Family-Friendly or Employer-Friendly - David Blankenhorn

Clinton, Bush Seek to Help Working Parents, But Not Those Who Stay At Home - Brian Robertson

Increasingly, labor unions are finding that more time for family and children ranks as one of the top concerns for members who are working parents. With the number of employed mothers at an all-time high and rising concern about the "parental-time deficit" and its effects on children—particularly in their early years of development—union negotiators and strategists are beginning to pay more attention to work-family issues in their negotiating agenda.

But what employer "family-friendly" policies are favored by the rank and file, and which policies are being emphasized in collective bargaining negotiations? Are there any notable trends in what the unions are doing on this issue?

In a January 1999 presentation to the League for Industrial Democracy, Institute for American Values' President David Blankenhorn pointed out that "from a child's point of view, what we have today is not one cluster of policies called 'work-family' that share essential traits, but rather two clusters of policies—two separate kettles of fish—that in fact are quite different and in some ways opposite from each other in their design, effect, and impact." Blankenhorn argues that one set of so-called "family-friendly" policies—such as commercial or paid child care support in all of its various forms, direct and indirect—are actually "designed to free up parents to spend more time as workers" and hence work primarily in the interests of employers rather than families. Yet it is precisely these types of "work-family" policies, he maintains, that both corporate managers and public policy makers vastly prefer over allowing employees more schedule flexibility to take care of family obligations, what Blankenhorn terms "freeing up workers to spend more time as parents." Because employers and politicians are often more interested in the bottom line—either in the form of less absenteeism or more tax revenues—they favor "family-friendly solutions that keep the employee at the office, even if this means subsidizing non-parental care of the kids.

But what about the preferences of working parents themselves? Is subsidized child care high on their list of work-family policy priorities? A recent nationwide survey by Parents magazine and the I Am Your Child Foundation would argue otherwise.

Eighty-two percent of parents polled believe raising children is tougher now than ever before, and seventy-two percent of parents said they would rather stay home and raise their children than work, if money were not an issue.

Parents set a high bar for the amount of time they want to spend with their children—at least five hours a day. Unfortunately, only one-half of all parents surveyed (52 percent) report spending that much time with their children. Twenty-nine percent spend three to five hours a day with them, and 18 percent spend less than three hours.

Among working parents, two-thirds of fathers (66 percent) and one-half of mothers (51 percent) are unhappy with the amount of time they dedicate to their children.

Even among those families in which the wives are currently working, there is strong evidence that they vastly prefer higher wages and alternative work schedules to subsidization of non-parental child care as a solution to work-family stress. The Working Women's Department of the AFL-CIO released a survey in March which substantiated this; one of the study's major findings was that 46 percent of women who are either married or living with someone work a different schedule than their partner, and the percentage is significantly higher (51 percent) for married women with children under eighteen (the department did not give statistics for married women with children under six).

The vast majority of this group, according to the survey, chose these separate shift or alternate hours arrangements to accommodate the needs of work and family, which seems to confirm the preference of working parents for avoiding commercial day care if possible. Karen Nussbaum, director of the Working Women's department of AFL-CIO noted that the pressures of the new economy are also a contributing factor. "One of the reasons for work-family pressures is that women are having to work full and crazy schedules just to keep up with today's instant economy," she commented. "Many women have had to kiss 9 to 5 goodbye." It is clear from the responses, however, that a larger factor in this trend is the desire of couples to take care of obligations at home by staggering their work hours.

When asked about their legislative priorities, the respondents to the poll rated strengthening equal pay laws, making quality health care more affordable, expanding family and medical leave, and improving retirement security as their top four choices. Far down the list was "improving child care," not specifically defined as improving employer-provided child care benefits (which only 26 percent of respondents say are available at their place of work).

A recent report by the Foundation for Child Development makes it clear that child care is simply not a top issue for union members. "The rank-and-file have not voiced a mandate for child care advocacy as a foremost issue. For example, in a survey conducted by the Working Women's Department of the AFL-CIO, equal pay and health care ranked above child care as the most important issues. Karen Nussbaum, director of the department, concludes that women are more likely to demand wage increases and use the money to pay for care themselves. . . . 'Child care can be a tough sell,' Nussbaum said, but some labor leaders believe it can be an excellent issue for organizing."

