www.jstor.org stable pdfplus 10.2307 189663

8/11/2019 Www.jstor.org Stable Pdfplus 10.2307 189663

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wwwjstororg-stable-pdfplus-102307-189663 1/17

White-Collar Work Values and Women's Interest in Blue-Collar JobsAuthor(s): Irene PadavicSource: Gender and Society, Vol. 6, No. 2 (Jun., 1992), pp. 215-230Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/189663 .

Accessed: 08/09/2014 11:15

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Gender and

Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 158.109.94.33 on Mon, 8 Sep 2014 11:15:14 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions



WHITE-COLLARWORK

VALUES

AND WOMEN'SINTEREST

IN

BLUE-COLLAR

JOBS

IRENE

PADAVIC

Florida State

University

Based on a case studyof a large utilitycompany, his articleanalyzes theeffectof a preference

for

white-collar work

on

women's

ob

decisions.

The

sample

consists

of

a

group

of

women

who

worked

emporarily

n

traditionally

male

plant jobs

in

the

company

and a

group

of

women who

remained

m

white-collar

jobs

in

the same

firm.

Results

indicate that both

groups

did

indeed

value

ob

attributes

hat

are

found principally

n

officejobs,

such

as clean

conditions,

the

chance

to

socialize on the

job,

and

working

with similar

people,

but these

preferences

did

not

signif-

icantly influence

whether

they

would consider

switching

to

traditionally

male

plant jobs.

Much

more

influential

were

practical

considerations,

such as

economicneedsSince

many

women

especially

ones in

economic need-would

find

such

jobs

desirable,

an

explanation

that takes

into

account barriers to women's

entry

is

necessary

to

understand he

causes

of

women's

ow

representation

n

traditionally

male

plant jobs.

W omen's share

of

the

labor force

increased

by

8.7

percent

between

1977

and

1988,

but

their

shareof

good obs

at

good

pay,

o borrow

a

phrase

rom

GovernorMichael

Dukakls,

was

disproportionately

n the

white-collararena.

Women's increased

presence

In

high-paying,

skilled,

traditionally

male

white-collar

jobs

is

everywhere

evident

today,

but

their

presence

in

high-

paying,

skilled,

traditionally

male

blue-collar

jobs

remains

minuscule.

In

1988, for example, women's share of white-collarmanagerialand profes-

sional

jobs

was

45

percent,

contrastedwith

a share

of

blue-collar

mechanic

and

repairer obs

of

only

3.3

percent,

a

slight

decline

from 3.4

percent

in

1980.

Indeed,

between 1970

and

1988,

women's

representation

n

the

census

category, precision

production,

including

craft,

increased

by

only

1.3

AUTHOR'S NOTE: I

am

grateful

to the

employees of

Urban

Utility

or

their

assistance in

this

study.

I

also thank

Bruce

Bellingham,

Patricia

Martin,

Jim

Orcutt,

Barbara

Reskin,

and

Marc

Steinberg

or

their

helpful

comments.

REPRINTREQUESTS: Irene

Padavic,

Department

of

Sociology,

R-130,

Florida

State

Univer-

sity,

Tallahassee,

FL

32306-2011.

GENDER&

SOCIETY,

ol.6 No.

2,

June

1992

215-230

?

1992

Sociologists

or

Womenn

Society

215




216 GENDER

&

SOCIETY/June

1992

percent,

the smallest

gain

in

any

of the 13

majoroccupationalgroups

(U.S.

Bureau of the Census 1984; U.S. Departmentof Labor 1990; Rytinaand

Bianchi

1984).

Clearly,

either women

prefer

white-collar

employment

or

something

is

preventing

their access to skilled blue-collar

obs.

Much of the

public

and

many

scholars assume that

people's

occupational

outcomes

reflect their

choices. This

assumption

s

Incorporated

nto our

vocabulary

and

into intel-

lectual

explanations

or

occupational

segregationput

forward

by

many

econ-

omists and

social

psychologists.

The former

contend

that women choose

to

enter

sex-typical

occupations

and

emphasize

an

explanation

based on

indi-

vidual tastes andpreferences,embodiedin such factorsas women's antici-

pated

allocation of

time between the labor force

and work

in

the home.

For

example,

economists

argue

that

work

values

(Filer

1985)

and

childbearng

and

child-rearing

decisions

(Mincer

and

Polachek

1974;

Waite

and

Berryman

1985) predict

a woman's choice

of a

sex-traditional

r

sex-nontraditional

ob.

Gender-role

ocialization

theories

arrive

at

the same

conclusion

by

invoking

gender

differences

in

socialization,

work

values,

educational

racking,

voca-

tional

education,

and attitudes

for

a

review,

see

Miller and Garnson

1982).

By

the

early

1980s,

sociologists

became

interested

in

job

segregation,

recognizing

that factors

external to the individual

workerconstrainedher or

his

personal

choices;

these included a

range

of

factors

that focus

on

the

demand

or

workers,

rather

han

on

the

supply.'

In

regard

o women's

vir-

tual

absence

from

traditionally

male blue-collar

obs,

demand

explanations

focus,

for

example,

on some

employers'

explicit

discrimination

n

the basis

of

sex

in

hilnng

decisions

(Bergmann

1986;

Bielby

and

Baron

1986;

Harkess

1980;

Reskin and

Hartmann

1986); problems

of access

exemplified

in some

union

apprenticeship

programs

and

shop-floor

selection

procedures

Brggs

1981, O'FarrellandHarlan1984;Reskinand Padavic1988;Simmonset al.

1975;

U.S.

Department

of

Labor,

Employment

Standards

Administration

1981,

Walshok

1981);

and institutionalized

personnel

practices,

such

as

seniorty

systems (Reskin

and

Hartmann

986)

and

weight-lifting

restrictions

(Bielby

and Baron

1986).

