Introduction

In the wake of the shocking adolescent killing spree in a Colorado public high school, both President Clinton and Vice President Gore alluded to the necessity of finding a better work-family balance as one of the lessons of Littleton. At a recent "Third Way" conference in Washington, President Clinton named the issue as one of the three current "Third Way challenges" facing the United States, going on at some length about the necessity of more flexible work arrangements in order for workers to spend more time on family matters. "Work-family balance is on our minds a lot now," Clinton concluded, referring to the Littleton tragedy.

The issue of work-family balance—and the need that working parents have to devote adequate time to family obligations—seems to be cropping up with increasing frequency of late in our public discussions. Once regarded as too controversial a topic to broach, it is now receiving the attention of everyone from academics and pundits to politicians running for office. Perhaps this is because surveys indicate that working Americans are finding it increasingly difficult to devote an adequate amount of time to family matters: one 1993 Families and Work Institute study found that 66 percent of the adults surveyed wanted more time with their children.

Working mothers in particular seem dissatisfied with their work arrangements: according to a 1997 Pew Research Center poll of mothers employed full time, 25 percent would prefer to stay home with their children if it were possible, and another 44 percent wanted to work part time rather than full time. Even with the controverted and contradictory findings of social scientists in the matter of the detrimental effects of parental absence on children, there is a striking, almost intuitive recognition on the part of most Americans that work-family balance is a question that we have yet to resolve adequately as a society—or as individuals. And surprisingly, there seems to be growing agreement across ideological lines regarding one aspect of the problem: "family-friendly" corporate policies.

Public policy proposals addressing the problem of work-family balance range, as one might expect, all over the map: some advocate giving parents more tax relief so that they can stay at home to raise their own children should they so choose; others demand greater workplace flexibility so that parents can fulfill both professional and family obligations with greater ease. In the corporate world, "family-friendly" policies in the workplace are becoming ever more popular with American companies who recognize both the popular demand and the cost-saving benefits of such measures.

But as David Blankenhorn of the Institute for American Values pointed out at the "American Labor and the New Economy" conference in January, corporate "family-friendly" policies are far from uniform in their design or in their effects; some seem to allow workers greater freedom and flexibility for family needs while others seem put a priority on keeping workers on the job and productive so that family obligations don't interfere with work. The first category of policies he labels "family-friendly," while the latter, he contends, are in reality only "employer-friendly."

David Blankenhorn's presentation provoked such an interesting discussion on the part of the conference participants (including Morton Bahr, president of the Communication Workers of America and Herb Magidson, Vice President of the American Federation of Teachers) that we thought we would ask some family policy experts for their take on the issue. The striking thing about the comments we elicited is that despite their divergent philosophical vantage points, there is a surprising convergence of opinion with regard to Blankenhorn's main point—that corporations often have their own interests at heart rather than those of the worker in devising "family-friendly" policies. There is also general agreement that an important goal of both public policy and union-management collective bargaining should be to give parents more opportunity to spend more time with their families if they so choose. Where the respondents differ is on the question of whether this choice is the right choice. Some would say it's a matter of personal preference, while others would argue that—for the sake of the children and the society they will soon inherit—increased family time is a moral imperative.

Netsy Firestein, Director of the Labor Project for Working Families

I was greatly heartened by David Blankenhorn's comments on the trend to provide family-friendly benefits which allow workers to spend more time at work and away from families. We have seen this trend in unionized workplaces with 24 hour child care centers, paying for sick child care programs, etc. I agree with most of the comments that a number of things are important in public policy and in union bargaining:

1. People need choices. Some workers need help with paying for child care, and child care offered during the hours that they work. While some want more control over their work hours - flextime, no mandatory overtime, job sharing, part time work with benefits or compressed work weeks.

2. We need to constantly raise these questions that Blankenhorn asked and make them explicit: Do these policies allow workers to spend more time with families or are they forcing workers to spend more and unwanted time at work. Do we want to policies for sick child care centers or do we want paid time off when our children are sick? Do we want more infant child care or do we want paid parental leave? Do we want a visiting service to provide care for our elders or do we want paid time off for family leave?

