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

Abstract

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

The Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility on Gender Diversity in the Workplace: Econometric Evidence from Japan

“…Despite the paucity of rigorous evidence on the impact of WLB practices in Japan on the advancement of women in the labor market, there is a growing body of evidence in other industrialized nations — for instance, Arthur and Cook (), Baxter and Chesters (), Berg et al. (), Bloom et al. (), Budd and Mumford (), and Gupta et al.…”

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

“…Employee representatives in the production industry may give priority to traditional bargaining areas such as wages, and be insensitive to ‘female’ areas such as gender and family issues (Berg et al . ) as they act on behalf of mainly male employees. In contrast, in the public and private services where there are more female employees, their representatives defend parents' interests.…”

“…Actors and their interests and choices also influence work–family policies. Employees, their representatives, and trade unions can influence the introduction and provision of workplace family policies in bargaining agreements (Berg et al ; Seeleib‐Kaiser and Fleckenstein ). Therefore, we can expect more family‐friendly workplace policies in firms and industries with strong trade unions or where employee representatives are able to negotiate favourable conditions for employees (Budd and Mumford ; Fleckenstein and Seeleib‐Kaiser ; Gregory and Milner ; Ravenswood and Markey ) (Hypothesis 3a).…”

The skill profile of the employees and the provision of flexible working hours in the workplace: a multilevel analysis across European countries

“…Furthermore, the relationship between the skill profile of the employees and the availability of FWH in the workplace has been assessed only superficially in terms of the broader national context. Economic, social and cultural factors at national level may have an impact on employers' and employees' preferences, expectations and relative bargaining power over the working schedule (Anttila et al ., ; Berg et al ., , ; Tijdens, ). These factors also contribute to shape human resource management policies and practices and create more or less favourable conditions for workplace work–life initiatives (Kossek and Ollier‐Malaterre, ; Ollier‐Malaterre et al ., ).…”

“…Industrial relations surely matter: trade unions and employers engage in a strategic interaction, the outcomes of which depend on their relative bargaining power, the nature of the relationship, the degree of coordination and strategies and rationales of behaviour, but also on the presence of specific and complementary institutions (Hall and Soskice, 2001;Ozaki, 1999;Visser, 2009). Nonetheless, industrial relations are seldom the focus of research investigating organisational adoption of FWH and, more generally, of working time flexibility (Ollier-Malaterre and Foucreault, 2017; notable exceptions are Berg et al, 2014a;Gunnigle et al, 1998;Lyness et al, 2012). In addition, previous studies assessing the influence of industrial relations on the levels of FWH in workplaces examined a limited number of countries (e.g.…”