This

article

examines

a

number

of

supply-side

factors

that could

affect

a

woman's decision

to undertake

ontraditional

lue-collar

work. Unlike

much

research

on

supply-side

factors,

which

attempts

to

assess women's

prefer-

ences

for

certain

job

attributes

n simulated

situations,

the

present

study

concentrateson womenwho have hadrecentexperience n twoveryconcrete

job

situations:

one

traditionally

emale

white-collar

and

one

traditionally

male blue-collar.

On

the basis of

these

experiences,

the

women

were

asked

about

their

willingness

to

consider

transfernng

o

specific

jobs.

My

focus

is




Padavic

/

WOMEN'S

INTEREST

IN BLUE-COLLAR

JOBS

217

on

the role of one

possible

reason

for

white-collar

women's

level of

interest

in transferringo high-payingcustomarilymaleblue-collarwork: the roleof

work values. Women

who

have been

socialized to

appreciate

conditions of

work

that are

present

in

female-dominated

white-collarwork

might

choose

to

demur from

jobs

- in

particular

blue-collarones

-

that do not offer

these

conditions.

According

to this

reasoning,

women

voluntarily

avoid

tradition-

ally

male blue-collar

jobs

because

they

hold normative

preferences

for

certain

white-collarwork

attributes,

uch

as

clean

conditions

and the

oppor-

tunity

to

socialize

on

thejob

with

people

similar o

themselves.

In

this

article,

I

discuss the

influence of such normative

preferences

on women's

willing-

ness to apply for skilled blue-collarjobs. I find thatpreferencesfor good

worlkng

conditions are not

as

important

o women as theirdesire for the

high

wages

that

generally accompany traditionally

male blue-collar

jobs

and

conclude that we

must look to demand-side

explanations

to understand

women's

underrepresentation.

Understanding

he causes of women's

possible

aversion to

blue-collar

jobs

is

important

f

we want to

increase women's

representation.

f

women

workers

consciously

eschew

blue-collarjobs

because of the

nature

of

thejobs

or the

blue-collar

work

context,

then

little

change

is

likely

to

occur. Blue-

collarjobs

are

likely

to remain

dirty,

and

the

male-dominatednatureof

work

groups

and a

shop

culture

that

impedes on-the-job

socializing

for

women

workers

s

unlikely

to

disappear

n

the

short run.2

f,

on the

other

hand,

these

less

tractable

onditions

of work

are not a

deterrent o

women,

thenwe

would

expect

more

women

to

be in

such

jobs

and

thus must

look elsewhere to

understand he

reasons for women's low

representation.

IMPORTANCE OF WORK VALUES

Conventional

wisdom

holds that

most women

do

not

want

certain

blue-

collar

jobs-

even

high-paying

ones

-

because

they

do not

want to

work

in

a

plant

environment,

especially

if

they

have

had

experience

in

office work.

According

to

a

personnel

officer

seeking

to

recruit

women to

skilled blue-

collar

jobs,

The

office

atmosphere

s

regarded

as

entirely

different,

even

if

the

job

is a

relatively

dull

and

repetitive

one.

Generally...

we do much

better

hiring

women

[who

do not come

from

offices]

for

our...

traditional[ly

male]

blue-collar obs

(Shaeffer

and

Lynton

1979,

71).

Researchers n

the

field

of

gender-role

socialization have

examined

the

impact

of

work-relatedvalues

on

women's

choice of

sex-typical

over

sex-

atypical obs.

Gender-role

ocialization

theory

holds

that

boys

and

girls

learn




218 GENDER & SOCIETY

/June

1992

different

values and attitudes

about work that cause

them to

aspire

toward

gender-typicaloccupations

n

later ife.3The

extent to

which

preferences

or

certainworkenvironments

ctually

determine

ccupational

hoice is unclear.

While

many

women

identify

social

aspects

and

physically

pleasant

work

conditions as

important

o

their

ob

satisfaction

(Feldberg

and

Glenn

1979;

Kanter

1977;

McIlwee

1982;

Miller

1980;

Nieva and Gutek

1981,

chap.

9),

they

do not

necessarily

make

job

choices based on

these

preferences.

Evi-

dence

suggests

that

gender-role

ocialization

may

play

a

role

in

early

career

decisions,

but

that after theirfirst

job,

women

frequently

move

into

and

out

of

gender-neutral

nd

male-typed

occupations

over the course

of their

lives

(Jacobs1989, 103; Rosenfeld 1984). The fact that womenfrequentlycross

sex-typed

andcollar-color

boundaries

mplies

thatsocialization

o

appreciate

white-collar

environments

s not

ultimately

determinative.

Aspirations

to-

ward

sex-appropriate

obs

and

their

accompanying

working

conditions are

unstable

and

are

only

weakly

connected to

occupational

outcomes

(Jacobs

1989).

OTHER

SUPPLY-SIDE FACTORS

AFFECTING

CHOICE OF A BLUE-COLLAR

JOB

In addition

to

preferences

for clean

conditions,

similar

co-workers,

and

the

like,

this

article

analyzes

two additional

sets

of

supply-side

factors

that

could

influence

women's

job-transfer

decisions.

A woman's

practical

cir-

cumstances-such

as economic

need,

race,

presence

of children-and

gender-role

attitudes

and behaviors

are

equally

plausible

influences.

Regarding

practical

circumstances,

women

with the

greatest

economic

need aremost likely to be willing to incur social opprobrium

nd child-care

inconvenience

for the

chance to earn the

higher

wages

of

traditionally

male

blue-collar

jobs

(Deaux

and Ullman

1983;

Kessler-Harns

1982;

Penney

1983;

Rosen

1987;

Rosenfeld

1984;

Schroedel

1985).

Race,

too,

can

affect

a woman's

nterest

n skilled

blue-collar

work,

with Black

women

historically

more

interested

han

white

women

(in

large part

because

of

blocked

oppor-

tunities

in white-collar

obs;

Jones

1985;

Kessler-Harris

982).

Socialization

to

sex-atypical

activities

and

holding

certain

attitudes

about

the

appropriate

elationship

between women

and

paid

work

are also

classic

taste andpreferencesupply-sidefactorsthat this articleexamines.Exposure

to

sex-atypical

activities

in childhoodcould

increase

a

woman's

experience

of or

tolerance

or such

activities,

thus

ncreasing

her

interest

n a

traditionally

male

job

(Walshok

1981).

In

addition,

holding

traditional

gender-role

atti-




Padavic /

WOMEN'S

INTEREST IN BLUE-COLLAR

JOBS 219

tudes could

influence

a woman

away

from work that is nontraditional

or

women (Horner1972; for a critique,see Miller andGarrison1982).

In

addition

o value

preferences,

practical

circumstances,

and

gender-role

attitudes

and

behavior,

this

study

includes two

other

variables that

could

influence

a woman's choice

of

a

blue-collar

job.

Exposure

to

the

work

environment

of a

plant

may

condition

individualdecisions

by

allaying

fear

of the unknownand

building

self-confidence

or,

on the

contrary,

einforcing

women's fears

abouttheir

ability

to do the work.

My

research

design

controls

for the

effect

of

plant exposure.

Finally,

how much a

woman

likes

her

current

job

will influence

her

willingness

to leave it for

another.

DATA AND

METHODS

Sample

and Data

Data are taken

from a

case

study

of

a

large

utility

company,

which

I will

call

Urban

Utility

(UU),

that

ransferred

onunionized

emale as

well

as male

workers

to

fill in

at

eight plants during

a

strike

of blue-collar workers.

For

the seven-week duration

of

the

strike,

430 women

(and

approximately

1,700

men)

worked

n

the

skilled,

semiskilled,

and

unskilled

traditionally

male

jobs

of

assistant

power plant

operator,

mechanic's

helper,

stockhandler,

coal

handler,

and

security

officer,

as

well

as

In

janitorial

and

kitchen-helper obs.

All

of the women

were transferredrom

officejobs,

most from the

company's

clercal

and

administrative anks. This

was the

first time the

company

had

transferred

women

to

traditionally

male strike

jobs;

in

previous

strikes,

the

few women

they

used were

assigned

only

to

laundry

and

kitchen

work.

As partof its affirmative actionprogram, he companyhadbeen trying,

with limited

success,

to recruit

women into its

blue-collar

obs. Many

UU

women

white-collar

employees

would

gain

financially

from

switching

to

a

plant

job.

Because the median

wages

for

the

lowest

paid

and

highest paid

power

plant

jobs

in

1984 were

$26,500

and

$31,050,

respectively,

the 43

percent

of

female office

workers who

earned

ess than

$25,000

would

gain

financially

from a

blue-collar

ob

transfer,

as would

some of

the

33

percent

who earned

between

$25,000

and

$30,000

in

office

jobs.

With

the

cooperation

of

UU,

which

was

interested in how its female

employees

performed

in

typically

male

jobs

during

the

strike,4

I

gathered

datafrom

two

groups

of

white-collarwomen

employed

by

the

company.

The

first

consisted

of 331 female

employees

who had

been

transferred

o

blue-

collar

jobs

in

power

plants

to

replace

male

workers

n the

summer of

1984.




220

GENDER

&

SOCIETY

/

June

1992

Of

these,

224

(68

percent)

completed

a

questionnaire

hat

I

administered

at

six differentcompany ocationsin 10sessions six months after hestrikehad

ended and

women strike

workershad

returned

o their

white-collar

obs.

In

order to

ascertainthe

effect of

familiarity

with

UU

plant

work

on women's

interest

in

blue-collar

obs,

I

also

surveyed

a

second

group:

200

randomly

selected women

white-collar

employees

whom

the

company

had hired after

the

strike or who were

not

transferred o

strike

duty.5Fifty percent

of this

control

group

completed questionnaires.

For the

analyses

below,

I

combined

the

strike-duty

and

nonstrike-duty

groups,

for a

total

of

325 women.

In

addition,

I

conducted

hour-long

nterviewswith

31

randomly

elected strike-

dutywomen, andI drawoccasionallyon these datahere.

Of

the combined

group

of

strike-duty

and

nonstrike-duty

women,

one-

third was

Black,

one

percent

was

Hispanic,

and the remainderwas

white.

They ranged

n

age

from 17

to 62

years,

with

a

mean

age

of 34.

Twenty-two

percent

had ended their

formal

education

with

high

school,

47

percent

had

had

some

college,

and

26

percent

had

completed college

or had had

some

postgraduate

schooling. Seventy-six

percent

of

respondents

held clerical

occupations,

17

percent

held

administrative

ccupations,

and

7

percent

held

managerialoccupations.

Measures

Interest

in

blue-collarjobs.

To measure

he

dependent

variable,

nterest

in

transferring

o a skilled

job

at

UU,

following

Bem and Bem

(1973),

I

de-

velopedjob

announcements

or

two

skilled

powerplant

obs:

assistant

power

plantoperator APPO)

and

instrument

epairperson.

Each

description

isted

the

job's starting

and

average pay

and

its

duties,

and indicated

that the

companywouldprovidetraining.Respondentsndicatedwhether heywould

bid on each

of

the

jobs

on a

four-point

scale

(definitely yes, probably

yes,

probably

no,

definitely no).

Both

jobs

are

technical,

but the latter

pays

more

($31,000

in

1984,

compared

to

$27,500

for

the

APPOs).

I

combined

these

variables

(whose

correlation

s

.6)

into a

simple

additive

scale

that

reflected

interest

n the

jobs (ranging

from

0 to

6).6

White-collar

work

values.

Measuresof white-collar

work values include

the

importance

hat

respondentsplaced

on

clean

workingconditions,

social-

izing

with

co-workers,

and

working

with

people

similar

to

themselves.7

These items

assess

concerns

that

according

to

gender-role

socializationthe-

ory

would deter women from blue-collar

jobs.