One way that advocates of corporate-subsidized care have dealt with this lack of enthusiasm on the part of the rank and file for new child care programs has been to re-define child care as broadly as possible so as to convince more members that it should be a priority for collective bargaining. According to the Foundation for Child Development report,

Many of the [labor] leaders interviewed hammered home the point that child care must be defined broadly to win the support of as wide a constituency as possible. Rather than viewing child care as only important for birth mothers of preschool-age children, unions need to look at child care as more broadly useful for working people and as part of a package of family supports. Child care is important for all fathers, mothers, grandparents, and others caring for children of any age. . . . Union surveys of members' needs often find that members identify child care as a low priority. A broader understanding of child care as an issue that matters for both men and women and for parents and guardians of children from infancy to adolescence might produce different results. In several interviews, union leaders emphasized that child care should be defined broadly when asking members about their needs.

Have these consciousness-raising efforts on the part of child care advocates had any effect on union strategy or corporate policy on the child care issue?

The Foundation for Child Development reports that, "some 1.6 million workers are covered by some type of child care benefits through their union contracts, according to a 1998 study." As far as specific unions go, the report refers to "a 1998 survey of agreements negotiated by the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) covering 70% of the union's 1.3 million members, found that 648,000 employees were covered." Recent agreements negotiated between the United Auto Workers and the "Big Three" companies—the Ford Motor Company, General Motors, and DaimlerChrysler—contain extensive child care provisions, covering 397,000 employees.

An NEIS survey of major unions to determine the trends in collective bargaining on the work-family issue confirms the shift towards child care programs—although the overwhelming number of work-family provisions in agreements reached still have to do with flexible scheduling, time off, and family leave.

Communications Workers of America

The Communications Workers of America (CWA), has faced an increase in recent years in the imposition of mandatory overtime on its members, particularly by Bell Atlantic. According to Debbie Goldman, Research Economist at CWA, for many corporations the economics of the new economy has meant the "unraveling" of "the 'work and family' bargain of the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act (and of most union contracts)—that overtime pay after 40 hours would serve as an economic disincentive to substitute overtime for hiring additional workers."

Many of CWA's recent collective bargaining agreements have, by necessity, been directed towards limiting mandatory overtime, which is arguably the first priority on the agenda to achieve a more equitable balance between work and family obligations. CWA President Morton Bahr has said that by "the 1998 round of bargaining, the issue became serious. In the two-week strike at US West, for example, one of the major issues was mandatory overtime. Now, during the life of the new contract with US West—and it is one of the best in the telecommunications industry—mandatory overtime will be reduced each year until it gets down to 8 hours a week."

At the same time, CWA has made greater flexibility in work schedules, new family care benefits, provision of paid leave, and expanded financial support for family benefits key bargaining goals in negotiations—often with the very same companies. Flexible work schedule arrangements that CWA has negotiated include four-day work weeks, flexible arrival and departure hours, and continuous operations rotating three and four day work weeks. In addition, CWA has negotiated part-time return to work after birth or adoption for 12 months at Bell Atlantic North, for six months at AT&T, and for three months at Ameritech. These part-time return to work provisions are especially notable in light of the above-mentioned surveys indicating an increasing demand for significant child care time on the part of working parents. Job sharing and reduced work schedules have also been included in a limited number of agreements, but these policies are less popular with both employers and employees, according to union negotiators we talked to, due to the fact that they often impose extra work burdens on co-workers without significant increases in time available for family.