Employers have in fact driven these conversations and the trend is to say what is good for workers is good for business. Unions can advocate and bargain for policies that are good for families, and good for children. Paid parental and family leave (which most other industrialized countries have) may be necessary for children bonding with parents, and to deal with family crises. It may not help the employers' bottom line, but it does have value for families. Unions have always been, and continue to be, at the forefront of advocating for workers and their families. On these issues, it has meant bargaining for paid family leave, child care, flexible hours and other family friendly policies.

Patrick Fagan, Senior Fellow in Family and Cultural Issues, The Heritage Foundation

In public policy wisdom is the ultimate virtue. There is a difference between the bottom line goals of a competitive market driven organization and the overall good of society. Blankenhorn is much closer to the wise position, than many of the respondents, though some of them also track in the right direction.

Good public policy balances competing goods. Wise balancing does not mean splitting the resources equally but does mean giving due weight to issues in terms relative to their importance for the good of society. The problem is that too many, though not all by any means, Americans have become radical materialists and are prepared to sacrifice the good of their children for their own short term gratification (in goodies, sense of accomplishment, or any one of myriad potential needs, objective or subjective).

Children are the next nation. Their strength or weakness is already the future strength or weakness of the country. Children need lots of time and attention to know that they are loved. That is where the future strength comes from. Our present needs as a nation are not material: those we have in abundance by all historical measures, and no matter what we have we could all do with at least 10% more. Our needs are relational. There we are the poorest nation on earth by almost all social science measures. The contrast is stark. The very fact that this issue needs debating is itself an indication of the disorder deep within our nation.

There is a tradeoff between time and money. We have decided to give our children money (or material goods) when what they need is our time. Ultimately this is not a labor question, or an economic question . . . it is a cultural question. What sort of a nation are we and what sort of nation do we want to become. We answer it in the way we treat our children.

James A. Levine, Ed.D., Director, The Fatherhood Project, Families and Work Institute, NYC

As always, David Blankenhorn is eloquent and provocative, but his classification of two sets of policies -- pro-parent vs. pro-worker -- risks oversimplifying both work and family life, and obscuring the needs of families that I know he cares so much about. Defining one broad set of policies as pro-parent and the other as pro-employer is a useful rhetorical device for highlighting a persisting tension in both corporate and public policy. But I disagree with the premise that work and family life can be understood as a zero sum game, that "less of one thing means more of another." Children in day care don't get "less" parenting; they get a different type of parenting and, in many cases, better parenting from adults who pass on a sense of self-esteem because of the work they do outside the home. Parents using flexible working hours or working at home don't give less to their employers and more to their children; they are often able to give more focused attention to both. Indeed, our research suggests that the ability to choose -- from a range of family supports -- is what most parents want and what works best for most families. That's why I agree with the point David has made elsewhere that American social policy should provide equal financial incentives for parents who want to use out-of-home day care and those who want to stay at home with their children. That perspective would also make it possible for parents with a mildly sick child to use a "Chicken Soup" day care arrangement or to stay at home feeding their kids the soup -- without having to lie and say that they themselves were sick.

Maggie Gallagher, Affiliate Scholar, Institute for American Values, author of The Abolition of Marriage

President Clinton, to his credit, transformed the family debate in this country by blurting out a simple truth: Kids do better when raised by their own two married parents. Neither political party can now claim the "family vote" on the basis of values alone. Now the question is: what have the parties to offer families?

Let the competition begin.

David Blankenhorn takes the debate step further by asking progressives to question the conventional wisdom: "what's good for corporations is necessarily good for families." Working mothers today say they want more time, not more day care, for their kids. There is an opportunity for breaking through old boundaries, and creating new intellectual and political coalitions, to help them achieve that goal.

David Wagner, Professor of Law, Regent University

As I wrote for Family Research Council back in 1996: while Focus on the Family uses the slogan "turning hearts towards home," American business seems increasingly to be "turning hearts towards the office." Businesses are preening themselves on their "family-friendly" policies, when in fact the policies they are most interested in are those that maximize employees' time-commitment to the workplace, not to the family. In general there is nothing wrong with businesses behaving in a self-interested fashion, but it is a little obnoxious when they act to minimize parenting time and maximize work-time in their employees' lives -- and then demand recognition for being "family-friendly."