These characteristics

are

probably

more

easily

obtainable or

UU

women in theirwhite-collar

obs

for




Padavic

/

WOMEN'S INTEREST

IN

BLUE-COLLAR

JOBS

221

the

following

reasons:

WhereasUU

plants

are coal fired

and

extremelydirty,

UU offices areveryclean,carpeted,and well appointed;whereassocializing

amid

noisy

machinery

s difficult in the

plant

environment,

office

environ-

ments can facilitate

it;

and whereas

UU

plant

jobs

are male

dominated

and

low

status,

UU office

jobs

are not. All work

values

were

coded on

a

five-

point

scale,

ranging

rom

1

=

not

at all

important

o 5 =

extremely

mportant.

Table

1

reports

he means

and standarddeviations for these

variablesand

for

other

variables

in

the

equation.

Practical

circumstances.

To

assess the

relative

importance

of

work

val-

ues in a woman'sdecision, theequationtakesintoaccountvariables ndicat-

ing

practical

circumstances shown

elsewhere

to

have influenced

respon-

dents' interest

in

switching

to a

plant job (Padavic

1991).

These

include

a

respondent's

conomic

need

(coded

0 if the

respondent

arned

under

$15,000

in

1984,8

and

1

if

greater),

her

current

position

in

the

company

(clerical

coded

0,

administrative nd

managerial1),

her

race

(coded

1 if

Black,

0 if

white),9

whether

she

had

any

children

under

age

18

living

at home

(coded

1 if

yes,

0

if

no),

and

how

important

she

considered it

to

work

only during

the

day

(coded

on a

five-point

scale where 1

=

not at

all

important,

nd

5

=

extremely

important).?1

Other

variables.

Also included

were variables

that

may

influence

wom-

en's

interest

n

transferring.

How

well the

respondent

iked

her

regular

ob

is

a

factor

score

based on

overall

liking

of the

job,

sense of

gratification

rom

it,

sense of

wanting

more

from

it,

sense of

her

abilities

and

trainingbeing

well

utilized,

and

willingness

to

recommend

t to

a friend.

Cronbach's

alpha

for this

scale

is

.77.

Because some members of the sample hadbeen temporarily xposed to

plant jobs

during

the

strike and

this

exposure

may

have

affected their

predisposition

o

transfer,

t

is

necessary

o

control

for how the

strike

affected

results.

Exposure

to

power plant

work

during

the

strike could either

nega-

tively

or

positively

affect a

woman's

interest

in

transferring

o

skilled

plant

jobs.

If

the

exposure

made

her

realize that

such

jobs

were

available and

that

she

could

perform

them

competently,

then it

would

increase

her interest.

If

exposure

was

negative,

it

would

decrease

her

interest.To

control for either

of

these

possible

effects,

I

included a

variable

indicating

whether

or not the

respondentperformedstrikeduty,coded 1 if she did and0 if she remained

in

a

white-collar

ob

or

was

hired

after the

strike.

Walshok

(1981)

found

that

many

women

in

nontraditional

lue-collar

jobs

she

studied

had

performed

tereotypically

male

tasks

during

childhood





/

June

1992

TABLE

:

Means,

Standard

Deviations,

and

Regression

Coefficients Used

in

Examining

Determinants of

Urban

Utility

White-Collar

Women's

Interestin Transferringo PlantJobs

Descriptive

Regression

Statistics

Coefficients

Dependent

Variable

Mean

SD

b

p

Interest

n

transferring

Work alue variables

Importance

f clean conditions

Importance

f

socializing

Importance f similarpeople

Practical ircumstances

Economicneed

(0

=

high

need;

1

=

low

need)

Position

0

=

clerical;

1

=

administrative/managerial)

Race

(0

=

white;

1

=

Black)

Children

nder18

Importance

f

working nly

days

(1

=

not

important;

5 =

very

important)

Other

variables

Liking

f current

ob

Strike

duty

(0

=

no;

1

=

yes)

Performed

ex-atypical

activities

n

childhood

Gender

attitudes

agree

with)

Working

mothers

can

establish

equally

strong

relationships

with

children

Equal

wages

for

equal

work

Awomanshouldhave same job

opportunities

s a

man

Constant

Adjusted

R2

1.83 1.59

4.03 1.05

-.07

-.05

3.05

1.17

-.09

-.07

2.94 1.25 -.09 -.07

0.90

0.29

0.25

0.41

0.33

0.46

0.40 0.48

3.77 1.37

-.76

-14**

-.61

-16**

40

11*

43

13**

-.20

-17**

0.00

0.97

-.28

-17**

0.69

0.47

-.68

-.20**

0.00

0.99

2.17

0.83

2.90 0.50

2.70

0.65

42 .26**

.03 .02

.29 .09

-.06

-.02

3.70

.31

NOTE:

N

=

325.

*Significant

t

p

<

.05;

**significant

t

p

s

.01.

and

adolescence.

The

questionnaire

ncluded the

following

items to assess

early sex-atypicalexperiences:tinkerwith cars, paintrooms, fix mechan-

ical

things,

and

build

mechanical

or electrical

kits.

I

used

factor

analysis

to

combine these

into

a

single

index with a

moderately

reliable

Cronbach's

alpha

of

.63.




Padavic

/

WOMEN'S INIEREST IN BLUE-COLLAR

JOBS

223

Gender

attitudes.

Gender-rolesocialization

theory

would

predict

that

genderattitudes hould nfluence a decision aboutswitchingto asex-atypical

job.

The

questionnaire

included the

following

questions,

all coded on

a

four-point

scale where 0 =

strongly

disagree

and 3 =

strongly agree:

A

working

mothercan

establish

just

as warm a

relationship

with

her children

as a

non-working

mother,

Menand women shouldbe

paid

the same

money

if

they

do the same

work,

and

A

woman

should have

exactly

the

same

job

opportunities

as

a

man.

RESULTS

Impact

of Work Values

on

Interest

in

Switching

to a

Blue-Collar

Job

How

important

were white-collar work values? As

the mean

scores for

the work

values shown in

Table

1

indicate,

UU

women

highly

valued

clean

conditions and

moderately

valued

working

with

similar

people

and socializ-

ing

on the

job.

It remains to be seen

how

important

hese

values were

in

theirdecision aboutwhether or not to transfer

permanently

o

plant obs.

I used

ordinary

east

squaresregression

o

examine

the relative

mportance

of

white-collar work

values

compared

to

practical

expediencies (such

as

economic

need,

position

in the

company,

race,

presence

of

children,

the

im-

portance

of

working only

days)

and other

supply-side

variables

(such

as

liking

the current

ob,

exposure

to

plant obs

during

he

strike,

having

child-

hood

experience

in

male

tasks,

and

gender

attitudes).12

As

the

last two

columns

of Table

1

show,

the

white-collar

work values

of clean

conditions,

on-the-jobsocializing,andworkingwithsimilarpeopledidnotsignificantly

influence women's

interest

in

transferring

o

blue-collar

obs,

net of other

variables.

In

the

regression

coefficients for the

measure of

practical

circum-

stances,

the

first four

variables all

capture aspects

of

economic circum-

stances and

were all

significant

predictors

of

women's interests n

transfer-

ring

to

plantjobs.

The

first of these

indicated

poverty

circumstances,

and

it

is

not

surprising

hat

women

in

this

circumstance

would be

interested

n

such

high-paying

work.

Women who were

managers

or

administratorswere less

interestednatransfer, ndoubtedlybecausetheircurrentobsrewardedhem

relatively

well with

status

and

Income.

That

women with

poverty-level

in-

comes and those

in

clerical

jobs

had

significantly greater

interest

in

blue-

collar

employment

suggests

that an

interest

in

or need for

material

re-




224

GENDER & SOCIETY

/

June

1992

wards

was more

Important

han

a

woman's

preference

or

white-collar

work

attributes.

Race

was also

important,

with

Black

women

more

interested

n

a

switch

than

white

women. Part

of this effect

probably

eflects

differences

n

income

between

Black and

white

women,'3

but

part

may

reflecta

directeffect of

race

itself:

Black women

may

anticipate

ess

discrimination

n

plant obs

than

they

have

encountered

n

office

jobs.

The

next

variable ndicates

hat

women

with

children

were more

likely

to

consider

switching

to

a

plant

ob.

This

finding

may

appear

anomalous,

because

mothersof

children

under

age

18

might

be

expected

to avoid

blue-collar

work on

account of

its hours:

UU

plant

jobs

requirethat workers operate on a rotatingshift schedule, which means

working

a

week of

days,

followed

by

a

week of

evenings,

then

a week of

nights.

However,

he

variable

Indicating

preference

or

day

work

controlled

for this

and also

showed,

as

expected,

that

the

more

important

t

was

to work

only days,

the

less interest a

respondent

had

in

a

blue-collar transfer.The

reason thatwomen with

childrenat home

are

more

receptive

to

transferring

is,

again,

probablypractical:

The

high wages

of

plant

obs

would

help

cover

the

expenses

that

rearing

children

involves.

All

these factors

suggest

that

practical

circumstances

are

of

greater

mportance

han

white-collarvalues in

women's

decision-making

calculus.

Other variables also

influenced women's

propensity

to transfer.

Not

surprisingly, iking

one's

present

job

dampened

nterest

in

leaving

it

for

a

plant ob.

Womenwho

performed

ex-atypical

asks

in

childhoodwere much

more nterested

n

transferring

han hosewho had

not.This

may

denote

either

the

importance

of

prior

exposure

to

technically

male

tasks or tolerance for

sex-atypical

activities.'4

On

the

other

hand,

as

Table

1

shows,

respondents'

current

gender-role

attitudeswere

unable to

predict

willingness

to consider

transferring.Thus it appears hatattitudes,n this case aboutwomen's roles,

paled

in

comparison

o the force of

real-life

experience.

Looking

at

the

effect of

exposure

to

plant

work,

the

regression

results

show

thatwomen who had labored

n

these

jobs

during

he strike were less

likely

to consider

transfernng

back

to them

than

were

those women

who did

not

perform

strike

duty.

That

actual

experience

in

the

plant

environment

dampened

women's

interest

might

be

taken to

support

a values

argument:

Perhaps

women's

exposure

made it clear

to them that the

job

entailed con-

ditions thatwere

incompatible

with their

work values.

To

test this

possibility,

I reestimated he equation,addingin turninteraction erms for strikeduty

and

importance

f

clean

conditions,

strike

duty

and

mportance

f

socializing

on

the

job,

and strike

duty

and

importance

of

working

with

similar

people.

None of the

interactions

was

statistically

ignificant.

The

expenence

of strike




Padavic

/

WOMEN'S

INTEREST

IN BLUE-COLLAR

JOBS

225

duty exposed

these

women

to much

more

thanthe conditions

of the work.

It

also

exposed

them to the

nature of

the tasks themselves, to the perhaps

negative

treatment hat

supervisors

and male

co-workers

may

have

accorded

them,

and

to

some

of the real-life

practicalproblems

hat

blue-collar

obs

can

entail.

Moreover,

the

fact of

working

during

a

strike

may

have

negatively

influenced

women.

Twelve-hourshifts were the

norm,

workers

had

to

cross

picket

lines,

and

many

women

reporteddifficulty

in

administering amily

duties and

working

long

hours.

In

sum,

white-collar

work

values did not affect

UU

women's desire

to

remain in

white-collar

jobs.

Although

UU women

reported

that

working

conditions were important o them,regressionanalysis results showed that

the

thought

of

losing

clean,

sociable,

homogeneous

work

conditions

failed

to

dissuade

women from

considenng

a

switch,

net of other

factors.

This

analysis

suggests

that a

complete

explanation

of women's

relative

absence

in

traditionally

male

blue-collar

obs

must

include

more than

the values

that

tie them

to their

present

obs.

Women's

practical

circumstances,

particularly

the

material

gains

or

losses

they

would

encounter

in

taking

on blue-collar

jobs,

are

the

strongest

determinant

of their

ob

choices.

DISCUSSION

The

preponderance

f

evidence

does

not

support

a

work-values

explana-

tion

for

women's

low

representation

n

traditionally

male

blue-collar

jobs.

