Unions' Responses to Family Concerns

Gerstel, Naomi; Clawson, Dan

doi:10.1525/sp.2001.48.2.277

Cited by 47 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 21 publications

(18 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus it comes as no surprise to learn that union workers generally have less schedule flexibility than nonunion workers. Research suggests that union workers' perceived inaccessibility of work-family benefits, such as flexible work arrangements, may be partially explained by the work process associated with union jobs, organizational culture factors, and labor union cultures and preferences (Feldman, 1987;Firestein, 2000;Gerstel & Clawson, 2001;Hartmann, 1976). Hartmann (1976) and Feldman (1987) argued that the broad cultural systems within unions, including men's patriarchal beliefs, have historically prevented unions from embracing family policies (Gerstel & Clawson, 2001).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Question of Justice

Swanberg

Pitt‐Catsouphes

Drescher-Burke

2005

Journal of Family Issues

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Within an organizational justice framework, this article investigates which group of employees are less likely to have access to flexible schedule options. Using data from the 1997 National Study of the Changing Workforce, logistical regressions were conducted to identify the employee, job, and workplace factors associated with limited access to four flexible work schedules: modifying standard starting and ending times, daily flex-time, taking time off for personal or family time, and control over work hours. Analyses imply that workers who are less privileged report reduced access to a range of flexible schedule options. Lower wages, low education levels, and hourly work were factors associated with having less access to four, three, or two of the flexible work schedules, respectively. Implications and further directions for research are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Question of Justice

Swanberg

Pitt‐Catsouphes

Drescher-Burke

2005

Journal of Family Issues

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Unions represent a diverse set of workers across a variety of industries and occupations, including production workers, a wide variety of service workers, and professionals in the private and public sectors (Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS] 2012). A study focused on the role of unions across multiple industries and occupations contributes to expanding the work-life literature beyond affluent professionals, and provides the opportunity to determine the impact of worker representation on individual access to and use of work-life flexibility practices (Grundy, Bell, and Firestein 2000;Gerstel and Clawson 2001).…”

Section: Literature Review and Theoretical Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Work-Life Flexibility Policies: Do Unions Affect Employee Access and Use?

Berg¹,

Kossek

Misra

et al. 2014

ILR Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors examine the influence of individual and collective voice mechanisms on employee access to and use of six work-life flexibility practices. Their multilevel analyses are based on an original survey of 897 workers nested in departments across eight unionized establishments in the United States. Collective voice measures include the effectiveness of union pay benefits and union schedule support at the individual and union (group) levels. The authors' analyses indicate that when unions are perceived to effectively support workers' schedule needs, individual access to flextime, gradual return to work, and a compressed workweek is higher. By contrast, when unions are perceived to effectively negotiate higher wages and benefits and enforce the collective agreement, individual access to flextime and a compressed workweek is lower. Collective voice measures are also significantly related to the use of a number of worklife flexibility practices. These findings suggest that union behavior can have a significant and varied influence on access to and use of work-life flexibility practices. W ith the rise of female labor force participation, the increase in dual earner couples, and the growing work and family conflict among men, a large number of U.S. employees would like more access to work-life flexibility practices, such as flextime, voluntary telework, and leave for family and personal needs (Tang and MacDermid 2010). Access to and use of these practices in U.S. workplaces, however, are often driven by managerial discretion and employer control, especially for working-class jobs (e.g., police, secretarial, and industrial workers) (Kelly and Kalev 2006). Given this situation, greater understanding is needed of the role of labor unions as a form

show abstract

“…Both employment needs and care needs can be met. ' Trade unions are seldom studied as playing an important role in fathers' (or mothers') workÁfamily integration (Gerstel & Clawson, 2001). Several reasons have been offered for this.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Historically, men's lives have centered on jobs and wage-earning, and it has been assumed that they have someone at home to take care of their needs and those of other family members. Consequently, unions traditionally served men members by winning job security and wage increases, enhancing their role as family breadwinners (Bailyn, Drago, & Kochan, 2002;Cook, Lorwin, & Daniels, 1992;Franzway, 1997;Gerstel & Clawson, 2001;Thomson & Pocock, 1997).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While most industrialized nations have legislation that offers parental leave, Gerstel and Clawson (2001) point out that legislated workÁfamily benefits are often weak, so union contracts are often needed to enhance benefits. Unions in at least 20 industrialized nations, including the UK and USA, have negotiated contracts and lobbied for changes in legislation to provide longer or better-compensated parental leave (Baird, 2005;Bardoel, Moss, Smyrnios, & Tharenous, 1999;Budd & Mumford, 2004;Demetriades, Meixner, & Barry, 2006;Grundy & Firestein, 1997;Lammi-Taskula & Takala, 2009;Math & Meilland, 2004).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation