Source: Kelly Musick, Megan Doherty Bea, Pilar Gonalons-Pons, American Sociological Review, Volume: 85 issue: 4, August 2020
From the abstract:
This article advances a couple-level framework to examine how parenthood shapes within-family gender inequality by education in three countries that vary in their normative and policy context: the United States, Germany, and the United Kingdom. We trace mothers’ share of couple earnings and variation by her education in the 10-year window around first birth, using long-running harmonized panel surveys from the 1990s and 2000s (N = 4,117 couples and 28,488 couple-years) and an event study methodology that leverages within-couple variation in earnings pre- and post-birth. Our results show steep declines in her share of couple earnings following first birth across the three countries that persist over several years of follow-up. Declines are smallest in the United States, due to U.S. mothers’ higher employment and longer work hours. Declines are also smaller among female partners without a college degree in the United States, where mothers have less work-family support and fewer options to manage work and family on one income. Results shed light on how parenthood plays into gender inequality within couples, and how country context shapes couple dynamics and inequality across households.
Source: Cassandra Engeman, Social Forces, Advance Articles, Published: July 29, 2020
From the abstract:
Trade union institutions are historically and comparatively weak in the United States, and union membership has been in steady decline over several decades. Scholars thus question the contemporary relevance of organized labor to social policy. Yet, there is considerable state-level variation in social policy and union institutional strength that remains underexamined. Focusing on variability across US states, this paper uses mixed-methods analysis to examine relationships between organized labor and parental and family leave legislation under varying political conditions. Event history analysis of state-level leave policy adoption from 1983 to 2016 shows that union institutional strength, particularly in the public sector, is positively associated with the timing of leave policy adoption. These findings are robust to the inclusion of other factors, including Democratic control of state houses, which is also shown to facilitate leave policy adoption. Comparative case studies support event history findings and illustrate how state house partisanship informs the level of government that leave advocates target for policy change. The paper concludes by suggesting further attention to subnational policies and investigation into the social movement practice of target-shifting and its effects. Ultimately, the paper demonstrates the operation of power resources at the subnational level within a liberal market national context.
Source: Elizabeth C. Tippett, The Conversation, March 19, 2020
On March 18, President Donald Trump signed the Families First Coronavirus Response Act into law. The legislation is an emergency intervention to provide paid leave and other support to millions of workers sidelined by school closures, quarantines and caregiving.
An obvious question you’re probably wondering is, “How will it affect me?”
The bad news is that the law does not provide blanket coverage for all workers. Instead, it’s a confusing mess – legislative Swiss cheese, full of exceptions and gradations that affect whether you are covered, for how long and how much pay you can expect to receive.
I study employment law and have combed through the bill to make sense of it. The law also provides emergency funding for unemployment insurance and subsidizes some employer health care premiums, but my focus here is on the core elements pertaining to sick and family leave.
Here’s what I learned.
Source: Cynthia Estlund, Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 82 no. 3, 2019
….At the same time, each of those three big ideas holds within it an essential component of a sound three dimensional response to the uncertain but real prospect of job losses. In lieu of UBI [universal basic income], we should expand universal social benefits—starting with health care and higher education—and income support for the working and non-working poor. In lieu of a federal job guarantee, we should ramp up public investments in infrastructure, social and community services, and early education, all of which would address unmet societal needs while creating decent jobs. And in lieu of (or at least before) reducing weekly hours of work across the board, we should expand access to paid leaves, holidays, and vacations, as well as voluntary part-time work and retirement security; we could thereby spread work and meet varied individual needs and preferences through days, weeks, months, and years of time off.
In combination, these three interventions—expanded universal social benefits and income support, public investments in physical and social infrastructure and the job creation those will entail, and wider access to paid leaves and respites from work—would advance core objectives of each of the three big ideas while muting their disadvantages. Together they would both cushion and offset automation-related job losses, while spreading the work that remains and maintaining or boosting incomes. This trio of policies could and should also be funded in a way that helps to redistribute income from the top to the bottom of an egregiously and increasingly lopsided income distribution.
…..In what follows, I will fill in the outlines of this argument. Part II will briefly set out some normative priors about the multiple ends we should be pursuing as we face a future of less work. A long Part III will take up each of the Three Big Ideas, briefly tracing their genealogy and identifying some strengths and weaknesses of each. Part IV will return to the core aspirations of the Three Big Ideas, and sketch a combination of the three – a three-dimensional strategy – that can preserve much of the good while avoiding much that is problematic in the more single-minded Three Big Ideas. ….
Source: Mary K. Feeney, Justin M. Stritch, Review of Public Personnel Administration, Volume 39 Issue 3, September 2019
From the abstract:
Family-friendly policies and culture are important components of creating a healthy work environment and are positively related to work outcomes for public employees and organizations. Furthermore, family-friendly policies and culture are critical mechanisms for supporting the careers and advancement of women in public service and enhancing gender equity in public sector employment. While both policies and culture can facilitate women’s participation in the public sector workforce, they may affect men and women differently. Using data from a 2011 study with a nationwide sample of state government employees, we investigate the effects of employee take-up of leave policies, employer supported access to child care, alternative work scheduling, and a culture of family support on work–life balance (WLB). We examine where these variables differ in their effects on WLB among men and women and make specific recommendations to further WLB among women. The results inform the literature on family-friendly policies and culture in public organizations.