On the child care front, CWA successfully negotiated for on-site care in a 1989-1990 contract with AT&T. The union has since negotiated a watershed agreement in 1998 with Bell Atlantic North which provided $3 million for a family care fund which can be used either for direct subsidy to employees for assistance with child or elder care expenses or for new work/family programs. One recent example of how this fund is used was an on-site care program for school-age children on school holidays and vacations. At Bell Atlantic North, the cost of the on-site holiday program is shared; local management pays half, the other half comes from the joint Dependent Care Fund. Similar child care programs have been negotiated in other contracts; the CWA Bell Atlantic South Family Care Fund currently supports an on-site holiday care program "Kids in the Workplace" for employees' children at 45 work locations. Although CWA has pushed for paid "new child leave" in contract negotiations, they have yet to reach an agreement containing this provision, perhaps in view of the recent executive order allowing states to use federal unemployment insurance funds for paid parental leave.

United Steel Workers of America

The national office of USWA tells us that family-friendly policies are high on their negotiating agenda: "We support any type of negotiated "family-friendly" policy that would better serve and meet the needs of workers in their attempt to balance work and family responsibilities; including paid childcare support in all its various forms, direct or indirect; and paid and expanded family leave policies as a way of freeing up parents to spend more time with their children." As an example of the latter, USWA points to a contract provision negotiated by Local 12075 with Dow Chemical allowing for up to 24 weeks of unpaid family leave for full-time employees who had worked at least 1,000 hours during the previous year. The leave may be taken by parents of newborn or newly adopted children or by employees who need to take care of seriously ill family members including natural, adopted, or stepchildren, spouses or an employee's or spouse's parents.

The membership of USWA faces work-family balance problems of a different nature than new economy technical or office workers, due in part to the fact that their members comprise a different demographic group. In response to our questionnaire, USWA representatives answered that

members that we represent in the basic industries, miscellaneous manufacturing and services have the difficulty of balancing work and family. In traditional industries like basic steel there is a general middle-aged workforce, many members are faced with caring for elderly parents and grandchildren." As more senior workers retire, younger workers are hired. Most of the newer workers are in two-wage earner households or are single parents. They are concerned about affordable, accessible, quality childcare and hours or days off to attend to their children's medical appointments or school activities without fear of discipline for absenteeism or losing their jobs. Workers having to choose between work and family have increased stress on the job. For women workers, lack of accessible, affordable childcare and the time to care for sick or elderly relatives is a particular barrier.

As with the CWA, overtime is a major issue for USWA, who make it clear that "the reduction of overtime is one of our foremost objectives," as a means of "building a world where workers have the time to be with their children, spouses, other loved ones and friends." With this aim, the USWA "strives to negotiate provisions that dramatically limit forced overtime, reduce its overall level in our workplace, and mandate the hiring of new employees." They proceed to give an interesting example of creative approaches to overtime pressures

We have recently addressed this issue in the pension benefits realm by changing the structure of the formula for the defined benefit plans. At US Steel and Bethlehem Steel, for instance, the USWA has both a Multiplier Pension Formula and a Percent Pension Formula in the contracts. This past summer, the Multiplier Pension Formula was raised significantly to address the issue of overtime. Workers were putting in massive overtime hours in order to receive the higher Percent Pension, based on the best five out of last ten years' wages. Since overtime is included in this formula, it is to the worker's benefit to try to get these increased wages because of the effect that it had on his or her pension. However, the higher Multiplier Formula has eliminated this incentive for most workers—they do not have to work these longer hours in order to secure a higher pension for a secure retirement.

Like most of the other unions we talked to, USWA seems to be moving slowly in the direction of more emphasis on corporate-subsidized day care for children, as well as official support for pending legislation that would boost federal and state subsidies to child care: " We also support the enactment of national universal quality child care legislation and child care and family responsibility programs on the federal and state level." While they take no official position on tax code reforms that would make it easier for parents who wish to take care of their own children at home to avail themselves of existing deductions, USWA is supportive in principle of such policies.