Working

conditions

that

women

highly

valued

and that

are

absent in

UU

blue-collar work

played

a

minimal

role in

shaping

women's

interest

in

transfernng

o

blue-collarjobs

when other

factors

were taken

into

consider-

ation.Womenwho mostfavoredtransferringwereBlack, low-incomemoth-

ers with

resident

children,

women

who held

lower-rank

obs,

women who

had

had

experience

in

sex-atypical pursuits

as

girls,

women

who

disliked

their

current

obs,

and

women

who

had no

preference

for

day

work.

These

results

support

contentions

that

women's

material

ituations

most

shape

their

interest n

pursuing

blue-collar

work.

When

value

preferences

are

uxtaposed

with

practical

concerns,

the

importance

of

value

preferences

wanes.

These

results

do not

mean that

work

values

are

unimportant

o

women.

Much

literature

mplies

that

they

are.

Indeed,

nterviews

conducted

with

UU

strike-dutywomen showed that

they

sorely

missed white-collar work attri-

butes

while

they

were

in

blue-collar

obs.

Their

major

complaints

about

such

jobs

concerned

the

conditions of

the

work.

Moreover,

women

who

had

no

interest

n

transferring

o

UU

blue-collar

obs

listed

dirty

conditions and

not




226 GENDER &

SOCIETY

/

June

1992

wanting

to

work in a

plant among

their

reasons.

But multivariate

analysis

shows thatthe importance f workvalues is faroutweighed indeed moved

to

insignificance-by practical

considerations.

To understand

women's

low

representation

n

traditionally

male blue-

collar

jobs,

we

must

go beyond

the

notion

that

unchanging,deep

feminine

values determinesex-traditional

ob

choices.

But

this

recognition

begs

the

question

why

so few

women

are In

traditionally

male

jobs.

If

preference

or

clean conditionsand the

like are

not

deterring

women and

if,

in

fact,

women

in

economically precarious

positions

would

find

the

jobs

desirable,

hen

why

is women's

representation

till

so

low9

Clearly,

explanations

hat

look

only

to women'schoices arenotadequate; o answerthequestion,we must return

to demand-side

explanations.

Despite

Title VII of the

Civil

Rights

Act of

1964 and

subsequent Supreme

Court

decisions,

women

still

face

severe

informal

and institutional

barriers o access to

jobs

nontraditional

or their

sex.

Some

employers'

refusal

to hire

women in an era of lax

government

enforcement;

ex-segregated

recruiting

and

promotion

networks;

esentment

from male

co-workersand

supervisors;

and

seniority,

ob-posting,

and

job-

biddingsystems

that

bypass

women

-

all

block

women's access

to these

jobs.

Moreover,

he

problem

of

juggling parenthood

and shift

work

undoubtedly

constrains

many

women.

Clearly,

the

problem

of

job integration

n

blue-collar

obs

is not a

matter

of

dislodging

women from

obs

to

which

they

are

deeply

committed

by

value

preferences,although

hese

preferences

xist. Rather han

ocusing

on values

and attitudes

that bind women

to these

jobs,

we need

to

acknowledge

the

malleability

of work-relatedattitudes

and direct

efforts

instead

to the

struc-

turalbarrers

that

operate

to

exclude

women.

NOTES

1. Institutionaleconomists

also

have

an interest

dating

from the 1970s

in demand-side

explanations Bergmann

1976,

1986;

Blau

1977, 1984;

Blau and

Jusenlus

1976;

Goldin

1990).

2.

This is

not

to

say

that here

are no effective

interventions

or hesitations

temming

from

work values.

The

Rosle-the-Riveter

ampaign,

for

example,

was

successful

in

changing

wom-

en's attitudes

oward

he

appropriateness

or

women of

taxing

and

dirty

blue-collar

obs.

3. Some

studies

exploring

the

impact

of

gender-role

ocialization ndeed

show that

career

aspirations

are

very

different

for

girls

and

boys

and that men and

women differ in

occupational

values, with men valuing career-relatedoutcomes more than women and women valuing

outcomes

associated

with the social

aspects

of

work

more than

men

(Filer

1985;

Herzog

1982;

Jackson

1989;

Lueptow

1981;

see

Marnn

and

Brnnton

984).

The

literature, owever,

s far

from

unanimous

n

claiming gender

differences

n work values

(deVaus

and

McAllister

1991).

Halle

(1984),

for

example,

noted

the

great

mportance

hatblue-collar

men

place

on

on-the-job

social




Padavic

/

WOMEN'S INTEREST IN

BLUE-COLLAR

JOBS

227

life. Sex differences

thatdo

exist

in

preferences

or

job

attributes

may

simply

reflect

adaptations

workers have made

to the

types

of

jobs

they

hold

(Kalleberg

and

Griffin

1978).

Thus

what

may

appearto be sex differences in preferencesforjob attributesreally reflect sex differences in

occupational placement

(Kanter

1977).

As

Brief, Rose,

and

Aldag

(1977,

646)

noted,

the

work

values

expressed

by

a

file clerk

may

differ from those

expressed

by

an

executive,

but

this would

not warrant

the

assumption

that male

and

female executives

have

different

work

values.

My

question

is not whether

women and men differ in their

preference

for

certain

work

attributes,

but how

Influential

such

preferences

are

in

women's

decision-making

calculus.

Men's

large

presence

in

blue-collar

obs

implicitly

attests to their

not

having

been

deterred rom

taking

them

by

white-collar

work values.

4. Women strike

workers

performed

heir

jobs very ably,

according

to

management,

u-

pervisors,

women's

self-reports,

and

performance

measures,

such as the amount of

electricity

generated.

5.

Strike

duty

was

mandatory

or

all white-collar

workers,

but

the

company

exempted

women who workedat the nuclear

acility,

had

a

physical

imitation,

oroccupiedjobs

considered

critical

for

company operations.

6. Because

the distributionson the variable

comprising

this measure

are

skewed

(away

from

interest

in

a

transfer),

I

tested measures

of the

dependent

variables

in

alternative

ways:

logged,

square

root,

and a factorscore. Results

for

these

representations

id not

departsignifi-

cantly

from those

for the

additive scale.