Source: Sun Young Kim, David Lee, Review of Public Personnel Administration, OnlineFirst, January 13, 2019
From the abstract:
Work–life programs (WLPs) have been widely adopted and implemented by public organizations as a means of providing employees with greater choices and flexibility in coordinating their work and personal lives. Although previous research has shown that these programs are positively related to various employee attitudes and behaviors, empirical evidence about whether and how such relationships vary by type of WLP is relatively scant. In this study, we categorize WLPs into two different types—work-oriented and life-oriented programs—and explore whether and how participating in distinct types of WLPs has varying impacts on employee work attitudes. A series of Mahalanobis distance matching is conducted using data from the 2011 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey. The results indicate that the use of life-oriented programs has a positive and substantive impact on employee satisfaction and commitment, while the effect of participating in work-oriented programs is not statistically significant
Source: Maureen Minehan, Employment Alert, Volume 36 Issue 17, August 20, 2019
…Employers should not permit employees to continually extend their weekends by faking illness. By paying attention to patterns and intervening early, employers can reduce the number of days lost to faux sickness at the beginning and end of the week….
Source: Devan Hawkins, Junli Zhu, American Journal of Industrial Medicine, Early View, July 22, 2019
From the abstract:
Workers with paid sick leave may have a lower rate of occupational injuries compared with other workers. This study sought to determine whether there was a decline in the rate of occupational injuries and illnesses following the implementation of a paid sick leave law in Connecticut (CT).
Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics was used to calculate the rate of occupational injuries and illnesses in CT in the 3 years before (2009‐11) and after (2012‐14) the law was implemented. These numbers were compared with New York (NY) and the United States, and between the occupations specified by the CT law and other occupations.
Among service occupations addressed by the CT paid‐sick‐leave law, the rate of occupational injuries declined more in CT compared to rates for those same occupations in NY and the United States. Within CT, injury and illness rates showed a greater decline in occupations specified by the law (−17.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = −15.6‐−19.9) compared with other occupations (−6.8%; 95% CI = −6.6%‐−7.0%) between the two periods.
A paid sick leave law was associated with an increased decline in occupational injuries and illnesses in affected service workers in the period after implementation. Further research should examine the possible reasons for the associations seen here.
Source: Benjamin W. Veghte, Alexandra L. Bradley, Marc Cohen, Heidi Hartmann, eds., National Academy of Social Insurance, June 2019
From the abstract:
This report explores strategies that states could pursue to better support families in meeting evolving care needs over the lifespan. The first three chapters of the report explore the challenges families face in the realms of early child care and education (ECCE), paid family and medical leave (PFML), and long-term services and supports (LTSS). For each care domain, the panel identifies policy options along with the tradeoffs associated with specific policy choices; this is done within the context of assuring universal access, affordability, and financial stability through well-defined financing mechanisms. The concluding chapter explores how an integrated approach to care policy might be designed—one offering families a single point of access to ECCE, PFML, and LTSS benefits—under an umbrella program called Universal Family Care. Each chapter outlines challenges that states would need to navigate regarding how a new social insurance program would relate to existing federal and state care programs. Each chapter also addresses implementation considerations.
This analysis was developed over a year of deliberations by a Study Panel of 29 experts in care policy from a variety of perspectives. The report does not include recommendations but instead identifies the building blocks and tradeoffs associated with a range of options in the design of a state-based social insurance program. While there are other approaches for improving care supports, this report focuses specifically on social insurance solutions. As well, while there is nothing that precludes such approaches from being adopted at the national level, the focus of this analysis is on the potential for state action. Although addressed primarily to state policymakers, this analysis should be of interest to providers, advocacy organizations, insurers, administrators, and federal policymakers, as well as to any person interested in these issues.
Source: Rob Taylor, Employment Alert, Volume 36 Issue 12, June 13, 2019
Doubtless, teachers have taken notice. Last year Delaware Gov. Carney approved a new law giving state workers—including educators—12 weeks of paid parental leave. That’s dramatically different from the situation nationwide where just a few states offer that benefit. Also, the United States is widely known to be one of the least responsive of developed nations in this regard, a somewhat surprising occurrence given the push in this country to find creative solutions to the large, ongoing problem of teacher shortage.
In most places in the U.S., according to an EdWeek series, since teachers do not have paid time off related to pregnancy and birthing, they first use accumulated sick days to stay home with their newborn, and then go to unpaid leave, getting back to the classroom and a needed paycheck as rapidly as possible.
With No Paid Parental Leave, Many Teachers Return to Class Before They’re Ready
Source: Madeline Will, EdWeek, April 1, 2019