Conceptualizing Part Time Work - Essay Example

Conceptualizing Part Time Work According to the study of Boje and Leira in 2000, part-time work among women is considered to be a pertinent issue forcross-national comparison as it emphasizes numerous controversies in comparative research, for example, whether or not there are universal laws of convergence in social development. These arguments were renewed by the convergence thesis of industrialism and the subsequent rejoinders which give more salience to the diversity of industrial and political development. Universal trends in part-time work can be seen across countries: it is primarily performed by women; it is often associated with marginal employment; its expansion has coincided with a period of industrial restructuring and a growing presence of women in the labor market. From this vantage point, part-time work appears to be emerging as a universal modification to the existing sexual division of labor. Nevertheless, Drew, Emerek and Mahon in their comparative research indicate considerable differences between countries in the extent and form of part-time work between men and women and over the life cycle (1998). Employment conditions in terms of hours, wages and associated benefits also vary significantly. Researchers are therefore faced with several related theoretical questions. Why part-time work is universally gendered and under what conditions will this change What social processes account for the variation in different countries and will these differences persist or converge And finally, will change be in the direction of marginalized or more integrated forms of part-time work The objective of this paper is not to look only at similarities or only at differences across countries; instead, the paper will 'pursuit of the twin objectives of recognizing diversity and isolating major processes' to understand what the phenomenon of part-time employment means in countries with different institutional settings. Cross-national theoretical approaches which seek to account for both similarities and differences in women's employment patterns have developed rapidly since the 1980s. Many of these studies focus on the conditions under which women are available for full- or part-time work ('labor supply'), while others pay more attention to how firms use part-timers ('labor demand'). What they all do, however, is demonstrate that analyses which attempt to reduce explanations to one or two explanatory variables, such as child care provisions or employers' flexibility strategies, are often inadequate in accounting for cross-national variation in the use of part-time work (Kahne and Giele, 1992). Women and Part Time Work The separation and relationship between the sphere of economic market production and domestic reproduction has formed the analytic basis underlying explanations of women's availability for part-time work. Industrialization modified the pre-existing gender division of labor within families as the dominant means of gaining a living became waged labor located in workplaces away from the home. This commoditization of women's and men's labor retained a gender division. Men's labor became increasingly associated with waged work and market production, while women remained responsible for combining household work with any paid employment which they undertook (Meesenger, 2004). It is not only those distinct tasks are located in these two sites, but also the principles of orientating and justifying behavior in them vary. Kahne and Giele (1992) argued that the public sphere is organized through a legal regulatory framework of capitalist accounting, the labor contract and bureaucratic principles of organization based on achieved characteristics. This is distinct from the private family arena, where the organizing principle is ascribed kinship relations, even where legally regulated, such as in the marriage contract. Later in this chapter we will argue that the growth in female labor market participation brings these two organizing principles into conflict, providing one stimulus for social change. One type of explanation for women's involvement in part-time work is that this is universally functional or efficient for the household and society. Functionalist theory distinguishes between men's 'instrumental' role as wage-earners and women's 'expressive' role where waged work takes second place to the responsibilities for caring for children and providing men with emotional support and respite from the pressures of public life (Moghadam, 1996). Parsons argued that this gender division was found in most societies, and that the existence of this universal pattern was evidence that it was a functional arrangement for the maintenance of social order, for example, by fulfilling the necessary tasks of socializing children. The argument is that women anticipate future labor market interruptions associated with raising children and running a home, and on this basis make particular types of 'human capital' investment in education and training, while men prepare for a more continuous and intense labor market involvement in their role as household breadwinner. At the point of setting up home together it is economically rational for men to specialize in waged work, and for women to do most of the child-raising and other unpaid household tasks; their tendency to gravitate towards the part-time market work allows for a compromise which does not disrupt this division of labor. Thus, while Parsons distinguishes between instrumental and