Ilene Wolcott

l!f Australian Institute of Family Studies

Discussion Paper Number 14

Workers with family responsibilities: implications for employers

Ilene Wolcott

Ilene Wolcott is a Research Fellow of the Australian Institute of Family Studies

a~ Australian Institute of Family Studies

As with all Discussion Papers in this series, the views expressed in this paper do not necessarily represent an official position on the part of the Institute. The papers are published to stimulate thought and discussion about matters affecting the well· being of families in Australia.

© Australian Institute of Family Studies - Commonwealth of Australia 1987

Australian Institute of Family Studies 300 Queen Street Melbourne 3000 Australia Telephone (03) 608 6888

March 1987

National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-publication data

Wolcott, Bene. Workers with family responsibilities: implications for employers Bibliography. ISBN 0 642 11021 2.

1. Work and family. 2. Industrial relations. 3. Married people - Employment. I. Australian Institute of Family Studies. I. Title. (Series: Discussion paper (Australian Institute of Family Studies); no. 14).

306.8'5

Typeset by Abb-typesetting, Melbourne Printed by Globe Press, Melbourne Designed by Rus Littleson Photographs by Don Whyte

ISSN 0817-5667

i I

I Co:ntents

i I L ___ . ____ .~ _____ ..l

Foreword Introduction Social Change Consequences of Social Change 1. Work and Family Conflicts 2. The Needs of Dual-working Families 3. Why Employers are Concerned 4. Employer Responses to the Needs of Workers

with Family Responsibilities Personnel Flexible work schedules Leave policy

pregnancy leave family leave

Part-time employment '. " permanent part-time work job sharing

Flexiplace Child Care Assistance

on-site day care centres support for community facilities financial assistance to employees use by employees of child care services costs personal tax credit allowance information and referral services other child care services

5. Employee Assistance Programs Counselling services Relocation services Education and information programs Benefits to employers and employees Conclusion List of References

lV

1

6 11 17

21

46

55 56

i

Foreword I

I I

'- __ . _________ " __ .~I

I F you were asked what your two main concerns in life are, you would probably say: earning a living and looking after the family. The two are virtually the same and have always been the key survival goals of

mankind. But we sometimes forget how much, throughout history, relations between work and family have changed. .

Whereas once work and family tasks were shared by the whole household, industrial change gradually separated the place of work from the home: men became 'breadwinners', women became 'housewives'. That period historically was very short-lived but its 'hangover' is causing problems for many men and women today. Job structures and the value assumptions of many employers have not yet caught up with the pace of change.

In Australia today, the 'typical nuclear family' comprises only 46.S per cent of all households. And if by nuclear family we mean a breadwinner husband, a housewife plus dependent.children, they make up only 23 per cent of all families - hardly 'typical' or even the norm. For many, not only is family survival now dependent on more than one income, but social values also have altered to the point where women in general rightly insist on economic independence and active fulfilment in the world of work as well as in the home. Expectations are changing for men, too,

iv

many of whom are rejecting the domination of work in their lives and seeking a more satisfying balance with family concerns.

What may surprise many workaholic employers and business executives is the relative importance of family life to their workers. In a recent Age Poll people were asked to rank their 'greatest satisfaction in life'. Across all social groups,jamily was ranked first by 70 per cent and work came a poor fourth, being ranked first by only 5 per cent of people~ And why should anyone be surprised? Work is not an end in itself however satisfying it may be. Life itself and our most intrinsic satisfactions focus· round the intimacy of the family.

This Discussion Paper arose from our realization~ that work closely affects the form and quality of family life. As a -government-funded research body, charged with the task of improving public understanding of what affects marital and family stability, we found our explanations centering round unemployment, changing sex roles, conflict over inadequate 'family incomes, child care difficulties, juggling housework with inflexible work timetables.

Yet we found ourselves pressing for more help from governments as a solution to family problems, calling for better family support from the public sector, and in a sense ignoring the real message of our research which was that job structures and working conditions are the responsibility of the private sector as well.

So several Institute initiatives were set in train. In 1981 Rhona and Robert Rapoport (the two most well-known writers on dual-career families, work and leisure) were invited as visiting scholars to the Institute. Their paper Work and the family was published by us in August 1981. The Institute's studies were all designed to include details of family income and work involvement and the second phase of our national study of family formation was planned to look at the reciprocal impacts of work on family, family on work. Our first Family Information Bulletin was published in 1981 on the topic Families and work (Prosser, 1981) and two Occasional Papers were commissioned: New information technology:

. impacts offfrimiiies in Australia (Beresford, 1983); and The impact of work on family functioning: a review of the literature (Brewer, 1983).

We also began collecting material worldwide on what other countries were doing in relation to the changing relationship between work and family life. These were reported on in our Newsletters Nos. 10 and 11, and related papers were presented at the Institute-sponsored International Seminar of the Committee on Family Research in August 1984.

One of our main points of contact was the Work arid Family Information Center in New York, established by the Conference Board, a

V·

network of multinational business executives who exchange information on management practice, economics and public policy. The Center is a national clearinghouse concerned with the reciprocal impact of work and filmily interaction, and this paper draws upon much of their material.

Last year I asked staff member Ilene Wokott to summarize what we had pulled together about current practices overseas: this paper is the result.

Its timing is apt, given the new impetus to reform work practices and to make management more directly responsive to the needs and concerns of their immediate workforce. The 'new industrial relations' we are seeing emerge in Australia must involve a better understanding of what is meant by the International Labour Organization Convention No.156 (1981) on 'Equal opportunities and equal treatment for men and women workers: workers with family responsibilities'.

For every worker has family responsibilities, whether these involve children, the aged, or more distant relatives. Even single people living alone bring to work with them the concerns, stresses and strengths that derive from family ties. It seems to us that those who own, manage, structure the places and conditions of employment share some of the broad community's responsibility for the quality and stability of family life.

As in the United States, however, we do not presume that altruism alone, or an appeal to support workers for the sake of their families will suffice. It is on the reciprocal effects that we rest our case. A worker troubled by marital conflict, inadequate child care for his or her children or family illness will be a less efficient, less productive worker than one whose family life is in order. The research on absenteeism, on-the-job accidents, and low productivity is seriously flawed by its lack of attention to family matters as likely underlying causes. The ubiquitous 'sickie' is very likely to be family-related, yet no-one has fully examined such relationships. .

The sorts of corporate responses to support workers with family responsibilities which are described here reap clear cost benefits in terms of reduced absenteeism, better morale and increased productivity. They depend upon and require government cooperation in the form of tax concessions and more flexible salary/benefit arrangements, again a timely consideration in Australia given the challenge to existing procedures.

We offer this as a further background Discussion Paper on what we see as a crucial arena for action in support of families. The Australian Institute of Family Studies hopes to develop a series of workshops for senior executives and human resource/personnel managers to increase their awareness of the issues and of ways to tackle them. In the future we

vi

plan to conduct workplace assessments of work and family functioning. As a starting point, we would like to hear from any Australian company which already has in place programs aimed at easing the tensions between work demands and family life.

Don Edgar Director Australian Institute of Family Studies

References Beresford, Ruth (1983), New information technology: impacts on families in Australia, Occasional Paper No.l, Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne.

Brewer, Graeme (1983), The impact of work on family functioning: a review of the literature, Occasional Paper No.3, Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne.

Prosser, Bruce (1981), Families and work, Family Information Bulletin No.l, Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne.

Rapoport, Rhona and Rapoport, Robert (1981), Work and the family, Discussion Paper No.3, Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne.

Other AIFS Publications of Relevance Proceedings, Australian Family Research Conference, November 1983, 7 volumes.

FAMILY: Australian Family Studies Database, 3 volumes and on-line access via AUSINET.

Discussion Paper N 0.11 (1984 ),McDonald, P., Can the family survive?

Discussion Pap'er No.13 (1986), Edgar, D., Marriage, the family and family law in Australia.

XXth ISA-CFR Internationai Seminar on Social Change and Family Policies (August 1984), 5 volumes.

Policy Background Paper No.5 (1984), Maas, F., Should families be a focus for policies?

Maas, F. and Sach. S. (eds.) (1984), Community-based services for children and­families.

Families and Australia's economic future: a submission to the Economic Planning Advisory Council (1985).

Storer, Des (ed.) (1985), Ethnic family values in Australia, Prentice-Hall of Australia.

vii

Comments from men and women which are quoted throughout the book are from the Institute's AIFS Family Formation Project in response to the questions: How does your job affect family life? and How does your partner's job affect family life?

I

. I I

Introduction I I L-.-______ ~

SIGNIFICANT changes in family structure and the increased workforce participation of women in Australia have focused attention on the inter-connections between the workplace and

family life. Assumptions about the structure of work and the division of labour within families are challenged when both husbands and wives, or single parents, increasingly have to balance the often competing demands '-, and responsibilities of job and family.

Social Change

I n 1985 in Australia, 55 per cent of females aged 15-59 were in the labour force; the comparable figure was just under 30 per cent in 1966.

Overall, women comprised over 38 per cent of the labour force in 1985 (ABS Labour Force Status, 1985). Approximately 49 per cent of married women with dependent children were in the paid labour force, in contrast to 14 per cent in 1954 and 29 per cent in 1966. For married women with children aged 0-4, the participation rate was 33 per cent, increasing to over 59 per cent for those with school-age children. Not all of these women, however, were working full time. Of all married women with dependent children who were in the labour force in 1985, 50 per cent were working full time and 45 per cent were working part time.

1

Accompanying the increase in dual-worker families has been the decrease in families who arrange their lives along traditional lines, with husbands being the sole breadwinners and wives remaining at home, performing most of the domestic tasks and caring for the children or other dependent relatives. Only 23 per cent of all Australian families, or 42 per cent of all families with dependent children, conformed to this stereotype in 1985 (ABS Labour Force Status, 1985).

Recent studies examining the changing attitudes of women towards marriage, family and work suggest that women are broadening their definitions of themselves to include combining having a family and a career as goals (Glezer, 1984; Cleminger, 1984,1986).

A study by the Australian Institute of Family Studies of the changing sex-role attitudes of married women between 1971 and 1981 revealed shifts in the salience of work and family life. In 1971, 78 per cent of married women aged 18-34 agreed that 'whatever career a woman has, motherhood is still the most important role', in contrast to only 46 per cent in the Institute's 1981 sample who supported this statement. Agreement with the statement that 'women are only fulfilled through motherhood', dropped from 68 per cent in 1971 to 30 per cent in 1981 (Glezer, 1984).

Cleminger's 1984 market research survey found that 68 per cent of women and 61 per cent of men interviewed agreed that 'a woman's career is as important to her as a man's career is to him'. Compared with 47 per cent of the men, 56 per cent of the women believed that 'career-minded women should be mothers'. Only 26 per cent of all women interviewed, whether in the workforce or at home, preferred to run a house as a full-time job. A recent update of the survey (Cleminger, 1986) again found that only 32 per cent of the men and 27 per cent of the women interviewed agreed 'a car-eer is not as important to a woman'.

These changes in attitude parallel demographic trends which indicate that women are having fewer children over a shorter child-bearing period, thus enabling them to combine both career and motherhood (McDonald, 1984).

