Paths towards Family‐friendly Working Time Arrangements: Comparing Workplaces in Different Countries and Industries

Abstract

Although studies have examined the distribution and conditions of employer‐provided work–family arrangements, we still lack a systematic investigation of how these vary for different countries and industries. Based on the European Working Conditions Survey 2010, this study examines the conditions under which firms provide family‐friendly working time arrangements and what the differences are across four countries (Austria, Denmark, Italy and the UK) and four industries. The impact of employee representatives, employee involvement, manager support and female managers varies across countries and industries because of the institutional environment (prevailing family model, industrial relations) and workforce composition (gender). The impact of employee representatives depends on their co‐determination rights, and the direction of their effect on the prevailing family model (e.g. negative in conservative countries such as Austria) and the gender composition of the workforce (negative in male‐dominated production, but positive in services). Employee involvement in the work organization is significantly positive in Austria and Denmark (both with co‐operative industrial relations), while manager support has the strongest effect in the UK (liberal regime). At the industry level, female supervisors are positively associated with family‐friendly working time arrangements only in the male‐dominated production industry. These findings suggest that the effects of agency variables and their direction vary depending on the institutional context.

‘Women’s work penalty’ in access to flexible working arrangements across Europe

“…One reason for this is because of rather than the gender dominance of the occupations, occupational levels may be more important in its representation of the skill levels of the job. Previous studies (e.g., Chung, 2017;Wiß, 2016) show that the occupational level of the worker, in relations to high vs low-skilled occupations, is the most important determinant explaining access to flexible working arrangements. Thus, the fact that many of the higher occupational level jobs are equally represented (e.g., (associate) professionals) or female dominated (clerks and service and sales workers), may explain for the contradictory findings in the previous models.…”

Dualization and the access to occupational family‐friendly working‐time arrangements across Europe

“…Empirically, numerous studies show that high-skilled and higher-educated workers are most likely to have access to flexible WTAs (Brescoll, Glass, & Sedlovskaya, 2013;Golden, 2009;Ortega, 2009;Seeleib-Kaiser & Fleckenstein, 2009). Workers in disadvantaged positions-e.g., low wage, low-skilled, lower educated-are least likely to have such access (e.g., Chung, 2017a;Golden, 2009;Swanberg et al, 2005;Wiß, 2017). Similarly, those with fixed-term contracts have also been shown to have less access to flexible WTAs (Präg & Mills, 2014), although other studies say there are no significant differences (Chung, 2017a).…”

A Comparison of the Interplay of Public and Occupational Work‒Family Policies in Austria, Denmark, Italy and the United Kingdom

“…In the business case, family-friendly policies reduce absenteeism, turnover and productivity thanks to higher satisfaction (Oswald et al 2009;Den Dulk et al 2012) and improve the attractiveness of a company and the retention of employees (Evans 2002;Wood et al 2003;Budd and Mumford 2004;Fleckenstein and Seeleib-Kaiser 2011). The skill composition of the workforce is a further factor as employers provide work-family arrangements more often to high-skilled than to low-skilled employees Public and Occupational Work-Family Policies 3 (Fleckenstein and Seeleib-Kaiser 2011;Wiß 2017). In terms of agency, employee representatives and trade unions can also have an impact on employer-provided work-family policies (Wood et al 2003;Budd and Mumford 2004;Fleckenstein and Seeleib-Kaiser 2011;Ravenswood and Markey 2011).…”

“…Despite a large number of publications that focus on the description and explanation of occupational work-family policy (e.g. Wood et al 2003;Budd and Mumford 2004;Appelbaum et al 2006;Heywood and Jirjahn 2009;Ravenswood and Markey 2011;Wiß 2017), only a few look at the overall public-private mix. Adding to the literature, we are interested in what the interplay between the state and firm level looks like and whether we detect crowdingout or crowding-in effects (similar to Chung 2019).…”