expressive roles, Becker attempts to differentiate between economic rationality in relation to the market and 'altruistic' motives for resource allocation within the household. Both, however, provide a theoretical explanation which suggests that women's part-time employment is an optimal arrangement for families, at least when two parents are present. Both of these theories have been heavily criticized, although Becker's thesis has received the most attention in contemporary labor market debates. The first point of criticism is that these theoretical approaches are teleological: essentially the sexual division of labor is argued to be a functional or efficient arrangement on the basis that it would not continue otherwise. Second, both approaches are also largely premised on a consensual understanding of household decision-making, thus neglecting conflict and unequal power relations between household members. A further criticism specifically directed at Becker's work is that supply-side 'human capital' arguments are insufficient to account for gender differences in wages; discriminatory labor market processes have a major impact on the acquisition of human capital and its rewards (O'Rand and Henretta, 1999). Finally, even within its own criteria of individuals making rational responses to wage differences, claims that such a division of labor is 'efficient' are shown to be flawed when analyzed from a lifetime rather than a cross-sectional perspective (O'Reilly and Fagan, 1998). More recently, debates around household labor supply decisions have taken a further turn in response to Persson and Jonung's explanation for why women work part-time ( 1997). Unlike the 'functional family' and the 'household economics' approaches, the emphasis is upon women's aspirations and decisions rather than upon what is beneficial to the family division of labor. She suggests that women can be broadly divided into 'self-made women' committed to an employment career and 'grateful slaves' who prefer a more traditional homemaker role. For this latter group of home-centered women, employment has a secondary and subordinate role in their life compared to other interests. Working part-time is argued to be a proxy indicator for this 'qualitatively different' labor market involvement of home-centered women. The challenges labor market researchers to take more account of the heterogeneity in women's work orientations than often occurs. However, there are some problems with her argument. The first is the explanatory role attributed to work orientations, and the conceptualization of these orientations. She claims that social scientists overemphasize structural constraints in explanations of women's employment patterns, such as a lack of child care services. In contrast, she prioritizes differences in work orientations as the primary explanatory factor for the diverging labor market behavior among women, even though she acknowledges that preferences do not determine outcomes (Ratner, 1980). This emphasis on preferences and choices leads to a voluntaristic account of women's behavior which neglects the structural constraints which women act within (Sainsbury, 1999). Partly as a result, preferences are discussed in a simplified and essentially static way, suggesting that women's attitudes remain largely constant as they move from adolescence through their lives and that women can be divided into discrete categories. Little attention is given to the literature which explores how attitudes are at least partly dependent on environmental factors, and develop over time in an adaptive process, responding to opportunities and experiences (Walby. 1997). For example, qualitative research has shown how young women's labor market aspirations and their training plans are lowered if they perceive that they have few labor market prospects. The second problem is that there are dangers in using information on labor market behavior as a proxy for inferences about preferences. For example, a study of women who left employment at the end of maternity leave in Britain revealed that one group of women was following their preferences to look after their children themselves, and another group had quit because they could not find child care (Warme et al, 1992). Such studies provide a strong caution against replacing a structural analysis with an overly voluntaristic emphasis on women's choices. International comparisons of women's employment patterns throw both of these problems into particularly stark relief. Indeed, it was the evidence from cross-national comparisons which led Hakim to revise her initial suggestion that working part-time provides a suitable proxy measure for work orientations in cross-national research to one where she excludes some forms of part-time work (Warme et al., 1997). This is because comparative work reveals that women's involvement in paid work, and particularly the extent to which motherhood involves a shift into part-time work, varies markedly between countries. Differences in social structures therefore have a central role in the production of satisfactory accounts for international variations in part-time work among women. Researchers have for some time pointed to differences in social policies, such as child care provision, as important societal features which structure women's labor supply. His typology of Welfare States rests on the concept of 'de-commoditization', which refers to the extent of state intervention in the class system so that 'a person can maintain a livelihood without