Since true family-friendliness is not in business's interest, at least not in the short or medium run, change will come only if it is demanded by employees who are parents. In theory the labor unions could be a help here, but as indicated by the participant from the Communications Workers of America, many union leaders are just as wedded to the two-income model of family life as is business. Who will sound the call that the two-parent, single-income family is goal of social justice?

Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, Co-Director, The National Marriage Project, Rutgers University

Two points on the discussion of work-family policy: First, the discussion of work and family in America has been driven by upscale well-educated professionals and managers, male and female. However, this relatively powerful minority of the nation's workforce is linked to a relatively small percentage of the nation's children. If you want to enhance the lives of the vast majority of the nation's children, you must do it by influencing the workplace practices that affect the nonsupervisory majority of the workforce. Obviously, this is where unions can contribute to the well-being of children and their working parents.

Secondly, both children and employers are competing for shares of parents' time, and the employers have a great competitive advantage. They can offer tangible rewards and benefits whereas children can offer only intangible nonmarket rewards, such as a smile, a new word or the mastery of a skill like catching and hitting a ball. (If you fail to show up for work on time, you might face stiff penalties and sanctions. If you show up late for a school play, you don't suffer economic penalty.) Fortunately, a lot of workers want to give up some of the tangible rewards of work to get the intangible rewards of doing a good job raising children. However, many won't be able to achieve this trade-off without an organized voice to represent their interests as working parents. So unions have a great opportunity here.

Professor Stephanie Coontz, Evergreen State College, author of The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap

I have often been on the opposite side of debates with David Blankenhorn. In my view, much of his writing romanticizes the male breadwinner role and comes perilously close to blaming problems of child well-being on changes in gender roles. I have also disputed his suggestion that divorce and unwed motherhood outweigh class and race in their impact on inequality in America. (Along those lines, and in light of the "poor mouthing" that regularly goes on when workers demand their share of the value we create, let me note the latest figures on CEO compensation: The average CEO of a Fortune 500 company now makes 419 times as much as the average worker.)

In this case, however, I whole-heartedly agree with much of what David has to say. We need to resist the colonization of our lives by new workplace technologies and techniques, reviving traditional labor demands for the right to a life outside of work. I also agree that much of what passes for family-friendly policy in corporate America is an attempt to circumvent workers' just demands for flexibility and time off, in order to impose speed-ups and increase profitability. I totally agree, for example, that "sick-child" care is on the whole a poor substitute for adequate health benefits and sick leave. I would add to David's critique that many of the most innovative and potentially helpful work-life initiatives are all too often restricted to the most highly-paid workers: We need to win both union contracts and a larger social contract that guarantees these benefits for all workers. Legislation mandating paid parental leave is a must, for example, or else this important family benefit is effectively denied to those who may need it the most.

But I also welcome Morton Bahr's reminder that the days of Ozzie and Harriet families are gone for good. Women, including mothers of young children, are in the work force to stay, and decreasing numbers are either willing or able to interrupt their work for several years at a time. This ties in with Herb Magidson's point about responding to the needs of all workers. Women need equal pay for equal work as well as family-friendly reforms. Parents need the right to high-quality day care, after-school care, and enriching summer activities for their children as well as access to flextime, personal days off for caregiving, and job sharing opportunities.

Parents with children are not just another "special interest": Everyone has a stake in giving kids the best opportunities, if only because they are the ones who will be contributing to our social security pensions. But parents are not the only people who need work-life initiatives. One in four workers is currently giving 11 hours or more unpaid care per week to an aging relative, and these numbers are likely to soar in the next few decades. Even workers without caregiving responsibilities need time to forge the social ties and participate in the civic activities that have increasingly been crowded out by work and by the hollow substitutes for community life offered us by the marketplace.

At the turn of the last century, unions spearheaded a factory reform movement designed to save lives. That work is still incomplete, but at the turn of this century finding time for life is an equally important health and safety issue. And it is a struggle that can only be won through organization and action. Telling women to quit their jobs or cut back in order to solve the crisis of caregiving is like telling workers in dangerous industries to give up their jobs if they want to maintain their health. Some individuals may choose to do so, and we should support an expansion of their options, but workers shouldn't have to choose between family and work, safety and decent pay. We can get a win-win situation with work and family, but only if we organize, organize.