Employer support to workers with informal care responsibilities, and the role of telework
Presenting author: Karsten Gareis
Additional author: Kevin Cullen
Organisation/affiliations & address details of presenting author: Empirica Gesellschaft für Kommunikations- und Technologieforschung mbH, Oxfordstr. 2, 53111 Bonn, Germany,
Organisation/affiliations & address details of additional author: Work Research Centre, 3 Sundrive Road, Dublin 12, Ireland,
1INTRODUCTION
The interactions between employment and caring are becoming increasingly important in the face of demographic ageing trends in Europe.
Traditionally, a large share of long-time care in Europe is being provided by informal carers such as daughters, wives and (in fewer cases) sons or husbands. This situation tends to be welcomed by large parts of the European population, including persons in need of care: Allowing people to spend their final years in their familiar home environment and/or in close proximity to their family is generally muchpreferred over being forced to live in an institutionalised environment such as a retirement home(e.g. Eckert et al. 2004). Moreover, it is of course much cheaper to let family members provide care informally as opposed to professional provision of the required services – even if informal carers receive some form of material support. For example, the monetary value of informal care provided only for people suffering from dementia was estimated in a 2008 study as amounting to €78 billion in Europe, compared to €63 billion in direct costs for formal care provision (Wimo et al. 2008).
The problem is that things are changing in a number of important ways: First, old-age dependency ratios are becoming markedly less favourable in nearly all European countries over the coming decades, because life expectancy keeps growing while fertility rates have decreased drastically in recent decades;second, the traditional arrangement according to which family care is the responsibility of women is increasingly being questioned; third, trends such as changing labour market requirements and contemporary lifestyles and aspirations encourage increased participation of women in the labour force; fourth, retirement ages are increasing across Europe, and employment rates of people aged 60 or older are growing; and finally, social-security budgets are at risk of being cut in the face of widespread budget deficits in Europe, especially at municipal level – the level which is typically responsible for care service provision.
All of this means that the sustainability of Europe’s long-term care systems is at risk. There also is a contradiction between European policy objectives in the employment domain, i.e. to further increase labour market participation rates among women and older citizens (CEC 2012), and policy objectives in the social care domain, i.e. maintaining or even increasing rates of care provided at home rather than in specialised institutions.
Already today, a sizeable proportion of the population of working age (both men and women) face the challenge of reconciling paid employment with caring responsibilities. According to data from a 2011 Eurobarometer on active ageing (TNS Opinion & Social 2012), 15% of the EU27 population (aged 15+) are “personally taking care of an older family member”. The figure is even slightly higher for persons in paid work, i.e. the self-employed (19%), white collar workers (16%) and blue collar workers (17%). Data from the 2005 labour force survey show an EU27 employment rate of 59.2% for carers (people regularly taking care of ill, disabled or elderly relatives/friends aged 15 years or more in need of care) of working age, which is 4.3 percentage points lower than those of the working age population overall, with the gap tending to be more prominent for female carers (also compare Viitanen, 2005). This data source does not enable a breakdown by intensity of caring; however, other sources indicate that there can be considerably lower labour market participation rates for those who provide longer hours of caring (e.g. Lamura et al. 2008).
A wealth of research is available showing that persons who seek to combine paid work with informal care suffer from a range of barriers and downsides, and that take-up of informal care is a prominent reason for giving up employment, especially among women. Withdrawal from the labour market by carers (even temporarily) is often associated with negative impacts on future labour force participation including lower likelihood of returning at all, negative impacts on career trajectory and lower earnings (Spieß & Schneider 2003; Lilly et al. 2007). Informal carers who remain in employment typically suffer from forgone earnings due to reduction in working hours and also from negative effects on career development (Carmichael & Charles 1998; 2003; Schneider & Wolf 2006; Eurofamcare 2006).
There is clearly a pressing need to enable more people to combine employment with informal care-giving in ways which are beneficial to all parties involved – the carer, the cared-for person, the employer and society at large.
Against this background, flexible ways of working are expected by many to play an important role in improving reconciliation between participation in the labour market and private caring responsibilities. Telework is being discussed as an alternative to or in combination with other types of flexible work arrangements, such as part-time employment, temporary leave, and use of time budgets.
The present paper reports on the findings of a European research project on company measures for supporting reconciliation of employment with informal care. The study consisted of a review of the available research and practitioner literature, and primary research in the form of 51 case studies of companies with initiatives for supporting work-care reconciliation across 11 EU countries: Austria, Belgium, Germany, Finland, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia and the United Kingdom.