High divorce rates in recent decades have contributed to the increase in numbers of single-parent families. In 1985, 39 800 divorces were granted in which 46800 children were involved (ABS Divorces, 1985). The percentage of single-parent families with dependent children has increased by over half (55 per cent) in the past decade. In 1974, one-parent families comprised almost 9 per cent of all families with dependent children or 5 per cent of all families. By 1984, one-parent families with dependent children comprised 14 per cent of all families with dependent children. This represented almost 8 per cent of all families. Over 90 per cent of single-parent families were headed by mothers.

3

Overwhelmingly, such families live on government welfare benefits; many are below the poverty line. Fewer of these mothers than married women are in paid employment - for a variety of reasons, including the welfare poverty trap where incentives to work decrease because social security benefits are reduced, so resulting in no real additional income from earnings. In 1985, approximately 41 per cent of sole parents (women) with dependent children were in the labour force and an additional 5 per cent were looking for work. Sole parents who have dependent children and who are in the labour force were more likely to be working full time (SI per cent) than part time (35 per cent) (ABS, Labour Force Status, 1974, 1985).

Consequences of Social Change

T· he increase in the ·number of dual-earning families and families in which a single parent is responsible for carrying out both work and

family tasks has highlighted the need to re-evaluate social policies that are based on outdated assumptions of workforce participation and family composition and lifestyles.

A number of researchers (Kamerman, 1980; Levitan and Belous, 1981; Kanter, 1977) have pointed out how legislation, particularly in the area of social security regulations, was founded on the proposition that the husband would work while the wife would be a full-time housewife and child minder. Work and family roles have been viewed.as complementary spheres - the world of paid work for men and domestic responsibility and maintenance for women (Gutek, Nakamura and Nieva, 1981). This nostalgic 'myth of the separate worlds of work and family life' (Kanter, 1977) where the responsibilities and activities of one are asslImed not to interfere with the other has become more difficult to maintain given the reality of the changing profile of families and the workforce.

The critical issues raised by these trends revolve around reconciling the often conficting demands of work and family - how to maintain participation in both worlds as effective parents, partners, and employees. As Rapoport and Rapoport (1976) have observed, the workplace has been structured as though workers did not have families or; if they did, that there was a spouse at home to take care of all family and non-work responsibilities. .

In response to these changing patterns, both government and private institutions have begun to confront the issue of how men and women can achieve an equitable balance between the demands of work and family life. For example, in 1965 the International Labour Conference of the International Labour Organization (ILO) put forth for adoption a

4"

resolution entitled, 'Equal opportunities and equal treatment for men and women workers: workers with family responsibilities': The Employment (Women with Family Responsibilities) Recommendation 123 (lLO, 1980). .

This recommendation called on the appropriate 'competent authorities' to 'encourage, facilitate or themselves undertake the develo­pment of services to enable women to fulfil their various responsibilities at home and at work harmoniously' and to 'adapt, as far as possible, working life to the needs of workers; to develop services and facilities meeting the needs of children of all ages and other dependents of workers; to provide to all workers (men and women) information, assistance, community services and social amenities, to facilitate the harmonious combination of home and work responsibilities' (ILO, 1980:p.58).

In 1981, the ILO adopted the Workers With Family Responsibilities Convention No.156 arid the accompanying Recommendation (No.165), which contained the provisions set forth in the earlier Recommendation, 1965 (No.123) .as quoted above. The new Convention and Recommen­dation apply to both men and women and emphasize the 'need for a more egalitarian approach to the sharing of duties and responsibilities within the family' (ILO, 1985:p.42). Australia became a signatory to the ILO Convention in 1981, however Western Australia is the only State so far to agree to ratification.

The United States' White House Conference on Families (1981) adopted the following proposal: 'Business, labor and government should encourage and implement employment opportunities and personnel policies that enable persons to hold jobs while maintaining a strong family life' (Kinney, 1981: p.ll).

This Discussion Paper will examine some of the conflicts, needs and pressures associated with workforce participation experienced by families, and review some of the corporate responses to the changing patterns of work and family life. Although a majority of the references are to overseas practices, particularly American, these set a context for exploring the Australian situation.

----~

// ''F~e hous~work gets a bit negJected. at times ( and I'd lzke to spend more tzme wtth my . \, \ jarrily.

"'~--/ 5

I Wbrk and FaPtily Conflicts

I i

BALANCING the frequently competing demands of work and family responsibilities is the key refrain in the growing body of literature investigating the interconnections and reciprocal

impacts between work and family environments (Kamerman, 1980; Kanter, 1977; Axel, 1985; Pleck, 1980; ILO, 1980; Rapoport and Rapoport, 1978). Examples of role conflict and role overload, fulfilling the different self-imposed expectations and/or expectations imposed by others, and meeting the needs inherent in performing the multiple roles of parent, spouse and employee, dominate the case histories of dual-earner families, particularly for women (Rapoport and Rapoport, 1976,1978; Hall and Hall, 1979; Pleck, 1985; PI eck, Staines and Lang, 1980).

Research on stress associated with combining work and family roles also locates the problem in the conflicts resulting from trying to accommodate the demands and activities relating to sustaining a family while meeting the requirements of the job (Crouter, 1984; Lewis and Cooper, 1983; Cooke and Rousseau, 1984).

6

Nearly 40 per cent of men and women in dual-working families interviewed in the AIFS Family Formation Project (Wolcott, 1986) said their work had a negative effect on family life. For both men and women, the reasons most often given were related to long, extended, or inconvenient working hours and inflexible work schedules that reduced the amount of time and energy they had to give to family life. For those respondents (15 per cent) who felt their work or their partners' work had a positive effect on family life, satisfaction was mainly due to work hours that left time to spend with the family or on family tasks.

This corroborates the research of Pleck, Staines and Lang (1980). In their study, over one third of workers in families interviewed reported moderate or severe conflict between work and family roles. The most common underlying causes of stress and tension were associated with excessive work hours, rigid work schedules and the 'spillover' of fatigue, preoccupation and irritability from work to the family. Boring routine blue-collar jobs as well as demanding absorbing professional careers have been found to generate stress and tension in family relations (Piotrkowski and Katz, 1983).

Examining the spillover effect of family dynamics on work, Crouter (1984) found that family life influenced the ability of employees to travel on work-related business, and to work overtime or on some shifts. Mood and energy levels were also affected, with workers claiming that worry about child care and sick children, spouses or relatives interfered with their concentration and efficiency. Supervisors reported a 'ripple' effect on co-workers, particularly in team situations where work effectiveness and efficiency was hindered or absence and tardiness occurred because of preoccupation with family problems.

When men and women are both workers and parents, Rapoport and Rapoport (1976) raise the issue of where the 'domestic backup' is to come from to carry out the complex tasks of household management and care of dependent children and other family members. According to Kamerman (1980:p.99), 'child care is the central problem and concern for working mothers', a statement supported by the ILO Recommendation referred to earlier and by other research in the area (Kanter, 1977; Pleck, 1983; AAUW, 1984; General Mills, 1981).

Does one go to the school play or to the board meeting? Can one afford to take another day off from work to take the baby to the clinic for his or her shots? How to fit in or find the energy to do the laundry, home repairs, gardening, shopping, and cooking meals after work? When does one find' time to visit relatives or contribute to community activities? These are some of the daily dilemmas confronting dual-working families, and the phrases Supermom and Superdad have been coined to describe the qualities necessary to successfully carry out the role of the working parent (McCubbin and Dahl, 1985)

7

8

Although Pleck, Staines and Lang (1983) claim that both men and women report equal work and family conflict levels, Hall (1972) suggests that men who work and have a family generally have two sequential roles, whereas women who work and have families have two simultaneous roles and are more prone, therefore, to role overload and conflict.

Studies of men's contributions to housework and child care support this opinion (Kanter, 1977; Pleck, 1983,1985; Glezer,1984). Time use studies (Geerken and Gove, 1983; Pleck, 1985) suggest that working wives generally reduce household work but that husbands do not increase their contribution, except slightly for child care. When husbands do contribute more, it is in terms of 'helping' rather than a taking over of primary responsibilities. More than one in four women (27 per cent) compared with 6 per cent of men in the Cleminger (1984) survey felt they did more than their fair share of household work.

In Crouter's (1984) study, women with children under 12 years old at home experienced higher levels of negative spillover from work in contrast to mothers of older children and to fathers overall. Crouter also found that there was little difference in negative effects of family life on work between fathers and mothers of adolescents. Women are more likely than men to report suffering from shortage of'time (Voydanoff and Kelly, 1984). Given that women, especially mothers of young children, generally bear the greater burden of child care and domestic tasks, it is not surprising that they may experience more adverse effects or strain from combining the two roles (Sekaran, 1983).

Pleck (1977), however, observed that there are 'asymmetrically permissive boundaries' between work and family roles for men and women. For women, family responsibilities are allowed to intrude on work. For example, it is more often a mother who takes time off to care for a sick child or who will refuse overtime in order to complete household tasks. On the other hand; men will more likely bring work home and forego family outings if work so demands. Family activities will more often be organized around the scheduling of men's work.

1----0----1 i Does one go to the school play or to the

board fpeeting? Can one afford to take another day offJfrom work to take the baby to the clinic?!

I

9

o Q

Kamerman (l980:p.14) observed, too, that 'wage earning and parenting, carried out as simultaneous roles will soon characterize most adults, regardless of gender'. As the ILO (l980:p.SO) report on workers with family responsibilities states, ' ... any change in the traditional role of women must be accompanied by a change in the traditional role of men, involving their more active participation in family and domestic life'.

Regardless of who performs what tasks in the family, dual-working family members appear to agree on the aspects of work that generate either conflict or concern. High on the list of work dimensions that negatively affect family life are those noted previously by Pleck, Staines and Lang (1980) and Wolcott (1986), namely, excessive hours demanded on the job, work time scheduling, and the carry over of fatigue and irritability from workplace to home and family. Other researchers have mentioned shift work, mandatory overtime, travelling away from home, and transfers or relocation (Kanter, 1977).

Such work constraints result in a diminished capacity to perform and to engage in the essential activities of family life, the majority of which involve the care of dependent children and the maintenance of a household. It is in this area that work pressures and family needs intersect most critically.

(/-~~

'The job demands a lot of my attention and is . a 10nstant interruption to domestic hie. ,

~/ 10

I

I

THe Needs of nqal-working Falnilies

I

T HE different characteristics of every work environment, combined with the uniqueness of each family situation, influence the level of conflict and nature of the needs for dual-working

families. Kanter (l977:p.5) states: 'How work pressures and stresses affect an individual and his or her family depends critically on the kind offamily system in operation, just as the effect of family stresses on work life depends on the human organization of the work setting'.

The level of conflict has been linked to whether or not there are pre-school or school-age children, whether one or both partners has a demanding or strenuous job, the priorities given to work and family roles, and both partners' attitudes to and expectations of the roles of men and women (Pleck, 1980,1985; Sekaran, 1983; AAUW, 1984; Cooke and Rousseau, 1984).

