours as important, vs. nonunion workers
FLEXIBILITY MEASURES
Flexibility Measures
ISSP: 2006
ALL n=1687
FLEXHRS (%)
Very important 18.2
Important 35.2
Neither 26.6
Not important 16.8
Not important at all 2.7
Salaried n=606
Hourly n=871
Male n=821
16.7
35.5
28.4
15.7
3.4
Female n=866
19.9
34.9
24.6
18.0
1.9
Union n=128
14.3
34.0
34.4
17.7
1.2
Non-Union n=936
18.7
35.4
25.6
16.9
2.9
White n=1260
15.1*
35.0
27.1
19.9
2.6
Black n=252
24.5
39.7
22.6
8.3
4.4
*Significant difference in the incidence of the flexibility measure between the respective groupings (Pearson chi2 statistic)
Other n=175
27.3
32.9
27.3
9.2
2.0

…but flexible schedules and short term flexibility reduces adverse consequences
CHNGTME
Often & Sometimes
CHNGTME
Rarely & Never
FAMWKOFF
Not hard & not too hard
FAMWKOFF
Somewhat and very hard n=895 n=774 n=1228 n=441
WKVSFAM: How often do demands of job interfere with family life? (%)
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
10.9%
34.5**
31.0
23.4**
10.3%
28.2
29.4
32.1
6.6%**
28.8**
33.0**
31.6**
22.0%
39.2
23.4
15.4
19

Is there an Optimal amount of flexibility?
TC
TC of flex time
TC for firms to offer flex time
TC to firms when NOT providing flex time
F*
F (Total amount of flex time made available)
= Minimum TC point = optimal amount of flex time provided
… at perhaps less than all the 80 percent of the work force that now wishes it

Economics/Realities of Mandated Benefits for Labor: if it pushes labor S outward less than it pushes labor D inward (by raising costs): net drop in Q of Labor D might occur w
$
L S
L S’
20
15
10
5
L D o
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Q of Labor
Policy advocates must recognize these obstacles to expanding flexibility measures…

Flexibility and national policy: Must reflect underlying economics
 Thus, as with any “public goods,” or arrangements with “positive externalities,” (to families, other families, communities, etc., the “benefits” of them extend beyond those who directly pay for them.
 Many employers…may have to be to be INDUCED to offer them, since they vary in terms of COST among employers.
 Subsidies and tax credits? Beyond the current tax credits for child care…vs. Govt grants (vs. just info support) who undertake innovative projects that promote better WF balance.

Availability of flexibility for workers seems to be growing somewhat, especially flexible daily schedules, but not much recently nor equivalently across the board by occupation or industry.
Salaried workers generally have relatively more scheduling flexibility than hourly workers, especially in daily work scheduling, and the gap appears to be widening.
Salaried status does not protect workers very much from being required to work
OT. But it does mitigate somewhat the fatigue consequences of mandatory overtime work.
For worker well being, the involuntary nature of overtime (OT) hours seems to matter more than whether working OT or the number of hours of OT, for workfamily related consequences. Thus Well Being improvements should focus more on CONTROL over time, not just duration of work hours.
In US, that means Govt Policies, since unions are not prevalent or strong.
23

• IR, Occupational/Organizational Psychology and Labor
Economics all offer unique perspectives on the Nature of
OT and its consequences on worker well being.
– Mandatory Overtime work: may promote firms’ efficiency but because they it is not distributed evenly throughout workforce, it undermines equity, but might not necessarily disappear even with
greater worker voice.
– Self reported adverse consequences that may cause spillover
social costs or negative externalities—interference of work with family time and inability to take time off from work for family or personal need and sometimes greater fatigue, which may threaten public health or safety—call for more protection legislation…will not substitute for collective bargaining enterprise level agreements (Berg, 2009).

1) The right to annual paid family, medical and personal leave for full- and part-time employees. Minimum standards for leave are: a) two weeks of employer-funded paid personal leave for all employees to be taken at the time of their choosing.
b) seven days of employer-funded sick time for personal or family illness c) 12 weeks of paid leave for parents of newborn, adoptive and foster children, and for serious illness of the employee, a child, a parent or other relative, spouse o rpartner.
d) 16 hours of employer-funded leave to be taken in small increments for doctor's appointments, parent-teacher meetings, and other small necessities.
2) The right to negotiated flexibility over work hours and place: a) the ability to shift between full-time and reduced hours as family and personal circumstances change.
b) equal pay rates and at least pro-rated benefits for reduced hours employees c) no mandatory overtime.
d) flexible schedules and place of work, mutually agreed upon by employees and employers.
3) The right to quality, affordable child and elder care.
4) The right to a minimum wage set at a living wage level and indexed to inflation.
5) The right to adequate health insurance for all.
These rights shall apply to all regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, age, place of birth, religion, sexual orientation, or marital, family or disability status.

Current Legislation Passed:
– State (Mainly Nurses and Health Care Workers)
– Federal Legislation (amending Fair Labor
Standards Act Overtime Law and Regulations)
• SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES WITH NES, RIGHT TO
REQUEST:
– PART TIME
– EXTENDED UNPAID LEAVE
– FLEXIBLE SCHEDULING

– Further degree of Policy interventions?
• Legal, Individual Right of Refusal;
– Extending the ILO convention principle of prohibiting forced or compulsory labor, by granting a right to refuse
OT work without suffering potential job loss (arguably the severest penalty in market economies)?
– Inclusion with OSHA’s right to refuse UNSAFE work?
• Minimum advance notice time of required OT, enforced by pay premium?;
• Explicit notice of MOT expectation in employment contract;
•Now, Work Sharing , “this is really interesting case…”