Research That Matters (January 17 - 20, 2008)

Purpose. Until recently, the needs of low-wage workers for job flexibility have been neglected in research and practice. This is changing as researchers document both the necessity for and possibilities of implementing flexibility in lower-level jobs. The first efforts to extend flexibility to low-wage jobs have focused on offering the same set of flexibility options available to many professional and managerial workers to lower-level workers. These efforts seek to “loosen up” rigid scheduling practices by, for example, offering workers compressed work weeks, flexible starting and ending times, and job sharing. Because job requirements can be very different in low-wage jobs, current flexibility options may not be readily applicable – and may even have unintended consequences. The research reported here investigates how asserting control over the timing of work hours can result in an earnings penalty for workers in some low-wage jobs and suggests new strategies for implementing job flexibility in ways that protect workers' earnings. Methods. The study employed comparative organizational analysis that combined multiple sources of data (administrative, interview, observational) to examine variations in employer policies and practices across jobs, workplaces, and industries.* Data were gathered (1999-2004) on 88 lower-skilled jobs in 22 Chicago-area corporations in 4 industries (hospitality, transportation, retail, and financial services). Workplaces were selected that house large numbers of low-wage jobs; within each, four lower-skilled jobs were chosen that vary on perceived importance to firm profitability. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with human resource staff and frontline managers to gather detailed information on the employer practices investigated (e.g., benefits, wages, job ladders, turnover, and scheduling practices). Data also come from firm records and observations of jobs. Analyses follow Yin's (2002) comparative case-study approach for systematically assessing patterns across organizational levels and sites. Results. Rather than being rigid, many of the low-wage jobs studied required employees to work fluctuating and unpredictable hours, suggesting that strategies other than those designed to loosen up scheduling practices may be needed to improve these jobs. Because hourly workers were not guaranteed a minimum number of hours, asserting control over the timing of work often had the unintended consequence of reducing overall work hours. For example, retailers permitted sales associates to declare the times they were available and unavailable for work. Although employers ensured that workers would not be scheduled for work during unavailable times, employers did not necessarily schedule workers for work during available times. In practice, workers with “limited availability” were often scheduled for few hours. In all the industries studied, workers faced similar trade-offs between working enough hours and working preferred hours. Implications. Given that hourly workers are often low-income and support themselves and their families “paycheck-to-paycheck,” flexibility options that reduce hours raise serious concerns. New avenues will be discussed for achieving the goals of flexibility in ways that minimize the risk of reduced earnings (e.g., posting schedules further in advance; cross-training workers so that they can get additional hours during preferred times). * Funded by the Ford Foundation (Susan Lambert and Evelyn Brodkin, co-Principal Investigators).