Because of the variety of work and family circumstances which influence the needs of dual-earning families, there is no single solution for accommodating the often competing demands of both spheres. Nevertheless, there is consensus on the basic kinds of requirements that would help balance family and work responsibilities.

11

For many families, child care arrangements are the top priority. Child care needs take several forms - for example, infant care, pre-school day care, after school hours care, school holidays and vacation time care, and sick child care (Kamerman, 1980; Rapoport and Rapoport, 1978; Friedman, 1985). Case studies of dual-career families are replete with anecdotes about how the lack of adequate child care supports lead to marital conflict, stress, and absenteeism at work (Hall and Hall, 1979; Bohen and Viveros-Long, 1981; Kamerman, 1980).

Brewer (1983) reports on a study of working parents in Melbourne by Forbath and Painter (1979) which found that during the time of the survey there were: 253 work days on which mothers missed work to care for a total of 100 sick children; 17 days on which fathers missed work to care for a total of nine children; and 42 children were left at home alone when sick.

More time, often expressed as the need for flexible work hours and leave options, to meet the unexpected and routine responsibilities of family life was high on the list of all studies of dual-earning families (ILO, 1980; General Mills, 1981). The time-related benefits most frequently men­tioned in the literature as useful to families in managing their dual roles include: personal days for meeting· family· needs, such as care of

,dependent children or other dependents when sick; maternity and paternity leave; part- time work; job.sharing; flexible work hours; and school holiday and vacation leave (Kamerman, 1977; ILO, 1980; Baden and Friedman, 1981).

In an American study (General Mills, 1981), family members were asked which employment benefits and policies would help balance work and family responsibilities. Part-time work with full-time benefits was chosen by over half of working mothers (53 per cent), 49 per cent of ,working women,and 36 per cent of working men. Paid personal days specifically for children and family responsibilities was considered helpful by 37 per cent of working women and mothers, and 21 per cent of working men. Approximately 29 per cent of working men and 36 per cent of

. working women opted for paid pregnancy leave of more than six weeks for mothers; however paid paternity leave was last on the list of benefits considered most helpful.

/~ ( 'My wzfe and I work the same hours \ al~ right. ,

\ . / ~/

12

- so it's

13

The International Labour Organization is even more emphatic about the time factor - 'Whatever form it takes, a reduction in hours of work is one of the best ways of lightening the work load of people with family responsibilities' (ILO, 1980). This opinion is echoed in the study of flexible working hours by Bohen and Viveros-Long (1981) in which they concluded that flexitime did not provide enough impact to affect major reductions in stress related to the overlapping demands of work and family. Overall,· flexitime reduced stress the most for workers without primary responsibility for children; mothers with flexitime options simply wound up doing more hours of domestic chores per week.

Other studies suggest that flexitime may increase the time families have to spend together and make it easier for them to perform household tasks such as shopping (Symons, 1978; Winett and Neale, 1980). Nevertheless, as Pleck (1983:p.319) argues, 'rearranging the pattern of paid work time without reducing its overall amount can go only so far to minimizing work and family conflict'.

Since time conflicts are more problematic for working women who today still assume the majority of child care and domestic tasks, a more appropriate division of labour between men and women in dual-earning families is considered a critical need (ILO, 1980; Pleck, 1983,1985). Research has suggested that in families where there is a flexible sharing of domestic roles or a non-stereotyped approach to family tasks with fathers sharing more equitably in child care and household chores, stress and conflict are reduced (Sekaran, 1983; Cooke and Rousseau, 1984; Kamerman, 1980). Pleck (1985) concluded it was wives' desire for husbands to participate more in family work, rather than the amount of time they themselves spent in family work ('the inequality effect'), that was related to wives' dissatisfaction and negative well-being.

Again, the limitations of what individual families can do to alter the patterns of work and family demands without concomitant changes in employment policies and organization, has been raised by a number of researchers. For example, Bohen and Viveros-Long (1981:p.201) claim that: 'Excessive work hours will be reduced for committed professionals only if their criteria and rewards for successful lives are not synonymous

----~ //' "'''"' /. \

! 'W(re both working and at times there's a bit \ \

of !pressure to get the housework done. ,

" / ~--r~

/

14

with long work hours. Flexibility in job schedules will increase time in family work only if people have jobs in which they can earn enough to support their families without excessive overtime'.

The structural constraints of work, the number of non-discretionary hours that are required on the job, and timing of the work day can facilitate or limit the ability of either partner in a dual-earning family from contributing equitably to family needs (Kanter, 1977).However, as Bohen and Viveros-Long (1981:p.197) remind us: 'Cultural values about work and family roles for men and women dictated who did what, as well as what stresses were felt by whom - more than the formal work structures like flexible scheduling'.

Pleck (1985) argues that ideological factors - sex and sex roles - must be considered. If husbands' paid work time were sufficient to fully account for their low family work time, then women with the same number of paid work hours should spend an equal amount of time in family work .

. However, a decrease in husbands' paid work time does not increase his family work time in direct proportion. Working wives still perform more hours of family work than working husbands. Further, Pleck (1977:p.425) comments: ' ... greater equality in the sharing of work and family roles by women and men will ultimately require the development of a new model of the work role and a new model for the boundary between work and the family which gives higher priority to family needs'.

The next section examines some of the ways in which employers are giving consideration to the needs of dual-earning families.

,/~-"---"

/ ''Although I work full time I've got flexitime ( working for the government and they're not , quae strIct. ,

I

\" -/------------'~-----, .. .-//

16

W~y Employers are Concerned

1

J

I ---<-~----.~-~

A REVIEW of the current literature suggests that in most cases corporate response to work and family pressures and conflicts results from pragmatic rather than altruistic concerns. Businesses

are concerned with problems that have an adverse effect on productivity or competition (Axel, 1985; Troy, 1985). Where measures are introduced to reduce staff absenteeism and lateness, to lessen personnel turnover or to enhance the recruitment of skilled employees, the value to families is often a secondary consideration. For example, flexible hours may have been introduced to reduce commuting delays that had resulted in tardiness at work, or to increase access to available computer time (Bohen and Viveros-Long, 1981).

The passage of sex-discrimination legislation, affirmative action and equal opportunity regulations has also acted as an external impetus for public and private employers to implement (or to consider implementing) policies which ensure working conditions do not discriminate against the ability of women to maintain their jobs or to enhance their career opportunities (Desatnick, 1982; Work and People, 1984).

17

Employers are also aware of the impact that family life can have on workplace efficiency and effectiveness. Workers who are concerned about inadequate child care or who are worried about a sick child or the school­aged 'latch key' child who comes home to an empty house after school will not be able to concentrate on the job. Employees whose marriages are on the verge of breakdown or who are concerned, for example, about teenage children on drugs also will not be paying full attention to their work (Crouter, 1984). Family situations such as these can affect lateness to work, days absent from work and productivity on the job (Akabas, 1984; Kamerman, 1980).

A number of companies have had to confront refusals by their executives to transfer to another location due to family interests (Catalyst, 1983; Ammons, Nelson, and Wodarski, 1982). The most common reasons given for refusing to relocate include financial costs to the family, reluctance to disrupt children's schooling, and not wanting to interfere with a spouse's career (Catalyst, 1983). As Akabas (l984:p.396) has aptly stated: 'Employers may hire workers. Unions may recruit members. They both get parents'.

In the United States, companies most likely to adopt measures that may support workers with family responsibilities appear to be those with high proportions of young and/or female employees, those which require technically skilled workers, have a strong sense of community tradition and responsibility, or which offer services or products to identified consumers. American companies that are trying to maintain a non­unionized workforce are included in this category (Axel, 1985).

Although a majority of the human resource or personnel officers interviewed in a national United States survey of work and family policies (General Mills, 1981) indicated that leading companies would be expanding benefits and programs considered to support dual-worker families, there is some ambivalence expressed by the business world. Fronzaglia (1982:p.54) asks: 'What should business strive for, an out­standing parent or an outstanding employee?' and questions whether it is

r " I Worket.s concerned about inadequate child I1 care orf worried about a sick child or the 'latch

key' child coming home to an empty house I will no~ be able to concentrate on the job. I i

I i

I J L ____ _

18

19

possible from an economic perspective to have both. While recognizing that employers should be socially conscious and that this can even be equated with good business practice and a desirable corporate image, Desatnick (1982:p.56) observes that 'employee benefits must be balanced by increased profits'.

Buchmann and Buchmann (1982) note that employers today are expected to provide services to employees formerly provided by other segments of society such as extended family members, neighbours or the church.

Although it is not common practice, a few corporations, at least in the United States, have developed company profiles with the aim of assessing what types of benefits might be most useful to their employees. According to the Conference Board survey (Axel, 1985), few companies have actually evaluated the costs and benefits of new family support programs. Corporate opinions of what benefits are helpful to employees might not always be in agreement with workers' assessments of what would be most useful (General Mills, 1981).

I

Employers hire workers. Unions recruit members. They both get parents.

20

i Employer R~sponses to the Needs of W ~rkers with

I

Faptily R~sponsibilities

I

'WHAT is the responsibility of the institutions in which work takes place for the personal and familial consequences of work conditions and work arrangements?' (Kanter,

1977:p.89) is a central policy question. According to a recent study on how corporations are addressing

community needs (Troy, 1985), corporations in the United States are moving away from a social responsibility approach and replacing this with an emphasis on public /private partnership, or helping communities to

help themselves. Most American corporate initiatives in the area of

21

benefits to help workers with family responsibilities are tied into tax incentives to the companies. Expanded employee benefit packages, including child care and other dependent care options, reflect changes in United States tax law policy, and what is offered fluctuates with tax regulations (Friedman, 1985; American Family, 1984).

In Australia, the Confederation of Australian Industry and the Business Council of Australia recently released reports on 'on-costs' or the hidden costs of employment which include holiday pay, sick leave, long service leave, paid absences, and other company supplied benefits, warning the Government that monitoring of these hidden costs is required (The Age, 23 December 1985). The Australian Bureau of Statistics in 1986-87 will conduct a survey of non-wage labour costs which will include recreation, sick leave, and all payments for time not worked.

Kamerman (1980) has described European initiatives in the areas of . paid maternity leave, child care and sick leave policies, noting that it is necessary for governments to guarantee entitlements if all families with dual-working parents are to benefit, not just those employees whose employers are generous from self or social interest. As in the United States, the underlying message being sent by the business community in Australia is that the cost of some employee benefits must be shared by both government and business. The ILO (1985) has also stated that maternity benefits must be provided by means of a social security scheme or public funds to ensure that employment of women is not more costly to employers than the employment of men.

A review of the literature, which is dominated by American research, indicates the types of programs and benefits corporations have implemented in recent years in response to the changing composition of their workforce and external legislative pressures, specifically in the area of equal opportunity. The most common benefits described are: flexible working hours, leave options, child care provisions, information and referral resources, and employee assistance counselling programs.