reliance on the market' (Sainsbury, 1999). He argues that these different Welfare State regimes are 'unique configurations' which refute both Marxist and Modernization theses on convergence. Furthermore, these regimes have a differential effect on the position of women in the labor market. For example, social-democratic states (e.g. Sweden) have a stronger commitment to providing public child care services than a liberal state (e.g. the US and UK), and in doing so create a larger demand for women's labor as public sector employees. Esping-Andersen's analysis has drawn attention to critical differences in Welfare State regimes, and in the process has inspired debate and criticism. Feminists have criticized his analysis for ignoring women's unpaid domestic labor in his concept of 'de-commoditization', and argue that Welfare State regimes have to be gendered. Orloff (1993), for example, has suggested than how far the state guarantees women's access to paid work or the 'right to be commoditized', and how far the state enables women to form autonomous households. In a similar vein, Lewis (1992) has proposed a typology of 'strong', 'moderate' and 'weak' breadwinner states according to whether state policies reinforce or begin to dismantle the traditional breadwinner model of family life. So while 'human capital' and 'work orientations' theories have the merit of drawing attention to the effect of differences in women's market resources and plans on their labor supply, it is critically important that this behavior is located and interpreted within the incentive structure created by state policies and other institutional arrangements. This is clearly demonstrated by international evidence of the influence of education on women's behavior. The 'educational lever' (Persson and Jonung, 1997) has proved to be a universally powerful predictor of women's labor market behavior. Highly qualified women maintain a higher and more continuous labor market involvement during motherhood than women without educational capital in United Kingdom and North America. This is because education increases women's aspirations and access to the better-paid professional jobs. High qualification levels are also associated with an attitudinal shift in favor of more egalitarian gender roles among younger generations of both sexes, and even signs of some minor adjustments to the unequal gender division of housework (O'Reilly and Fagan, 1998). Thus, education reduces the constraint which motherhood makes on women's labor and hence the type of compromise they make about the gender division of labor. Yet even when mothers' qualification levels are taken into account, marked national differences persist in their involvement in full-time and part-time employment. These differences arise because the influence of supply-side characteristics is mediated by state policies and other institutions which affect both the conditions under which women supply their labor and the organization of labor demand. Part Time Employment among Women in the United Kingdom Women's working lives are shaped both by the extent and nature of their other responsibilities and by the job opportunities open to them. Across United Kingdom, part-time work is a common way for women to combine paid work with family responsibilities. It is clear, however, that not all part-time working arrangements suit women's needs and that the conditions within which women work part time can affect their ability to function successfully in both spheres. Indeed, differing employer strategies regarding the use of part-time labor can often be more important for shaping those workplaces than the gender composition of the workforce. This may mean that women working in establishments with differing part-time strategies have markedly different employment experiences. The evidence presented below suggests that part-timers will be better off in workplaces where part-time employment was introduced initially in response to employee requests. In these workplaces, managers appear less likely to offer part-timers lower hourly wages than full-time workers in comparable jobs or fewer fringe benefits, despite believing that part-timers contribute less than full-timers to improving competitiveness or the quality of the goods and services produced. However, even when part-time working is voluntary, and the expressed preference of women, the question may be raised whether it is to their advantage, or whether it is the case that working part-time reinforces women's generally disadvantaged position at work and perpetuates their economically subordinate status at home. It has been argued, for example, that 'part-time employment...is of very little personal value for women, because of job insecurity, awkward working hours, and restrictions on movement to full-time work' (Drew et al, 1998). Those who believe in the social and economic desirability of more part-time jobs would argue, in contrast, that new opportunities for women are created through the provision of part-time working hours, and that women who would not have otherwise sought paid employment are thereby encouraged to enter the labor market. That is, information is presented and discussed in relation to eight United Kingdom countries as a whole, as if there were no important differences between them. But of course that is not really the case. Both women's employment experiences generally and their experiences of part-time work in particular vary from country to country, often quite dramatically. One useful distinction