Involuntary Part-Time Employment and Worker Well-Being

Introduction

Involuntary part-time (IPT) workers, who prefer to work more hours, are increasing in the United States, partly because of the growth of the service industry and employers’ preference toward flexible employment (Golden, 2016). In addition to economic penalties, working IPT may create a chronic social stress because of an imbalance between the perceived demands for work hours and the capacity to meet these demands (Friedland & Price, 2003). Male IPT workers may experience additional stress because of deviating from the image of ideal male full-time workers. However, limited research has investigated how IPT influences diverse dimensions of worker well-being and how it matters differently by gender. Using data from a nationally representative US survey, this study aims to 1) examine the associations between IPT employment and four key dimensions of subjective worker well-being and 2) explore whether these associations vary between male and female workers.

Methods

The sample consisted of 1,759 employed adults from the 2006 and 2016 US General Social Survey. Worker well-being was measured with four binary variables: workers’ perceived happiness (0= not too happy, 1= pretty happy/very happy), perceived job satisfaction (0= neither/dissatisfied, 1= fairly/completely satisfied], job stress (0= never/hardly ever, 1= sometimes/often/always), and work-family interference (0= never/rarely, 1= sometimes/often/always). I classified respondents into one of three groups of workers: 1) IPT workers, who worked fewer than 35 hours last week and preferred to work more hours, 2) voluntary par-time workers (VPT), who worked fewer than 35 hours and preferred to work the same or fewer hours, and 3) full-time (FT) workers, who worked for 35 hours and more. This group indicator was used as the main independent variable. Logistic regression models were estimated to assess the associations between involuntary part-time employment and the four proposed outcomes. The control variables included demographic characteristics, as well as family income and types of occupation. An interaction analysis of IPT with gender was also conducted. All analyses were adjusted for weights.

Results

Descriptively, the proportion of IPT workers substantially increased from 6.6% to 9.7% over the past decade. Roughly 6% and 10% of male and female respondents, respectively, worked IPT. Those respondents who were not married, reported lower family income, and worked in service, sales, and transportation-related jobs, were more likely to work IPT. Multivariate results indicate that the respondents working IPT reported 64% lower odds of being happy (odds ratio=0.36, p<.05) and 92% higher odds of experiencing work family interference (odds ratio=1.92, p<.05), compared with those working VPT. However, IPT workers reported a lower level of job stress than FT workers. Regarding gender differences, as expected, a reduction in happiness was particularly pronounced for male IPT workers. They also experienced lower job satisfaction than those working VPT.

Implication

The findings suggest that working IPT may have negative consequences on worker’ happiness and work-family interference and that its impacts may differ by gender. I suggest that policies and employment practices promoting voluntary part-time employment and guaranteeing minimum work hours would have potential to improve workers’ well-being.