Personnel

Anumber of companies have created the professional staff position of Human Resource Officer, or, in some places, the position has the

title of Personnel Director. Responsibilities of these executives can include: creating employer philosophy statements regarding types of family support benefits and how they mesh with the company's goals; identifying company problem areas -. for example, absenteeism; assessing the needs of employees; and developing action plans to remedy

22

problems (McCroskey, 1982). In some companies the Human Resource Officer is responsible for providing information and assistance directly to employees, while in other situations he or she acts as a referral agent to additional corporate or community resources.

Axel (1985) has noted that executives who themselves are in dual-earning families and have thus experienced difficulties in juggling obligations are more sensitive to and supportive of company initiatives that will reduce work-family conflicts.

Flexible Work Schedules

Experiments with flexible work times or alternate work schedules is one employer response to meeting the needs of dual-working

families. Flexible work schedules can take several forms, the most common being flexitime, part-time work, job sharing and leave options. A 1980 United States Bureau of Labor Statistics survey concluded that l3 per cent of United States workers were on flexible work schedules (Gorlin, 1982). Comparable overall figures are not available for the Australian workforce, although the Australian Bureau of Statistics is currently conducting a survey of alternative working hours which includes questions on flexitime.

Flexitime was originally introduced in the mid-1950s in Germany to solve a manufacturing company's problems with staff getting to work on time because of traffic delays (N ollen, 1980). By the 1970s, varied working hours were common in Australia (Symons, 1978). Flexitime can take the following forms: • gliding time: a flexible period between the earliest and latest

permissible starting and finishing times, usually with a core period in which all employees are required to be on the job;

• variable day: a required number of work hours a week or fortnight in which daily hours worked can be at the discretion of the employee;

r------------I

1

1 Most sJudies evaluating the effects of flexitime 'I report positive benefits to employer and i emplo~ee.

23

debit and credit hours can be accumulated as long as a balance is maintained for the prescribed period; .

• compressed work weeks: this can take the form of a nine-day fortnight or four-day week, where each day equals longer hours to make up the required work time.

Most studies evaluating the effects of flexitime report positive benefits to employer and employee. Commonly mentioned favourable effects include: improved morale and satisfaction (Nollen, 1980; Symons, 1978; Axel, 1985); a decrease in absenteeism (Symons, 1978; Krausz and Freibach, 1983; Gorlin, 1982); and increased time spent with families (Winett and Neale, 1980).

In contrast, the study by Bohen and Viveros-Long (1981) found that while most of the workers surveyed were pleased with flexitime it was not enough to help families (particularly mothers with dependent children) deal with work-family conflicts. Benefits of flexitime may be diminished unless other aspects of non-work life, such as babysitting schedules, can be coordinated with work time constraints (Krausz and Freibach, 1983). Compressed work weeks have been reported to generate stress for working mothers who find the lengthened work days too strenuous when combined with housework still to be done at the end of the day (Timms, 1975; Axel, 1985).

Few companies report problems related to flexitime when there has been adequate and sufficient involvement of supervisors (Axe I, 1985). But Nollen (1980) and Symons (1978) both noted company concern with additional administrative costs associated with implementing variable work schedules. Unions, too, have expressed concerns with how flexible work schedules relate to overtime provisions (Whittingham and Adraskelas, 1984).

Axel (1985) and other researchers have observed, however, that flexible hours are not available equitably to all employees. Generally, flexitime is less available to those in the production side of manufacturing industries and is more widely found at clerical and administrative levels. A survey of over 600 United States companies in five major industries found that 15 per cent of companies allowed flexible scheduling around a core work day for white collar workers but only 3 per cent of companies extended this benefit to blue collar workers (Gorlin, 1981). One Australian study (Symons, 1978) showed only 52 of the 164 firms surveyed offered varied working hours to all employees; the remainder limited these conditions to administrative or clerical staff. Informal flexitime, it has been noted, has always been the prerogative of managerial and professional employees.

24

Leave Policy

F amily leave benefits are considered an essential requirement if work-family conflicts are to be eased. Family leave provisions can be

considered an extension of other leave policies governing holiday and general sick leave, sabbaticals and educational leave, and time off to participate in community affairs (Axel, 1985). Traditionally associated with maternity leave, the definition of family leave has been extended to include paternity leave, time off to care for a sick child or other relative, to attend children's school functions, and personal days to attend to necessary family business (ILO, 1980; Kamerman, 1980).

Pregnancy leave Policies related to maternity and paternity leave are regulated by legislation in most countries. Except for the United States, as documented by Kamerman (1980,1981), nearly all industrialized countries guarantee women leave from their jobs following childbirth, with job security and seniority being protected during the leave time. In most European countries a cash benefit or paid maternity leave component is mandated for a period of time, usually a minimum of three to six months. Additional unpaid leave for one year or longer is common. The Swedish 'parent insurance' scheme enables either parent to remain at home with close to full wage complement for up to nine months, a time period which can be distributed proportionately to extend over a longer period of time. A detailed description of family benefits in a sample of European countries is provided in Kamerman and Kahn (1981).

In the United States, laws related to maternity leave are classified under 'disability' insurance provisions. Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 1979, employers who provide disability leave for other medical conditions are obligated to provide disability leave for pregnancy and childbirth. If a business does not offer medical coverage for other conditions then pregnancy leave is not mandated (Axel, 1985). Approximately 40 per cent of working women in the United States are estimated to be eligible for pregnancy disability leave (Kamerman, 1980).

As reported by Axel (1985), the issue of maternity leave is still being debated in America. A 1979 California State law requiring employers to provide unpaid maternity leave up to four months with guaranteed job reinstatement was overturned by a federal district judge on the basis that it discriminated against male employees on disability leave who were not given similar job protection.

2S

Maternity leave that extends beyond the period of disability (usually six weeks) is rare, except among large employers. According to Axel, even companies with more generous policies appear to restrict leave to a maximum of three months with only the disability portion paid. More frequently, leave beyond childbirth is granted as a form of personal leave. Few corporations in the United States have policies on paternity leave, but men may use vacation or personal leave if available. Axel describes a number of corporation packages of pregnancy and personal leave options available in larger companies with an interest in keeping highly trained professional women on their staffs.

The Women's Bureau of the Australian Department of Employment and Industrial Relations estimates that 94 per cent of female wage and salary earners in Australia work under Federal or State awards that provide up to 52 weeks unpaid maternity leave. Federal or State awards are covered under the maternity clause of the Australian Conciliati9n and Arbitration Commission decision of 1979. The maternity leave entitlement grants 6 to 52 weeks unpaid leave to employees who have been employed for at least 12 months with the same employer. Except in unusual circumstances, this includes six weeks of compulsory leave following childbirth. Full and part-time employees are covered but casual or seasonal workers are not. Employees who take maternity leave are entitled to return to the position held before leave or to a comparable position (Women's Bureau, 1985).

Although most Australian States incorporated the Commission's leave provisions into State awards, anomalies exist. New South Wales, for example, is the only State to have legislation providing maternity leave to all working women not covered by federal awards. All industrial awards in Tasmania include the standard leave clause. According to the Women's Bureau survey, South Australia and Victoria still have some State awards with no maternity leave provisions. Absence of maternity leave provisions appears to be more common in awards in traditionally male dominated areas. On the other hand, a number of unions have negotiated more favourable awards for maternity leave. Some awards include paternity leave.

,""---~" / "

/ '?/eave the baby with my mother during the ( da~. There's not much time for family. , \ '

\ / ~ /'

'--_.-/ 26

27

/ I

,,/ /

Public sector maternity leave provisions are 'usually more generous. Under the Commonwealth Maternity Leave Act, 1978, Commonwealth employees are entitled to 12 weeks of paid maternity leave and additional unpaid leave to equal a total of 52 weeks.

The Australian Commonweath Public Service Board recently granted unpaid parental leave to Commonwealth public servants, with leave up to 66 weeks being available under certain conditions. The mother may take a maximum of 40 weeks without pay, continuously or in aggregate as is her entitlement under the Maternity Leave Act, 1979 which provides up to 52 weeks leave without pay for all women working under federal awards. Now fathers will be able to take up to 40 weeks leave without pay continuously or in aggregate. If both parents are entitled to leave the combined maximum period of leave can be no more than 66 weeks, but can be concurrent (Women at Work, 1985).

State Public Services have various provisions for unpaid and paid leave for public servants. Public servants in New South Wales are granted paid leave for six weeks before the expected birth date and half pay for the six weeks after the birth of the child within the overall entitlement of 12 months. Until 1986, New South Wales regulations were unique in requiring employees to return to work for 62 days after leave before payment was rendered. Maternity leave may be taken full time for 12 months or part time at the Department's discretion for up to two years.

The Victorian Public Service provides for 12 weeks of paid leave including one week of paid paternity leave. Teachers in Victoria are entitled to up to seven years unpaid family leave. In South Australia, in addition to maternity leave of 52 weeks for women, government employees are entitled to parental leave which can include maternity leave, or leave for child care for up to 52 weeks for anyone pre-school child. The Northern Territory, in addition to 12 weeks of paid leave, grants parental leave up to a child's sixth birthday. In Queensland, accouchment leave of 52 weeks is unpaid, as is the standard 52 weeks of leave in Western Australia and Tasmania. Tasmanian teachers are allowed up to three years 'nurturing' leave.

/'--"-~ "-

''-, ,\ .

Irregular hours and lorzg hours away from ho'me make my wife and the children lonely.'

J

28

Surveys of employers;in:the United States (Axel, 1985) ha~e found that companies have difficulty coping with long absences due to childbirth and child care, with problems arising from' training and replacing staff for these limited time periods. Costs are another issue. In most countries costs are borne by the government via social security systems and are not a direct burden on employers or employees except via taxes. In Australia, the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) is considering the feasibility of funding maternity leave schemes through a labour market insurance scheme in conjunction with superannuation (Women at Work, 1985-86).

Family leave Parental leave for raising a child has been discussed in the previous section in relation to maternity leave. Most European countries provide for periods of at least one year of leave after birth for care of children without loss of job security. Although in many cases this leave is unpaid, a variety of financial compensations in the form of a family allowance or partial payments during this time are described in Kamerman and Kahn (1981).

Leave provisions are sometimes limited only to mothers, but the concept of parental leave is gaining. In Sweden and Norway, where nine months of paid leave for either parent is granted, parents of young children are also entitled to work a six-hour day, with some reduction in pay, until the child is aged eight years.

Parental leave provisions currently operating in Australia were outlined in the previous section. The ACTU has recently initiated a campaign to obtain additional forms of family leave for working parents. While the provision of paid maternity leave for all workers is a priority, paternity leave, extended parental leave, and leave to care for sick dependents are also on the agenda (Women at Work, 1985). In their first test case, in October 1985, the ACTU won the right for workers under relevant State and F~deral awards to have 52 weeks of unpaid leave for mothers adopting children, and special unpaid leave for both parents of up to two days to attend interviews related to the adoption was incorporated in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission decision (Women at Work, 1985-86).

Leave to care for a sick child is a high priority for working parents (General Mills,1981; ILO, 1985). Again, European countries have confronted the issue most directly. In Sweden parents are given 12-18 days a year to look after sick children, and in Hungary unpaid leave for as long as a child is ill is extended to working mothers for children up to age ten years. However, single parents in Hungary are entitled to 75 per cent of their wages for illness days during a child's first year and for 60 days a

29

year until the child is three years old (ILO, 1980). Some countries extend leave to care for family members other than children who are ill: Poland allows 60 days a year sick leave for the care of children under two years, and 14 days to look after a sick adult; Norway allows for 10 days of adult care.