2WORK-CARE RECONCILIATION: CARER NEEDS AND THE ROLE OF EMPLOYERS
What exactly are the means through which care-givers manage to juggle between their job and their private role as informal carer?
Exhibit 1presents data on the spectrum of work adjustments reported in a representative national survey of caregivers conducted in the US in 2004 (National Caregivers Alliance and AARP 2004). This study allowed analysis of patterns across carers with different levels of caring intensity (in terms of weekly hours and amount/type of caring tasks that are done), with level 1 the least intensive and level 5 the most intensive type of care needed.
Exhibit 1: Work adjustments reported by carers in the US, by level of care-giving intensity, 2004 %
The results showed that the most intensive caregivers were much more likely to report more dramatic adjustments such as giving up work entirely or moving to part-time working. Although the frequency of reporting other adjustments also increased with intensity of caring, the data show that many carers in the lower intensity categories did report having to make various adjustments such as coming in late to work, leaving early or taking leave of absence. Thus, while the needs of carers with intensive caring responsibilities warrant particular attention, measures to support working carers also need to address the perhaps less dramatic but nevertheless important impacts that may arise for carers with less intensive caring responsibilities.
The available evidence also suggests that labour force adjustments may commonly be made in the first three months of care-giving and then remain fairly stable thereafter (although this may be specific to women), even after care-giving ends (Lilly et al. 2007). This is important as it suggests a need for timely intervention (to prevent unnecessary or disadvantageous forms of withdrawal), as well as measures to reduce the likelihood of negative longer term, post-caring impacts. Gender issues are important in this regard, with the evidence suggesting that women are considerably more likely than men to take up the more disadvantageous options (such as leave or part-time working) as well as being more likely to avail of most forms of work–family flexibility/adjustment in the workplace.
Carers are clearly a very heterogeneous group, which means that the needs and impacts arising from combining informal care with working can vary widely. We can distinguish between three basic options/outcomes for carers:
- Continuing to work full time and attempting to juggle caring responsibilities with this;
- Downshifting to less than full-time employment in some form (hours reduction);
- Taking time out from work in order to provide care (leave).
The latter two options can be availed of temporarily or permanently, depending on the type of the care relationship.
There is wide consensus that there can be no one-fits-all approach to work-care reconciliation because of the huge variation in care needs, carer preferences, lifestyle related choices, employment and institutional contexts and personal characteristics. It appears, therefore, that employees are best served if their employer offers them the possibility to choose any of the three basic options listed above in ways which minimise any negative impact on current and future working conditions and outcomes.
Against this background, what is the role of the employer in addressing carers’ needs? Cullen & Gareis (2011) suggested a typology of employer supports targeting working carers, see Exhibit 2.
Objective/ outcome / Type of employer supportFlexibility/flexicurity / Other support/measures
Practical measures / Minimising financial or other downsides / Care-related support / Other measures
Support full-time working for carers / For example:
- Flexibility in working hours
- Teleworking
- Accessibility at work
- Short- and emergency care leave
- Payment during leave
- Other measures to minimise financial or other downsides of flexibility (such as for career)
- Information
- Referral, care brokerage
- Counselling
- Carer networks/ support groups
- Practical daily life support (home delivery of groceries, etc.)
- Use of phone/other technology
- Direct care provision
- Support for care costs
- Addressing carers health and well-being in occupational health services
- Carer surveys/audits
- Awareness-raising, promotion of positive attitudes among managers, colleagues, etc.
- Lobbying/liaison with external stakeholders (such as other employers and care services)
Enable part-time working (downshifting) and caring / For example
- Part-time work
- Term-time working or equivalent
- Measures to minimise income loss and other downsides (as for career) associated with hours reduction
Enable complete/lengthy time off for carers / For example:
- Longer carer leave
- Option to accumulate (additional) leave
- Maintaining continuity while on leave
- Paid leave or ‘topping up’ of social benefit payments while on leave
- Helping employees to save up income for leave periods
- Measures to minimise other downsides of leave (e.g. for career)
Exhibit 2: Typology of employer supports for employees with informal carer responsibilities
The degree to which a certain type of support, e.g. a flexible work arrangement, is available to an employee clearly depends on the national and sectoral (supra-company) context within which a company operate. Every EU country has a range of ‘minimum’ provisions in place which support persons combining work & care, including statutory provisions addressing work-family balance issues (legislation giving employees certain rights and/or employers obligations to make certain provisions). Many countries also have sectoral-level collective agreements that cover working carer issues or other features of the sectoral context (such as agreed or standard employer practice in a particular sector on the provision of measures that may have relevance for working carers). In most cases these provisions have developed as an extension of legislation focusing on the needs of parents, i.e. childcare. Still today, legislative action addressing work-family balance issues in Europe has a strong tendency to focus on childcare only. One exception is the right to paid short-term leave to employees with care obligations, which has become commonplace in Europe. A right to opt for telework has not yet been formalised in any of the countries covered by our research.