is between the development of part-time work in northern and southern United Kingdom a countries. In northern United Kingdom, women's participation in part-time employment changed considerably over the post-war period: between the 1950s and 1970s, it grew rapidly and steeply, only to stabilize or grow slowly during the late 1970s and into the 1980s and 1990s. In contrast, the expansion of part-time work among women in southern United Kingdom only began in the 1970s and has reached only comparatively low levels. Of particular interest is the differing impact of the growth in women's employment on employers' use of part-time working hours (Kahne and Giele, 1992). In general, part-time employment is highly responsive to the proportion of women in the workforce, and the higher the proportion of women employees, the greater the chances that part-time workers will be employed. However, the relationship between the number of women in paid work and the amount of part-time employment is not always consistent. None the less, the rate of women's employment is not the only influence on the use of part-time workers, and women may be responding to employers' decisions to introduce non-standard working hours as well as purposively seeking ways of working which accommodate their other responsibilities. The reasons why employers introduce part-time work into their establishments may have important consequences for women workers, and provide a useful way of examining the variety of women's experiences (Messenger, 2004). Two contrasting types of part-time work can be found in United Kingdom workplaces, based on the reasons for the initial introduction of part-time employment. The first of these is found in establishments where management decided initially to use part-time working arrangements in response to economic or organizational need. These workplaces, which we refer to as 'corporate strategy' workplaces, are characterized by employees who adapt their labor supply to employers' labor demands; and by managers who consider that part-time work yields considerable advantages and few disadvantages to their organizations. The second type of part-time work develops in establishments where part-time employment was initially introduced in response to the wishes of full-time workers for reduced working hours. These workplaces, which we call 'individual strategy' workplaces, are characterized by employers who adapt their working practices to fit individual labor supply choices; and by managers who tend to see fewer advantages flowing from part-timers and more disadvantages (O'Rand and Henretta, 1999). Of course, such categorizations are primarily heuristic; they refer to 'averages' and 'trends', rather than to individual firms or employers. It would be incorrect to assume that within all workplaces categorized in this way, employment decisions always happen on the basis of 'will' or 'strategic thinking'; the suggestion runs against the grain of common sense. None the less, much of our information suggests that strategies do exist, and that they shape the experience of part-time work for women in important ways. The following provides a summary of the main characteristics of 'corporate strategy' and 'individual strategy' workplaces as they affect women employees The rate of part-time work in the survey establishments was lower than that reported for national workforces as a whole. One likely explanation is that the sectors which were excluded from the survey were ones with above average part-time rates: agriculture, the public sector, and workplaces with fewer than ten employees; moreover, evidence from United Kingdom Labor Force Surveys supports this suggestion. Thus lower part-time rates reported by the survey establishments reflect the actual situation in different parts of the economy. None the less, it should be borne in mind that the findings presented here relate only to private sector part-time employment, which, arguably, may provide the fewest advantages for women (Boje and Leira, 2000). The focus of the surveys was the establishment rather than the individual employee. Thus, the study examines the experience of part-time work for women in an indirect way. That is, the experiences of individuals employed in part-time jobs cannot be analyzed directly because these were not explored by the surveys; instead, it focuses upon establishments with differing proportions of women employees. Survey workplaces in each country were divided into groups according to the share of the workforce held by women in each workplace, relative to the share of women in the total workforce of the country. A workplace in any country was considered to be a 'low share' workplace if the proportion of women employees in that workplace was smaller than that found nationally; they were designated 'high share' workplaces if they employed proportionately more women than found in the country's labor force. The majority of women (62 per cent) worked in 'high share' or mostly women workplaces, while the largest group of men (46 per cent) worked in 'low share' or mostly men workplaces. Twenty-eight per cent of women and 35 per cent of men worked in establishments where the proportion of women matched that found nationally ('medium share'). Ten per cent of women worked mosty with men in 'low share' workplaces; 19 per cent of men worked mostly with women in 'high share' workplaces (Moghadam, 1993). This approach allows us to describe the working environments of women part-time workers who worked mostly with other