Although leave provisions are extended to women only in some countries, the policy of allowing men the same rights is increasing. The proportion of Swedish fathers who participated in parental leave increased from 2 per cent in 1974 when the option was introduced to 10 per cent in 1977, with an average of 40 days taken (lLO, 1980). In 1982, the figure for men's participation was estimated still to be between 10-12 per cent (Newland, 1982).

Surveys by the International Labour Conference (ILO, 1980) show that a few countries provide leave for household tasks. In the German Democratic Republic working women with family responsibilities are entitled to one free day a month, France gives mothers a half day at the beginning of the school year, and Swedish parents can take time off to attend school functions.

The United States Conference Board reported that very few firms address the issue of leave for family illness. Their survey of 300 companies revealed that 13 per cent offered employees time off specifically to care for sick children. Other employers provide 'floating holidays' or allow personal sick leave to be used. One large manufacturing firm, Hewlett­Packard, offers a combined vacation and sick leave package to employees (from 10 to 25 days holiday and 10 days sick leave a year). This flexible time off, in the firm's words, 'enables employees to use the enlarged block of time to accommodate their own personal needs - extra vacation, temporary illness, personal business appointments, illness in the family, problems with child care arrangements, and the like - or save the time for later use or a cash benefit' (Axe I, 1985:p.32).

In Australia, the ACTU is undertaking a series of test cases with the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to obtain various kinds of unpaid leave for workers with family responsibilities. These include leave for care of sick dependents, guardianship and custody leave, and extended leave for child rearing (Women at Work, 1985-86).

The Commonwealth Bank Officers Association currently is lobbying for improved leave benefits to include family leave for care of sick children and parental leave as part of maternity leave benefits. Stopwork meetings of bank officers around the country were held in support of the CBOA's stand on maternity leave (Women at Work, 1985).

Overall, little is known about the extent of family leave benefits in Australia. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS Employment Benefits, 1985) survey of employees receiving some kind of employment

31

benefit found 87 per cent of all employees received paid annual leave and 82 per cent received paid sick leave benefits. The survey did not ask about maternity leave benefits or forms of special leave.

A recent Australian study of labour absence in selected companies (Dawkins, Goddard, Kain,Robertson and Molly, 1985:p.30) made no reference to the possibility that some sick days were taken to care for ill children or other dependents. An oblique mention was made that 'school holidays may be an incentive for employees to take "sickies" '. Employees would, of course, be wary of reporting time off to care for sick dependents if such leave was not covered in their awards.

The ACTU is collecting information on types of leave for workers with family responsibilities in Australia and overseas as background for their test cases. The Australian Institute of Family Studies, in conjunction with the Women's Bureau of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, is currently conducting a study of the availability and use of maternity leave by women and the advantages and disadvantages as seen by employers.

Part-time Employment Permanent part-time work Permanent part-time work with full benefits is frequently mentioned as a response to balancing family and work demands (General Mills, 1981; ILO, 1980).

Increasingly, companies are offering permanent part-time employees similar pro-rated benefits as those enjoyed by full-time employees. No longer limited to low level jobs, permanent part-time work opportunities are being extended to professional and managerial levels (Nollen, 1980).

Guidelines on permanent part-time work have been introduced by the Australian Commonwealth Government and several State governments. Permanent part-time work has been an option for South Australian public servants and secondary teachers since 1977 (Wood, 1984). Victorian teachers in primary, secondary and technical schools were eligible to apply for permanent part-time jobs as of 1984. The Victorian Public Service Board introduced permanent part-time work in July of 1985. Within these guidelines the number of positions is limited to 5 per cent for each department with a maximum of 5 per cent across any occupational category (Victorian Public Service Board, 1985).

In September 1984, the Australian Public Service Board amended the Public Service Act to allow permanent part-time work for public servants.

33

Implementation has been delayed until 1986 while the Board negotiates with various unions and the Ministry of Finance over specific provisions relating, for example, to superannuation and percentage of employees who will be eligible. In considering applications, it is anticipated that departments will be expected to take into account both the personal reasons of staff (for example, combining work with family responsibilities, preparing for retirement) and managerial considerations (for example, departmental operating requirements, length of period sought, implications for the work area, equal opportunity policies) (Work and People, 1984).

Since part-time work has been associated with married women who do not aspire to full-time and demanding careers, it has been criticized as a means of reinforcing the traditional sex-role stereotypes while not challenging the underlying dichotomy between work and family that generates such preferences (Griffin, 1984; Kamerman and Kahn, 1981; Brewer, 1983). Whittingham and Adraskelas (1984) agree that permanent part-time work could reinforce the segmentation of the workforce by sex. In 1986, women in Australia comprised 79 per cent of the part-time workforce, with married women accounting· for 58 per cent of all part-time employees. Approximately 37 per cent of all women employees are in part-time employment (Women's Bureau, 1986).

In addition to concerns about equity in benefits, unions have voiced concern over the possible reduction of full-time jobs and the elimination of overtime (Baden and Friedman, 1981). Administrative problems, such as scheduling difficulties, supervision and added accounting costs, have also been mentioned (Axel, 1985).

Job sharing Job sharing is another form of permanent part-time work that has gained in popularity in some employment areas. Job sharing, in which two people share the tasks of one job, is considered to combine the advantages of both full and part-time work. The advantages are that job sharing can reduce the negative image of part-time work as being monotonous and low in status, and bring the added energy and skills of two individuals to the same job. Another benefit is that job sharing could be used as an apprenticeship system to transfer skills from an experienced worker to a learner on the job (NoIlen, 1980; Axel, 1985).

While the kinds of jobs shared vary, professional and secretarial jobs seem to lend themselves to these arrangements. Again, the job sharing option appears to be most beneficial to women.

Compatibility of the two job sharers is a fundamental requirement if the arrangement is to be successful. Often two employees themselves request the arrangement; in other c~ses personnel managers can act as

34

'matchmakers' (Axe I, 1985). In some cities in the UriitedStaies, com­munity groups, such as New Ways in San Francisco, work as brokers between employers and interested job seekers (Baden and Friedman, 1981).

Problems associated with job sharing include: ensuring compatible personalities between the two workers; administrative complications in providing benefits; and supervision and evaluation of the quality and contribution of work performance for each partner (Axel, 1985). Less than one per cent of companies surveyed by the Conference Board reported cases of job sharing.

Flexiplace

F lexible work and home arrangements have become more common in high tech industries. In computer companies, for example, word

processing and computer operators in a variety of settings may work at home terminals for designated periods. Informal arrangements are more prevalent at the professional staff level.

Supervision of staff and concern with abuse of time are inhibiting factors reported by employers. Of course home work is an old tradition among low status and low paid outworkers who do process and piece work at home without any of the benefit entitlements offered to other employees. The concept of 'ftexiplace' refers to employees who have the option of working at home with full benefits.

Child Care

F or working parents, adequate child care facilities are essential. Over 70 000 Australian women reported they would like to work if suitable

child care were available (ABS, 1986, Persons not in the labour force). Child care needs range from infant and pre-school care to after school and holiday care. Surveys of child care in Australia indi.cate that most parents

/ /~ .-- _ .•. _',,,,

/ 'I\e got the chance now to spend more time w~th my family because of flexitime. ,

\~'- ./ ..... _---------~- 3S

use informal day care provided by relatives or friends (ABS Child Care Arrangements, 1980), and often families must organize two or more types of child care each week to meet their needs (Institute of Family Studies, 1983).

Corporate involvement in child care is frequently related to the problem of hiring and retaining highly skilled workers (such as nurses). As one corporate executive in an American firm stated: 'Child care is not a women's problem, it is an employee's problem. When the child is not properly cared for, you screw up the productivity of that employee -male or female - for the day. He or she is constantly fooling around on the phone trying to find out what happened. It will get to be a corporate problem'. (Quoted in Penney, 1980 p.7.)

Nevertheless, a 1984 United States survey of 486 human resource executives concluded that 82 per cent of the corporations represented indicated no specific activity in the child care area (Axel, 1985), although 57 per cent stated they expected their firms to have some involvement in the next few years. According to Axel, 1800 employers, one-quarter of them hospitals, supported some kind of child care program.

Employer support for child care can take a variety of forms. Among the options are: setting up an on-site day care centre; providing information and referral services; providing financial and technical assistance to create or expand community based programs; and providing financial assistance to employees to offset expenses of self-selected child care programs.

On-site day care centres A recent United States survey of corporate financial assistance for child care (Friedman, 1985) estimated that approximately 120 corporations and 400 hospitals either operate or provide the support for an on-site or nearby off-site facility: Most of these programs are able to 'avail themselves of various tax deductible benefits under the 1981 Economic Recovery Act's Dependent Care Assistance Plan which makes employer contributions to the care of children, elderly parents, or disabled family members tax deductible to employers and non-taxable to employees.

American companies also take advantage of other government subsidized programs to reduce costs of company sponsored centres to the company. These can include federally subsidized school lunch programs, health and dental screening services and community development block grants for capital building expenses. This kind of funding is usually related to providing service to low income employees and accepting into the programs children in the community whose parents may not be employed by the company.

However, company operated child care centres are expensive to run. One American firm, Intermedics, which pays three-quarters of the cost

37

for each child, claims its centre, costs $520 000 a year to run, with one-half of the costs offset by tax benefits. On average, companies contribute about 50 per cent of the cost of child care (Friedman, 1985).

On-site child care is not the answer for many parents who may prefer a family care setting or community based location nearer home; it may not meet the after school care needs of many children or satisfy the needs of shift workers; nor may on-site centres have the flexibility to meet the changing needs of workforce composition. These factors can result in underutilization of such centres. Concerns with equity, providing a service that only benefits a segment of the workforce, is another compli­cating factor. According to Friedman, 15 of the 18 on-site centres estab­lished since 1964 have closed. Examples of successful on-site programs are described in Baden and Friedman (1981) and Reece (1982).

Support for community based facilities The expense to companies and the inappropriateness of on-site centres in meeting the needs of many employees has led to increased interest in alternative arrangements. Companies in geographical proximity sometimes join together in a consortium to provide the financial and technical assistance to establish or expand child care centres in their community. Individual companies at times offer their own support to communities, with contributions ranging from grants for capital expenses, technical and administrative assistance with bookkeeping and legal accounts, to donations for toys, books and furniture.

One example of a company sponsored centre is that of Corning Glass Works in New York State with lO 000 employees and a long history of community involvement in the town where it is located. A church provides low rent space, a community college offers student teachers and provides staff supervision, a local hospital provides medical care, retailers provide art and craft and other supplies, and the school district assists in low cost lunches. The company's tax exempt Foundation provided initial costs and continues to fund operating expenses including the most expensive item, staff salaries. Other departments of the company provide legal advice, public relations, design, graphics, and printing and accounting services. The cost in 1981 to the company was approximately $884 a year per child (Baden and Friedman, 1981).