7.

The

questionnaire

was not

clear about

the

meaning

of similar

people.

Interviewswith

60

women conducted after the

questionnaire

administration

ndicated

that

for some

women,

similar

people

denoted a status

distinction

between

people

who

worked

in

offices

as

opposed

to

factories,

and for

others

similar

people

meant fellow

women. Power

plant

jobs

would

place

a

respondent

n

proximity

to neither.

8. Fifteen thousand

dollars a

year

represents

140

percent

of

the

federal

poverty

evel

for a

family

of four

in

1984.

9. 1 excluded the five

Hispanic respondents

rather han

aggregating

hem with Blacks or

whites.

10.

While

a

desire

for

day

work

could be construedas

a work

value,

it

is more

likely

to

spring

from

practical

concerns.

Lillydahl(1986)

found that

both men and

women disliked

jobs

requiring non-day

work,

although

women

were

somewhat

more

negative

than men. The

child-care constraints

mposed

by

non-day

work are

probably

a

consideration.For

example,

Bloom, Alexander,and Flatt

(1986)

foundthat the rotating-shiftworkrequirementnfluenced

nurses to

quit

their

obs.

11.

A

test

for

difference between means

showed no

significant

difference

between

strike-

duty

and

nonstrike-duty

women

on these variables.

12.

Other variables

(including

education,

age,

and

prior

blue-collar

experience)

were not

significant

and were omitted from the

reported

quation.

13.

The income

interpretation

s

possible

because the

variable that ndicates ow

income is

not a

perfect

measureof

economic

need;

net of the

effect

of

earning

ow

wages,

women

may

be

lacking

in

other

economic

resources-for

example,

a

husband's

or

partner's

ncome,

child-

support payments,

or

income

from

rent. This

is also the

case

in

the

discussion

of

the

variable

denotingchildrenat home.

14.

Havingperformed

he

typically

female tasks of

babysitting

or

taking

home

economics

did not affect

women's interest in

transferring

o

blue-collar

obs,

and

these are omitted from

the

reported

quation.





/

June

1992

REFERENCES

Ber,

Sandra

J.,

and

Daryl

Ber. 1973.

Does sex-biased

job

advertising

aid

and abet sex

discrimination?

ournal

of

Applied

Social

Psychology

3:6-18.

Bergmann,

Barbara.

976.

Reducing

he

pervasiveness

of

discrimination.

nJobsforAmericans,

edited

by

E.

Ginzberg.Englewood

Cliffs,

NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

1986.

The

economic

emergence

of

women.

New York:Basic

Books.

Bielby,

William

T.,

and James

N.

Baron. 1986. Men and

women

at work: Sex

segregation

and

statisticaldiscrmination.AmericanJournal

of

Sociology

91:759-99.

Blau,

Francine.

1977.

Equalpay

in the

office.

Lexington,

MA:

Lexington

Books.

1984.

Occupational egregation

and labor

marketdiscrmination.

In Sex

segregation

in

the

workplace:

Trends,

xplanations,

remedies,

edited

by

BarbaraReshkn.

Washington,

DC:

National

Academy

Press.

Blau,

Francine,

and C.

L.

Jusenlus.

1976.

Economists'

approaches

o sex

segregation

n

the labor

market: An

appraisal.

In

Womenand

the

workplace:

The

implications

of

occupational

segregation,

edited

by

MarthaBlaxall

and Barbara

Reagan.

Chicago:University

of

Chicago

Press.

Bloom,

Joan

R.,

Jeffrey

A.

Alexander,

and

Sylvia

Flatt. 1986. The effect of social

organization

of work on

voluntary

urnover n

hospital

nurses.

Paper

presented

at

the

annual

meeting

of

the American

Sociological

Association,

New York.

Brief,

Arthur

P.,

Gerald

L.

Rose,

and Ramon J.

Aldag.

1977.

Sex

differences

n

preferences

or

job

attributes evisited.

Journal

of

Applied

Psychology

62:645-47.

Bnggs, Norma. 1981. Overcomingbarriersto successful entry and retentionof women in

traditionally

male skilled blue-collar trades

in

Wisconsin.

In

Apprenticeship

research:

Emerging

indings

and

future

trends,

edited

by

VernonM.

Briggs,

Jr.and Felician

Foltman.

Ithaca:

New YorkState School

of IndustrialRelations.

Deaux,

Kay,

and

Joseph

Ullman.

1983.

Women

f

steel: Female

blue-collar workers

n

the basic

steel

mdustry.

New York:

Praeger.

deVaus,

David,

and an

McAllister.1991. Genderand

work orientation:Values

and

satisfaction

in

Western

Europe.

Work

nd

Occupations

18:72-93.

Feldberg,

Rosalyn,

and

Evelyn

Glenn.

1979. Male

and

female:Job versus

gender

and

models

in

the

sociology

of

work. Social

Problems 26:524-38.

Filer,

Randall.1985.

Male-female

wage

differences:

The

importance

f

compensating

differen-

tials. Industrialand

Labor Relations Review 38:426-37.

Goldin,

Claudia.

1990.

Understanding

he

gender

gap.

New York:Oxford

University

Press.

Halle,

David. 1984. America's

working

man.

Chicago:

University

of

Chicago

Press.

Harkess,

Shirley.

1980.

Hiring

women

and

blacks

in

entry-level

manufacturingobs

in

a

southern

city:

Particulansm

and

affirmative

action.

Paper presented

at the annual

meeting

of the

Society

for

the

Study

of Social

Problems,

New

York.

Herzog,

A.

Regula.

1982.

High

school seniors'

occupational

plans

and

values:

Trends in sex

differences 1976

through

1980.

Sociology

of

Education

55:1-13.

Homer,

Matina.

1972.

Towardan

understanding

f

achievement-related

onflicts

in

women.

Journal

ofSocial

Issues 28:157-75.