Service Employees International Union

Debbie Schneider of "9 to 5," the working women's organization associated with SEIU, reports that her group is spending considerably less time and energy in recent months on work and family issues, due to the prevalent attitude on the part of members that they are more interested in negotiating for pay increases than they are in new work-family benefits. She says that getting members to become active on the issue of increasing corporate-sponsored child care programs is particularly difficult, given the fact that most parents feel that the little time they have is better spent attending to family obligations than in attending union activities; the general feeling among workers is that if they are able to negotiate higher pay, they can take care of their child care arrangements themselves. Nevertheless, SEIU has negotiated a number of work-family provisions with state and local governments in recent years, including a telecommuting arrangement with Los Angeles County, a voluntary reduced time agreement with Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties, a time off for parent-teacher conference provision with the San Francisco school district, and a sick and emergency child care service with Alemeda County.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Bob Roberts, International Representative at the IBEW agrees with Debbie Schneider that union members are, on the whole, more interested in curbing mandatory overtime requirements and negotiating new pay raises than in new work-family provisions. Still, the last several years have seen new IBEW agreements with Bell Atlantic for school-holiday child care, with Bell Systems allowing telecommuting, and with Pacific Gas for a child care resource and referral program, a time off for adoption provision, a flextime agreement, and an agreement entitling part-time employees to benefits including group life insurance, long term disability coverage, retirement benefits, a pro-rated sick leave, paid holidays, and medical dental and vision coverage. The part-time employee agreement is very significant, since it represents a rare example of a negotiated agreement benefiting part time workers. Another example is a Union of Needletrades Industrial and Textile Employees (UNITE) agreement with the Xerox Corporation in which UNITE Local 14A won benefits equal to 50% of benefits for full time workers for part time members who work 20-30 hours per week.

United Auto Workers

As noted above, the UAW negotiated several landmark child care agreements with the "Big Three" automakers last year. Linda Ewing of the UAW research department says that "our members are very concerned about the time and attention they can devote to their families. Basically, they want policies that recognize the importance of their families—everything from decent wages to health care coverage for dependents to family-friendly schedules and more time off the job." According to Ewing, UAW has bargained for flex-time, comp-time, expanded family or parental leave, child care, and part-time with full benefits at various times, depending on the needs of members. "Our negotiating strategies are shaped by the specific setting in which our members work," she explains. "For example, it's easier to have flexible hours in an office than in a manufacturing plant. At major manufacturing employers, a major area of emphasis for our union has been winning more paid time off, particularly time that can be scheduled flexibly and taken a day at a time. One recent gain in this area came in last fall's negotiations with Ford Motor Company. In lieu of extended Independence Day holidays in 2000 and 2001, we won two 'family days' to be taken at an individual worker's discretion over the course of the agreement." Ewing added that while extended parental leave is certainly a good idea, "our experience is that relatively few members will take advantage of it because of the resulting loss of income."

UAW is fairly representative of the unions we talked to in the view that corporate-sponsored child care and policies designed to free up workers to take care of family needs are not in opposition. Because it so accurately expresses the views of others we interviewed, Ewing's response is worth quoting in full

Different workers—or the same worker at different points in his or her life—have different needs. There's no one strategy that's always preferable. A worker who takes an extended period of parental leave after the birth of a child will still, in all likelihood, rely on nonparental child care when he or she returns to work. A parent who is generally happy with her child's day care (and deeply appreciative of the negotiated resource and referral service that helped her locate it) may still want the flexibility to stay home when her child is mildly ill, instead of relying on a referral to a back-up caregiver. Flexible scheduling is great, too, but if a working parent is to put in 40 hours a week on the job, flextime is unlikely to eliminate the need for some nonparental child care. . . . In a similar vein, compressed workweeks work well for some individuals, but can actually make caring for school-age children more complicated.

In light of this, it is understandable that most union representatives responded that their unions have no position on the proposal of universalizing the current child care tax deduction, now only available to parents who put their children in commercial day care. While many unions have been supportive of other recent legislative initiatives to protect temp workers and part-time workers [link to doc on legislation] none have endorsed either universalizing the current child care tax credit or boosting the allowable individual deduction for children. As unions continue to adjust to new economy pressures that often show up most dramatically in the context of family life, they might give more consideration to options better reflecting the desires of a large constituency of working parents, many of whom would choose to take more considerable time off the job to devote to child care if they felt it were feasible.