Where inadequate family child care exists, and that is the preferred employee choice, companies may fund training and education courses for potential family child care providers or make available financial assistance to help such providers set up their own homes to meet licensing regulations in their States.

Consortiums have been established to provide for specialized needs too expensive for one company. Sick child care and early and after school

38

programs are examples. The Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company provides sick child care at a cost of $2-$4 an hour through a grant to a local child care services agency. In 1984 this cost the company $10000 dollars to serve several hundred employees. Another example of company support for community based facilities is a vacation camp sponsored by Fel-Pro Industries in Illinois. The company transports children of employees to a campsite 40 miles from the company and returns them at the end of the day. In 1982, the cost was $lO a week per family. .

Financial assistance to employees Vouchers: The creation of the United States Dependent Care Assistance Plan under the Economic Recovery Act of 1981, made child care a non-taxable benefit for the employee and a tax-deductible contribution for the employer. It was anticipated that this legislation would increase employers' financial contribution to the costs of child care through voucher plans. Vouchers can be used at accredited child care centres or for approved family day care.

In order to con.trol costs, companies frequently limit eligibility to certain income groups, child ages or time periods. For example, the Polaroid Corporation in Massachusetts pays through vouchers up to 80 per cent of the cost of child care for families with incomes less than $25000, reducing its contribution to 10 per cent for families with incomes of $25 000 or more (Friedman, 1985). Other companies offer a flat rate to all employees. For example, Zayre Corporation in Boston reimburses home office employees $20 a week toward child care, and Parents Magazine gives $500 to be used in the first three months after childbirth as an incentive to employees to return from maternity leave (Friedman, 1985).

Discounts: In some cases companies purchase slots in community day care centres, and some commercial day care centres offer discounts to participating corporations. For example, Kinder-Care, an American chain with 900 day care centres serving 95 000 children in 40 States, offers a 10 per cent discount to employees and in most cases the companies contribute another 10 per cent. Approximately 300 companies contract with commercial chains or make arrangements with single centres in their ·communities (Friedman, 1985).

While the discount approach is appealing to companies since it limits their contribution, cO.ncerns have been expressed that it also limits the options of employees to particular centres that might not be convenient or appropriate for their needs.

Flexible benefits: Other companies take advantage of the tax option

39

allowing employees to deduct the cost of child care up to a certain amount from their taxable incomes. This is more popular than vouchers since it does not require a contribution from the employer, while the employee uses pre-tax dollars to pay for child care. This option often becomes part of a company's 'flexible benefits' or 'cafeteria' plan of benefits.

In these 'cafeteria plans', employees can choose from a menu of tax deductible or taxable benefits. In 1984, of 600 companies that offered a flexible benefit program, 50-75 per cent included a dependent care option. Flexible benefit programs were introduced as one way of overcoming the inequities of providing a benefit to only one group of employees (that is, employees with young children) without providing equal compensation to other employees. However, there is some concern that· employees. may choose inappropriately or be forced to choose between vacations, health care or child care. As a safeguard, most companies continue to offer a core of benefits with child care as one of a group of optional benefits (Friedman, 1985).

Use by employees of child care services According to Friedman (1985), most companies find that less than 10 per cent of their employee populations take advantage of financial assistance for child care. However, a number of companies estimated that 25 per cent of parent employees made use of dependent care assistance. This may be a reflection of the composition of any individual company's workforce in terms of those with children or in dual-working families, or it may reflect the inappropriateness of the type of facilities available and the choice of child care preferred.

Costs Costs to companies of assistance with child care will vary depending on the number of employees who qualify or who take advantage of programs and the type of program offered - vouchers, discounts, contributions to

Some dompanies take advantage of the tax option ~l1owing employees to deduct the cost of child care up to a certain amount from their dxable incomes.

i

40

eXlstmg services, reduced taxable salary schemes, or information and referral programs. The following Table indicates the cost of selected voucher and discount programs summarized by Friedman (1985) for the Corporation Board survey of corporate assistance for child care.

An Overview of Various Financial Assistance Programs for Child Care

Vouchers Discounts Cafeteria plans FSAlSR*

Estimated number of companies 25 300 75 500

Average amount of financial assistance to employee per year $1,000 $500 $5,000 $5,000

Yearly cost per employee to the employer $1,000 $500 $ 300 0**

These data were compiled from the surveys and estimates offered by consulting firms and child care organizations. *FSNSR = Flexible Spending Account/Salary Reduction. **The flexible spending account may involve an employer expense.

This Table is reproduced from Friedman, D. (1985), Corporate Financial Assistance/or Child Care, the Conference Board Research Bulletin No.I77, Work and Family Information Centre, New York.

Personal tax credit allowance Under the 1976 United States Child Tax Credit Act, families can claim a tax credit of from $480-$720 for one child to $960-$1440 for two or more children. Families with a gross income of$10 000 or less may take a 30 per cent credit. The credit is reduced by one per cent for each $2000 in increased income with a 20 per cent limit for those with incomes of $30 000 or more. Credit can not be claimed for expenses in excess of $2400 for one child or $4800 for two or more children, nor can the credit

/.----.~~ ........ ,

/ 'The afternoon shzft is more money, so I work in the afternoon. But my daughter is at school in the morning and in bed when I get home. It's ,ho good for seeing the family. ,

I \" .. /., •................... ~'-. //

------~~~ 41

be greater than the income tax liability of the person claiming the credit. Thus many low income families are not eligible for the credit (Friedman, 1985). .

Employees can claim tax' credits for relatives employed as carers if Social Security benefits are paid for these relatives and if these relatives are not claimed as dependents for tax purposes. An employee can also claim the unsubsidized proportion of employer-paid child care. These tax laws also allow employers to contribute to the care of elderly parents and disabled dependents, as well as allowing individuals to claim deductions for such care.

In 1982, over 5 million families in the United States received more than $l.5 billion in child care credits; by 1983 this had risen to $2.6 billion in tax credits (Friedman, 1985). In 1983, the United States Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation declared that employer sponsored child care cost the United States Treasury $10 million dollars in foregone taxes and predicted this figure would escalate to $155 million by 1988 as more employees and employers took advantage of extended child care tax credit options (American Family, 1984).

Information and referral services An increasingly popular form of child care assistance to employees is the development of sophisticated computerized systems to enable workers to match their child care needs with available community resources. Some companies, or, again, a consortium of companies, will have a staff person assigned or will contract out to an organization to develop community profiles of available services, screen the services, and interview employees about their needs.

A number of community organizations, such as the Child Care Resource Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts, have come into existence to act as consultants to large companies who pay a fee for their services. The Day Care Fund in New York City markets a variety of child care plans to companies, provides information to employees, makes third-party payments to service providers, and handles parent complaints (Baden and Friedman, 1981).

/~~1\he shzft work has an adverse effect. I miss ( out on family llfe .and social time, particularly '\ the chzldren growmg up. , . /

/ ------/ 42

Continuous updating of child care resource information and referral systems can identify gaps in existing services and enable companies to target their support where it is needed.

Other child care services As described in an earlier section, most European countries have government sponsored pre-school care for children in a variety of creche and nursery school programs (Kamerman, 1981). In the United States, except for programs (like the Head Start Program) specifically geared for low income groups, pre-school programs usually are private and unsubsidized.

In Australia since 1972, under the Child Care Act, the Commonwealth Government has subsidized child care services by providing funds to non-profit organizations and local government authorities for the establishment or maintenance of child care centres. In recent years Commonwealth grants have been extended to fund family day care places as well as centre based care. Pre-school education, as distinct from child care, is now considered to be a State responsibility, with States contributing 7S per cent of costs in 1981-1982.

The level of Commonwealth funding and the contribution of States and Local Governments, as well as issues of how and what kinds of services should be delivered, are the focus of review and debate (Brennan, 1983). Recent changes in Commonwealth subsidies to child care centres have raised concerns that fees will increase and quality of staff diminish in public funded centres. In Victoria it is estimated that 30 000 children are in commercial centres, with an equal number on waiting lists. Child care associations in all the States report a shortage of adequate child care services for working parents. .

Currently, the ACTU is assisting affiliates with the development of child care facilities. For example, the Nurses Association has won an agreement from the New South Wales Health Department for the establishment of ten hospital based child care centres to be developed over the next few years; in South Australia, three hospital based centres are

.--~-.-----.-"- ~l

Child tare associations in all Australian States report ~ shortage of adequate child care service$ for working parents.

!

43

44

operating. In Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland, the airline industry is surveying over 25 000 workers to determine the need for work-related child care at airports or city terminals in those States (Women At Work, 1986). The Administrative and Clerical Officers Union in several States has organized child care campaigns to gain child care facilities in Australian Government buildings (Viewpoint, 1985).

One issue raised by child care advocates of corporate sponsored child care in Australia has been the reluctance of the Australian Government to provide any recurrent funding for child care centres established by companies unless the centres are open to the community without any guarantee of places for employees of the company. At present there are no tax incentives to companies to assist with child care arrangements (personal communication). A Women's Electoral Lobby survey (Women at Work, 1986) of 62 Australian companies found that most companies considered child care to be a government or community responsibility rather than a corporate responsibility. Obstacles to establishing work-related child care included cost, State and Local Government regulations, and community access requirements.

According to Friedman (1985) most companies that have introduced child care assistance programs assume they will help to attract and retain employees, reduce stress and increase productivity. Few companies had data to substantiate these claims. One American firm, Intermedics, reported a reduction in absenteeism resulting in a savings of over 15000 working hours, a 23 per cent decrease in turnover, reduced recruiting costs, boosted employee morale among all employees, and improved public image (Baden and Friedman, 1981).

r- --M~:r c~:npanies that have introduced c~ild care assistance programs assume they Will

I help toj attract and retain employees, reduce I stressapd increase productivity_

I I 45

I

I

Employee ASfistance Prpgrams

I

EMPLOYEE assistance programs grew out of the concern during the 1940s with the incidence of alcoholism in the workforce. Education and counselling programs were introduced to assist in

the rehabilitation of alcoholic workers with the hope of reducing absenteeism, improving productivity and reducing accidents (Ryan,1978).

Counselling Services

By the 1970s most corporations and government departments had broadened these assistance programs to include counselling for a

variety of personal problems, including marital and family concerns, physical and mental health problems, drug dependency problems and legal, financial and retirement advice (Shore, 1984). Axel (1985) estimates that 80 per cent of United States employee assistance programs offer alcohol and drug dependency services, 50 per cent marital, family and financial counselling, and 33 per cent provide legal advice. One American

46

firm summarized the typical profile of problems brought to employee assistance programs as follows: 28 per cent chemical dependency, 20 per cent marital and family, 20 per cent financial, 15 per cent legal, 9 per cent mental health (depression, emotional stress), one per cent relationships, sexual identity and other (Baden and Friedman, 1981 :p. 78). It is estimated that over 350 work organizations in Australia have introduced some form of employee assistance program (Terry, 1984).

Programs can be in-house, staffed by counsellors often connected to the human resource or medical departments of the company, or contracted to outside agencies who provide services reimbursed by the company or health insurance plans. Often the company arranges to pay for the first few counselling sessions at the referral agency.