women, mostly with men, or in establishments that fell somewhere between these two extremes. Not all women (or men) who worked in such establishments would necessarily share the experiences described by our analyses. But it is likely that a great many would, and in this way the paper provides a broad-brush view of part-time work in United Kingdom as experienced by women. Conclusion Part-time jobs might not, then, always meet the interests of both employers and employees. More commonly, it seems likely that part-time work will be either to the advantage of the company or to the advantage of the woman. This is perhaps most readily illustrated by reference to pay rates. It is clearly an advantage to employers if they are able to pay part-time workers a lower hourly wage than that paid to full-time workers for the same work. And equally clearly, such a situation would not be advantageous to women (or men) employed part-time. The view adopted here is that fairly paid and non-exploitative part-time employment can be advantageous to women if it is voluntarily taken up. This is not to suggest that women choose to have bad jobs or poorly paid jobs or jobs that are without security or protection. Nor is it to deny the force of gender socialization which inculcates in many women a deep sense of responsibility for the primary upbringing and care of children. Rather, it is to argue, simply, that women are faced with labor market choices (full-time employment, part-time employment and no employment) which have differing consequences, and that many women see part-time employment as a way of obtaining a desired objective while experiencing the fewest unwanted consequences. The assessment of part-time work is contradictory. On one hand, part-time work creates employment opportunities for women and is favorable to continuous working during periods of childbearing and childrearing. On the other hand, part-time employment means less income in comparison with full-time employment, and may mean lower hourly wages for the same work. Part-time employment can be incompatible with career advancement, when promotion opportunities are biased towards full-time workers and part-timers are confined to a narrow range of occupations and industries. The reason for the introduction of part-time work into an establishment powerfully conditions the experience and practice of part-time work. In the past, trade union opposition to part-time employment resulted in its exclusion from collectively bargained rights, and in the creation of a largely peripheral and unprotected workforce. More recently, unions have recognized that part-time work has become a fixed feature of the labor markets and employment structures of most industrialized countries. Accordingly, unions have generally recognized the need to include the working conditions of part-time workers in the collective bargaining process, although only in some countries have union efforts resulted in an equalization of wages and fringe benefits. The promotion (or extension) of part-time work by governments (or by employers) does not automatically lead to the creation of good part-time jobs of the kind wanted by employees. The fact that many women want to work part-time for at least some part of their lives does not imply that they wish to work inflexible or awkward hours, in precarious, low-paid jobs that attract few fringe benefits, it should be a matter of importance to ensure that the promotion of part-time employment does not lead to the substitution of normal full-time jobs or good part-time jobs by marginal part-time jobs. Bibliography Boje, T. P. & Leira, A. (Eds.).2000, Gender, Welfare State, and the Market: Towards a New Division of Labour. London: Routledge. Drew, E., Emerek, R., & Mahon, E. (Eds.). 1998, Women, Work, and the Family in Europe. London: Routledge. Kahne, H. & Giele, J. Z. (Eds.). 1992, Women's Work and Women's Lives: The Continuing Struggle Worldwide. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Messenger, J. C. (Ed.). 2004, Working Time and Workers' Preferences in Industrialized Countries: Finding the Balance. New York: Routledge. Moghadam, V. M. (Ed.). 1996, Patriarchy and Economic Development: Women's Positions at the End of the Twentieth Century. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Moghagdam, V.M. 1993, Identity Politics and Women: Cultural Reassertions and Feminisms in International Perspective ( Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press). O'Rand, A. M., & Henretta, J. C. 1999, Age and Inequality: Diverse Pathways through Later Life. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. O'reilly, J., & Fagan, C. 1998, Part-Time Prospects: An International Comparison of Part-Time Work in Europe, North America and the Pacific Rim.London:Routledge. Persson, I. & Jonung, C. (Eds.). 1997, Economics of the Family and Family Policies. London: Routledge. Ratner, R. S. (Ed.). 1980, Equal Employment Policy for Women: Strategies for Implementation in the United States, Canada, and Western Europe. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Sainsbury, D. (Ed.). 1999, Gender and Welfare State Regimes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Walby, S. 1997, Gender Transformations. London: Routledge. Warme, B. D., Lundy, K. L., & Lundy, L. A. (Eds.). 1992, Working Part-Time: Risks and Opportunities. New York: Praeger Publishers. Warme, B.D., Lundy, K.L. and Lundy, L.A. 1997, Work-Family Research: An Annotated Bibliography. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Read More