Jackson,LindaA. 1989. Relative

deprivation

andthe

gender

wage

gap.

Journalof Social Issues

45:117-33.

Jacobs,

Jerry

A. 1989.

Revolving

doors.

Stanford,

CA:

Stanford

University

Press.

Jones,

Jacqueline.

1985.

Labor

of

love,

labor

of

sorrow.

New

York:

Basic

Books.




Padavic

/

WOMEN'S INTEREST IN

BLUE-COLLAR

JOBS

229

Kalleberg,

Arne,

and

Larry

Griffin.

1978.

Positional ources

of

inequity

n

job

satisfaction.Work

and

Occupations

5:371-400.

Kanter,RosabethMoss. 1977. Men and women

of

the

corporation.

New York:Basic Books.

Kessler-Harris,

Alice. 1982.

Out to work.

London:

Oxford

University

Press.

Lillydahl,

Jane.

1986. Women and

traditionally

male

blue-collar

obs.

Work nd

Occupations

13:307-23.

Lueptow,

Lloyd

B. 1981.

Sex-typing

and

change

in the

occupational

choices of

high

school

seniors: 1964-1975.

Sociology

of

Education 54:16-24.

Marnn,

Margaret,

and

Mary

Bnnton. 1984.

Sex

typing

in

occupational

socialization.

In

Sex

segregation

in the

workplace:

Trends,

explanations,

remedies,

edited

by

Barbara

Reskin.

Washington,

DC: National

Academy

Press.

Mcllwee,

Judith.

1982. Work satisfaction

among

women in

nontraditional

ccupations.

Work

and Occupations9:299-335.

Miller,

Joanne.

1980. Individual and

occupational

determinants

of

job

satisfaction.

Workand

Occupations

7:337-66.

Miller, Joanne,

and Howard

H. Garrison.1982. Sex

roles:

The division

of labor at

home

and

in

the

workplace.

Annual Review

of

Sociology

8:237-62.

Mincer,

Jacob,

and

Solomon Polachek.

1974.

Family

investments

n human

capital:

Earnings

of

women. Journal

of

Political

Economy

82:76-108.

Nieva,

Veronica,

and

BarbaraGutek. 1981. Women nd work:

A

psychologicalperspective.

New

York:

Praeger.

O'Farrell,

Brigid,

and

Sharon Harlan. 1984. Job

integration

trategies:

Today's

programs

and

tomorrow'sneeds. In Sex segregation in the workplace:Trends,explanations,remedies,

edited

by

Barbara

Reskin.

Washington,

DC. National

Academy

Press.

Padavic,

Irene.

1991. Attractionsof male

blue-collarjobs

or

Black and

white women:

Economic

need,

exposure,

and attitudes.Social Science

Quarterly

72:33-49.

Penney,

Jennifer.

1983.

Hard earned

wages.

Toronto:Women's

Press.

Reskin,

Barbara

F.,

and Heidi Hartmann.1986. Women

s

work,

men s work:

Sex

segregation

on

the

job.

Washington,

DC. National

Academy

of

Sciences Press.

Reskin,

Barbara

F.,

and

Irene Padavic. 1988.

Supervisors

as

gatekeepers:

Male

supervisors'

response

to

women's

integration

n

plant obs.

Social

Problems 35:536-50.

Rosen,

Ellen. 1987.

Bitter

choices:

Blue-collar

women n and out

of

work.

Chicago: University

of

Chicago

Press.

Rosenfeld,

Rachel. 1984. Job

changing

and

occupational

ex

segregation:

Sex and race

compar-

isons.

In

Sex

segregation

in

the

workplace:

Trends,

xplanations,

remedies,

edited

by

Barbara

Reskin.

Washington,

DC. National

Academy

Press.

Rytina,Nancy

F.,

and

Suzanne

M.

Bianchi. 1984.

Occupational

eclassification

and

changes

in

distribution

by gender.

Monthly

Labor

Review 107:11-17.

Schroedel,

Jean

R. 1985. Alone in

a

crowd:

Women n the trades tell their

stories.

Philadelphia:

Temple

University

Press.

Shaeffer,

Ruth

G.,

and Edith

F.

Lynton.

1979.

Corporate

experiences

n

improving

women'sjob

opportunities.

Conference Board

Report

no. 755.

New

York:ConferenceBoard.

Simmons,

Adele,

Ann

Freedman,

Margaret

Dunkle,

and

Francine

Blau. 1975.

Exploitation

rom

9 to5. Reportof the20thCenturyFundTaskForceon WomenandEmployment.Lexington,

MA:

Lexington

Books.

U.S.

Bureau

of

the Census. 1984. Detailed

occupation

of

the

experienced

civilian labor

force

by

sex

for

the

United

States and

regions:

1980 and

1970.

Washington,

DC:

U.S.

Department

of

Commerce.




230

GENDER

&

SOCIETY

/

June

1992

U.S.

Department

f Labor.

Bureau

of LaborStatistics. 1982. 1981

weeklyearnings of

men and

women

compared

n

100

occupations.

Washington,

DC: Author.

1990.

Employment

nd

earnings.

Washington,

DC. GPO.

U.S.

Department

of

Labor.

Employment

StandardsAdministration.

1981.

Participation

of

females

m

the

construction rades.

Reportpreparedby

Office of Federal

Contract

Compli-

ance

Programs.

Washington,

DC: GPO.

Waite,

Linda

J.,

and Sue E.

Berryman.

1985. Women n

nontraditional

occupations:

Choice and

turnover Santa

Monica,

CA: RAND.

Walshok,

Mary

L.

1981.

Blue-collar

women.Garden

City,

NY:

Anchor Press.

Irene Padavtc is an AssistantProfessorat Florida State University.She receivedher

Ph.D.

from

the

University

of

Michigan

n 1987 and

has

writtenabout sex

segregation

n

blue-collar

jobs, paternalism

as a

form of

labor

control,

and

effects of

economic

re-

structuring

on

women's

occupationalplacement.

www.jstor.org stable pdfplus 10.2307 189663

Documents