The Family Service Association of America, an organization of over 250 social service agencies akin to the Australian Council of Social Services in Australia, has contracted with Xerox, IBM, and North American Phillips, to provide counselling services to their employees at member agencies wherever the corporations have sites. More than 1200 employees received counselling assistance in 1982 for marital and personal difficulties and problems with adolescents (58 per cent), alcohol and drug misuse (37 per cent), and stress from financial or legal concerns (5 per cent). Family Service Association is responsible for providing supervisor training sessions and employee education materials and workshops (Family Service Association of America, 1982).

In the United States, a number of companies operate hot-line or other telephone counselling services accessible to all employees and sometimes shared with other corporations. Referrals then are made to relevant local services.

Confidentiality is a major issue as employees may be afraid to reveal personal problems that could interfere with job security or advancement. Whether a company should interfere and suggest to the employee that he or she should seek help, or rely on employee self-referral is another source of debate. Although employees are encouraged to seek assistance, Axel (1985) reports that most companies make provision for referrals from

~~ ;/ 'His next job is at Newcastle and he will be

co'mmuting for a year. If things get bad I'll h~ve to go up there somehow. ,

47

supervisors if safety, health or poor job performance are evident. In some cases if an employee does not take advantage of the assistance offered dismissal is a possibility.

Terry (1984) emphasizes that to be successful programs must be seen to have the backing and support of senior management and supervisors, and argues that additional criteria for a successful program include adequate publicity, accessibility (for example, procedures and contacts be well known and practical), credibility (for example, services be recognized as expert and useful), and confidentiality. Roman (1983) adds the importance of programs being integrated into the organization's central structure.

Surveys of six Australian companies that had employee assistance and alcohol and drug programs emphasized the importance of adequate publicity and confidentiality. Terry (1984) found that over half of the employees surveyed indicated that they did not know the referral contact, while nearly half of the workers said they would not use the services because they did not trust the assurances of confidentiality. One safeguard to confidentiality adopted by many American companies is the use of outside agencies for services through self or company referral.

Documentation of the effectiveness of employee assistance programs is sparse. Axel (1985) reports that most companies with programs believe the cost is negligible in terms of employee long-term disability or replacement measures. Shore (1984) claims significant reductions in absenteeism, medical care and accidents on the job. Most employers rely on informal feed-back from employees and managers, or they monitor actual staff use of programs. Several large corporations, like General Motors and United Airlines in the United States, do evaluate their programs; Equitable Life Insurance Company claimed a $5.52 return in increased productivity for every treatment dollar spent in their Emotional Health Program; Kennicott Copper estimated a 6-1 benefit cost ratio per year for an 'Insight' psychotherapy program (Penney, 1980).

Roman (1983:p.ll) warns, however, that many employee assistance programs 'have centered their sights on the technology of counselling and treatment rather than on the technology of altering the organizational environment'. He argues that employee assistance programs will have

I//'-~

(/ 'It'~ pretty hard on the family not knowing

wRen I will be tran~ferred. ,

\ -./_------------~~ 48

maximum benefit only if evaluations of programs lead to changes in company policy and procedures that may themselves be generating some of the problems.

Employee assistance programs can extend into other than traditional counselling areas. 'Wellness and Fitness' programs, which often include stress management and stop-smoking seminars, are very popular additions. Education seminars on topics related to work and family issues are also being introduced in some contexts, particularly in America. Some examples are described in the next sections.

Relocation Services

Relocation seminars are one example of an information and counselling service provided by some companies. Research has

shown that transfers to other locations can be stressful for the employee and his or her family (Catalyst, 1983; Gullotta and Donohue, 1981; Ammons, Nelson and Wodarski, 1982). Negative effects include the loss of social and practical support networks for both spouses and children, possible financial hardship related to selling and buying a house, and the disruption of a spouse's career. Catalyst's (1983) survey of American corporations found that approximately 10 per cent of executives were refusing to transfer for these reasons. In response, a number of corporations have developed relocation assistance programs which, in addition to financial benefits such as cost of living allowances and mortgage differential payments, include counselling and information seminars to ease the transition. Information packages which describe the new community or organize liaisons with community organizations in the the new location are also provided by some companies, and several companies provide job search counselling for the spouse. Other corporations contract out to consulting firms (such as Catalyst in New York) to run seminars and prepare materials ..

Education and Information Programs

I n an effort to help workers with family responsibilities manage their dual roles inthe workplace and at home, some corporations conduct for

their employees seminars and workshops that deal with a variety of work-family concerns. Common lunch-hour seminar topics are: locating and evaluating child care resources, balancing work and family life, working parents and the school, coping as a single parent, family

49

communication skills, and time management skills (Baden and Friedman, 1981; COPE, 1983).

Various organizations in America have evolved to develop and market these information and education services to corporations, and most offer programs and resources designed for workers as well as for executives to familiarize them with the issues (Baden and Friedman, 1981). Catalyst, in New York, for example, acts as consultant to help companies 'in analyzing and formulating human resource policies that will enable employees to successfully combine work and family responsibilities' (Catalyst, 1985:p.l). Catalyst assists companies in developing benefit packages in the areas of child care, maternity and paternity leave, and alternate work schedules.

Another such organization is COPE (Coping with the Overall Pregnancy/Parenting Experience) in Boston, which offers five Work and Family Management Programs. A series of seminars for employees includes, among others, the titles: Financial management for the family, Managing children from the workplace, Parenting infants - going back to work, Child care issues and options. These sessions can be presented in formats of one, three or six hours. Fees for the seminars at 1983 rates ranged from $8-$12 per participant, per hour. Conferences and seminars for management and supervisors concentrate on concepts and cost effectiveness issues surrounding flexible benefit plans, alternative work schedules, relocation policies and dual-career family conflicts. In addition, a consultation service is offered on the development and implementation of flexible benefit packages. Companies were charged $2000 per day for these management seminars or $50 an hour for consultations.

COPE's one-day Parent Fairs provide information booklets and resource material on 'subjects and services of interest to parents' set out on ten display tables. Four COPE professionals act as resource people, show films and conduct small group lectures on specific topics; follow-up consultations with participants are also available. The cost per Fair in 1983 was $500.

I~

t

. I

Some 4orporations conduct for their empioYJees seminars and workshops that deal with a rariety of work-family concerns.

50

An Information and Referral Telephone Line system with a private . ·.te.l~phone line for employees who wish to request information Of crisis

. intervention assistance is .available under contract with a company. The ·telephone line costs an average of $15000 per 6000 employees for a shared line with another company. In 1984, COPE negotiated with the New England Telepone Company to assess the impact of family life on the workplace by measuring performance indicators such as absenteeism, lateness to work and time spent on family issues at work. It is anticipated that .seminars and workshops for employees and managers,along with policy and program recommendations, will evolve out of .the assessment.

In Australia, one example of employer initiative is the Sydney Factory Project which provides information about women's health and community services to migrant women workers during lunch hours. Originally run voluntarily by the Leichhardt and Liverpool Women's Health Cenires~ the program is now funded by the Health Commission and Department of Ethnic Affairs (Women at Work, 1984). A similar program, Women In Industry: Contraception and Health, is active in Melbourne. With funding from the State Health, Community Services and Ethnic Affairs Departments, trained health workers visit women in the factories during the lunch hour and provide health information, mainly to migrant women. Access to the factories is facilitated by .cooperation of the relevant unions. A factory project to assist migrant women workers also has been established in Brisbane (Women at Work, J985).. .

The.south Australian Marriage Guidance Council has worked with the Institute .of Management in that State. One aim is to encourage ·corporations to provide information about counselling services to ·employers. A Qextstep perhaps would be to conduct seminars on marriage .and family life in the workplace. References to the impact of marital stress on work and of work on family life were described in previous sections of this Discussion Paper.

A number of private consulting firms have also been established in Australia. For example, one agency in New South Wales which specializes in running seminars for dual-career couples has conducted

(~on 't spend enough time at home because I . . w1rk in a busy industry. ,

52

seminars for the Royal Australian College of Family Practitioners in New South Wales (Coombes and Coombes, 1986).

Benefits to Employers and Employees

Organizations that market education, information, and consulting services to companies claim such programs can benefit employees by

increasing their awareness of the company and community resources that can assist them in their dual responsibilities of family and work, and by imparting to them a variety of strategies and responses to enable them to more successfully cope with work-family situations and conflicts (Apgar, Riley and Diskin, 1982; Baden and Friedman, 1981).

Benefits to employers include: increased productivity because employees will be less distracted by family-related problems; assistance in career development to help meet requirements of Equal Opportunity legislation; provision of a relatively inexpensive way to offer additional fringe benefits and demonstrate concern for employees and their families; and an improved public image in'the community (Apgar, Riley and Diskin, 1982; Baden and Friedman,1981).

T hiS Discussion Paper has explored the dynamic connections between work and family life and examined some of the available information on corporate responses to dual-working families.

Material from the United States and European references has provided a baseline from which to look at the Australian experience. Although no attempt was made to comprehensively review Australian corporate initiatives, this preliminary search provided some information on government and union activity in this area and opened up avenues for further investigation.

As family life expectations and notions of men's and women's roles change within a context of equal opportunity principles, employers will be challenged to respond to the needs of both men and women workers with family responsibilities. Issues of child care, dependent care, maternity, paternity and family leave, relocation practices, travel requirements and alternative work schedules will assume new significance.

This paper has attempted to raise questions and explore possible answers to the problems inherent in balancing the demands and responsibilities of work and family life, dilemmas that must be resolved if men and women are to have equal opportunities to combine work and family careers.

ss

j ,I

, , I "L"· f' :- ":15t 0

;References " ' , " I

" '" I

I

Akabas, S. (1984), 'Workers are parents too', Child Welfare, Vo1.63, No.5.

AA UW (American Association of University Women) (1984), Family advocacy and problem solving through community partnerships: a manual, AAUW Educational Foundation Families and Work Project, Washington, D.C.

American Family (1984); 'Employee benefits as family support: emerging tax policy issues', VoL7, No.8.

Ammons, P., Nelson, J. and Wodarski, J. (1982), 'Surviving corporate moves: sources of stress and adaptation among corporate families', Family Relations, VoUl. Apgar, K., Riley, D., Eaton, J. and Diskin, J. (1982), 'Life education in the workplace', Family Services Association of America, New York.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) ABS, Child Care Arrangements, Australia, June 1980, Catalogue No.4407.0 ABS, Divorces, Australia, 1985, July 1986, Catalogue No.3307.0 ABS, Employment Benefits, Australia, August 1985, Catalogue No.6332.0 ABS, Labour Force Experience, Australia, 1985 ABS, Labour Force Status and Other Characteristics of Families, Australia, July

1984, July 1985, November 1974, Catalogue No.6224.0.

56

ABS, Persons Not in the Labour Force, Australia, March 1986, Catalogue No.6220.0

Axel, H. (1985), Corporations and families: changing practices and perspective, The Conference Board, New York.

Baden, C. and Friedman, D. (1981), New management initiatives jor working parents, Reports from an April 1981 Conference, Whellock College, Boston, Mass. Bohen, H., and Viveros-Long, A. (1981), Balancing jobs and family life: do flexible work schedules help, Temple University Press, Philadelphia.

Brennan, D. (1983), Towards a national child care policy, Policy Background Paper No.2, Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne, Victoria.

Brewer, G. (1983), The impact of work on family functioning: a review of the literature, Occasional Paper No.3, Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne, Victoria.

Buchmann, A.M. and Buchmann, W. (1982), 'Adapting to change: you can't go home again', in Families and work, traditions and transitions, American Association of University Women, Washington, D.e.

Catalyst (1983), Human factors in relocation: practices and attitudes from the corporate and employee points of view, New York.

Catalyst (1985), Annual Review, New York.

Cleminger Report (1984), Beyond the stereotypes: an illuminating perspective on Australian women, Melbourne, Victoria.

Cleminger Report (1986), Home truths: how Australian couples are coping with change, Melbourne, Victoria.

Cooke, R. and Rousseau, D. (1984), 'Stress and strain from family roles and work-r<;lle expectations', Jo,urnal of Applied Psychology, Vo1.69, No.2.

Coombes, P. and Coombes, W. (1986), 'Marriage/family and career life education for dual career couples', in Making Marriage and Family Work Conference Papers, Marriage Education Institute, Melbourne.

COPE (1983), 'Work and family management programs', in United Way Report, August, Boston, Mass.

Crouter, A. (1984), 'Spillover from family to work: the neglected side of the work-family interface', Human Relations, Vo1.37, No.6.

Dawkins, P., Goddard, G., Kain, P., Robertson, F. and Molloy, S. (1985), Case studies in labour absence, Working Paper Series, No.82, National Institute of Labour Studies, Flinders University, Adelaide, S.A.

Desatnick, R. (1982), 'Families and work: a corporate perspective', in Families and Work, Traditions and Transitions, AAUW, Washington, De.

Family Service Association of America (1982), Annual Report, Family Service Association of America, New York.

S7

Forbath, B. and Painter, J. (1979-80), in Brewer, G., The impact of work onfamily functioning, Occasional Paper No.3, 1983, Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne, Victoria.

Friedman, D. (1985), Corporate financial assistance for child care, The Conference Board, New York ..

Fronzaglia, D. (1982), 'Families and corporations', in Families and Work, Traditions and Transitions, AAUW, Washington, DC.

Geerken, M. and Gove, W. (1983), At home and at work: thefamily's allocation of labor, Sage, Beverly Hills.

General Mills (1981), Families at work: strengths and strains, The American Family Report 1980-1981, General Mills Inc., Minneapolis, Minn.

Glezer, H. (1984), 'Changes in marriage and sex-role attitudes among young married women: 1971-1981', in Proceedings, Australian Family Research Conference, VoU, Family formation, structure, and values, Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne, Victoria.

Gorlin, H. (1981), Personnel practices Ill: employee services, work rules, The Conference Board, New York.

Gorlin, H. (1982), Company experience with flexible work schedules, The Conference Board, New York.

Griffin, V. (1984), 'Alternative working arrangements: of euphemisms and euphorias', The Australian Quarterly, Vo1.56, No.4.

Gullotta, T. and Donohue, K. (1981), 'Corporate families: implications for preventive intervention', Social Casework, February.

Gutek, B., Nakamura, C. and Nieva, V. (1981), 'The interdependence of work and family roles', Journal of Occupational Behaviour, Vo1.2.

Hall, D.T. (1972), cited in Gutek, B., Nakamura, c., and Nieva, V., 'The interdependence of work and family roles', The Journal of Occupational Behaviour, Vo1.2, p.6.

Hall, F. and Hall, D. (1979), The two career couple, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.

ILO (1980), Equal opportunities and equal treatment for men and women workers: workers with family responsibilities, International Labour Office, Geneva.

ILO (1985), Equal opportunities and equal treatment for men and women in employment, International Labour Office, Geneva.

Institute of Family Studies (1983), Early childhood services, Submission to the Victorian Government Review of Early Childhood Services, Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne, Victoria.

Kamerman, S. (1980), Parenting in an unresponsive society: managing work and family, The Free Press, New York. Kamerman, S. and Kahn, A. (1981), Child care, family benefits, and working parents: a study in comparative policy, Columbia University Press, New York.

58

Kanter, R.S. (1977), Work and family in the United States: a critical review and agenda for research and policy, Social Science Frontiers, Russell Sage Foundation, New York.

Kinney, R. (1981), 'The White House conference on families: implications for management', in Baden and Friedman, New management initiatives for working parents, Wheelock College Report, Boston, Mass.

Krausz, M. and Freibach, (1983), 'The effects of flexible working-time for employed women upon satisfaction, strains and absenteeism', Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vo1.56.

Lewis, S. and Cooper, C. (1983), 'The stress of combining occupational and parenta:l roles: a review of the literature', Bulletin of British Psychological Society, Vo1.36.

Levitan, S. and Belous, S. (1981), 'Working wives and mothers: what happens to family life?', Monthly Labor Review, September.

McDonald, P. (1984), 'The baby boom generation as reproducers: fertility in Australia in the late 1970s-1980s', in Proceedings, Australian Family Research Conference, Vol.l, Family formation, structure, values, 1983, Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne, Victoria.

McCroskey, J. (1982), 'Work and families: what is the employers' responsibility', Personnel Journal, Vo1.61, No.I.

McCubbin, H. and Dahl, B. (1985), Marriage and family, individuals and hie cycles, John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Newland, K. (1982), 'Families, work and government policies', in Work and families, traditions and transitions, AAUW, Washington, D.e.

Nollen, S. (1980), 'What is happening to flexitime, flexitour, gliding time, the variable day? and permanent part-time employment? and the four-day week?', Across the Boar:d, April, pp. 6-21.

Penney, J.C. (1980), Work and families, A Report to Corporate Leaders on the White House Conference on Families, prepared by the J.e. Penney Company Inc.

Pleck, J. (1977), 'The work-family role system', Social Problems, Vo1.24.

Pleck, J. (1983), 'Husband's paid work and family roles: current research issues', Research in the interweave of social roles: jobs and families, Vo1.3, JAI Press, Greenwich, Conn.

Pleck, J. (1985), Working wives/working husbands, Sage, Beverly Hills.

Pleck, J., Staines, G. and Lang, L. (1980), 'Conflicts between work and family life', Monthly Labor Review, Research Summaries, March.

Piotrkowski, C. and Katz, M. (1983), 'Work experience and family relations among working-class and lower middle class families', in Interweave of social roles: jobs and families, Vo1.3, JAI Press, Greenwich, Conn.

Rapoport, R. and Rapoport, R. (1976), Dual-career families re-examined, 2nd ed., Martin Robertson,· London.

S9

Rapoport, R. and Rapoport, R. (1978), Working couples, RoutJege and Kegan, London.

Reece, C. (1982), 'Bringing children to work', Children Today, July/August.

Roman, P. (1983), 'Pitfall of "program" concepts in the development and maintenance of employee assistance programs', The Urban and Social Change Review, Vo1.l6, No.I.

Ryan, D.(1978), 'Alcohol programs in industry', Work and People, Vol.4, No. 3-4.

Sekaran, V. (1983), 'Factors influencing the quality oflife in dual-career families', Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vo1.56.

Shore, H. (1984), 'Employee assistance programs - reaping the benefits', Sloan Management Review, Vo1.25, No.3.

Symons, A. (1978), 'Varied working hours - here to stay?', Work and People, Vol.4, No.I-2.

Terry, A.F. (1984), 'Employee assistance programs in Australian industry', Work and People, Vol.lO, No.3.

The Age, 23 December 1985, Melbourne, Victoria.

Timms, L. (1975), 'Does the 9-day fortnight work?', Work and People, Vol.l, No.1.

Troy, K. (1985), Studying and addressing community needs: a corporate case book, The Conference Board, New York.

Victorian Public Service Board (1985), 'Permanent part-time employment in the Public Service of Victoria', July, Melbourne, Victoria.

Viewpoint (1985), Journal of the Victorian Branch of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association, Vol. 28, No. 11. Viewpoint (1986), Journal of the Victorian Branch of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association, February, No.267.

Voydanoff, P. and Kelly, R. (1984), 'Determinants of work-related family problems among employed parents', Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vo1.64, No.4.

Winett, R. and Neale, M. (1980), 'Results of experimental study on flexiti'me and family life', Monthly Labor Review, November.

Whittingham, B. and Adraskelas, I. (1984), 'Working time reductions; issues, policies, and overseas experience', Working Paper 52, Bureau of Labour Market Research, Canberra, ACT.

Wolcott, I. (1986), 'Work and family well-being: satisfactions, strains and strategies', Paper presented at the AIFS Second Family Research Conference, Melbourne.

Women at Work, November-December 1984, June-August 1985, December 1985- February 1986, March-May 1986, ACTU Working Women's Centre, Melbourne, Victoria.

60

Women and Work (1985), Newsletter, Vo!. 7, No. 3, September, Women's Bureau, Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, Canberra, ACT.

Women's Bureau (1985), Maternity and paternity leave, Information Paper No.3, Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, Canberra, ACT.

Women's Bureau (1986), Women at work: facts and figures, Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, Canberra, ACT.

Wood, J. (1984), 'Part-time employment: making the future work in education',· Work and People, Vol.lO, No.I.

Work and People (1984), Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, Canberra, Vo!. 10, No. 3.

61

a~Australian Institute of Family Studies

Titles in the Institute's Discussion Paper series are:

. N 0.1 Possible directions for an Australian family policy (OUI of prinl)

No.2 The family and the pre-school child (OUI of prinl)

No.3 Work and the family No.4 The changing face of childhood No.S The rights of the child (Oulofprim)

No.6 Family change and early childhood development No.7 Violence and the family No.8 Singles in Australian society No.9 Changing laws for changing families (OUI of prinl)

No.10 Children's participation in divorce No.11 Can the family survive? No.12 Changing families, changing schools No.l3 Marriage, the family and family law in Australia N 0.14 Workers with family responsibilities: implications for

employers

Discussion Papers are available from the Distribution Officer, Australian Institute of Family Studies, 300 Queen Street, Melbourne 3000 Victoria, Australia. Telephone (03) 608 6888.

62

EVERY worker has family responsibilities, whether these involve children, the aged, or more distant relatives. Even single people living alone bring to work with them the concerns, stresses and

strengths that derive from family ties. Family matters are likely to be the underlying causes of absenteeism, on-the-job accidents and low productivity in the workplace: conversely, the world of work closely affects the form and quality of family life.

There is an increase in the number of dual-earning families and families in which a single parent is responsible for carrying out both work and family tasks. This situation has highlighted the need to re-evaluate social policies based on outdated assumptions of workforce participation and family composition and lifestyles. Policies are needed which will enable people to reconcile the often conflicting demands of work and family - to maintain participation in both worlds as effective parents, partners and employees. This book argues that those who own, manage and structure the places and conditions of employment share some of the broad community's responsibility for the quality and stability of family life.