3WORK-CARE RECONCILIATION AND TELEWORK
A study by Franke & Reichert (2010) of the research literature on work-care reconciliation found that telework can play an important role in making it easier for working carers to combine their different responsibilities (cf. Neal & Hammer 2006; berufundfamilie 2007 und 2009; BMFSFJ 2004 und 2005).
There is, however, a general tendency in the literature targeting practitioners (e.g. guidebooks) to warn against the use of telework by workers who have informal care responsibilities. Joice & Verive (2006) made the observation that “from the beginning of the telework movement, the dependent care policy mantra has been that telework is not a substitute for dependent care. A Web search of organization telework policies reveals that most (1) touch very briefly on the matter (other than a statement of the aforementioned policy mantra) or (2) provide the dependent care exclusion statement along with elaborate details and prohibited practices regarding telework and dependent care. Some policies go so far as making telework participation contingent on employee (written) certification that dependents are cared for (during business hours) by another individual or program. Such policies place management in a position of intruding into the employee's personal life.”
While such policies might fulfil an important role by emphasising that employees need to maintain boundaries between their different spheres of responsibility, they seem to ignore telework’s potential to boost the overall flexibility of employees to combine work with private responsibilitieswithout detrimental effect on their job performance. While trying to do both things (working and care-giving) at the same time is clearly not to be recommended, the lack of spatial barriers afforded by telework means that switching between the spheres of work and care can be managed much more flexibly. This can be of great benefit given one of the fundamental characteristics of eldercare (as opposed, for example, to childcare), i.e. the unpredictability of support needs on the part of the cared-for person.
Research from the USA (Joice &Verive 2006a, 2006b) suggests that teleworkers with dependent care responsibilities – for children, disabled family members and/or elderly persons – overwhelmingly “reported that teleworking helps with their dependent care needs: offering flexibility, helping with emergencies, giving the ability to transport dependents to appointments, enabling more time for personal life, allowing coordination of care, etc. [...]The majority of respondents reported that the dependent care assistance from telework helped reduce their stress (88 percent), increase their energy for dealing with dependent care responsibilities (77 percent), and balance their job and dependent care responsibilities (97 percent).”
Working from home is not free of risks, though. Russell et al. (2007) found, using data from the 2003 national survey of employees in Ireland, that “while part-time work and flexi-time tend to reduce work pressure and work-life conflict, working from home is associated with greater levels of both work pressure and work-life conflict” – even after controlling for personal and job characteristics (tenure, occupational level, managerial responsibility, sector, autonomy score, weekly hours worked). It appears that while telework might allow employees to continue working full-time in their employment relationship, it presents greater risks in terms of work-life conflict because of the absence of traditional boundaries between both these spheres of life.
In any case, there is clearly a strong demand for the option of teleworking from home on the part of people with dependent care responsibilities. For example, data from a 2003 survey in the USA (MetLife et al. 2003, seeExhibit 3) suggest that home-based teleworking is recognised by a large majority of working carers as an desirable option: 72% of female and 62% of male carers responded that they would personally benefit from the option of doing all or part of their job from home.
Exhibit 3: Services working carers would value and use (n= 1,386)
With regard to the supply of telework as an option for employees, data are available from the 2010 European Company Survey on Reconciliation of Work and Family Life (IW 2010), see Exhibit 4.
Exhibit 4: Companies in Europe offering a specific policy on flexible working time and work arrangements
The share of companies offering telework is much lower than for part-time work, flexitime and individually agreed working hours. Nevertheless, between 5% (Italy) and 41% (Sweden) of companies provide the option of teleworking from home. The large country differences indicate that management attitudes, employee demand and institutional conditions for implementation of telework differ significantly between the member states of the EU.
4METHODOLOGY
General objective of our primary research was to explore the role company (that is, employer) initiatives currently play in Europe to support the needs of workers who have (informal) care responsibilities, including children and spouses of elderly adults in need of care as well as parents caring for children with disabilities. Key types of company-level measures to support working carers include leave-related provisions; hours-reduction possibilities; work flexibility and work adjustment; awareness-raising and skills development among managers and the workforce; occupational health and wellbeing measures; and care-related supports, such as information, counselling and practical support with the caring role.
For case study research, the study sought 50 companies (including public sector organisations) across 11 EU member countries. Selection was based on the criteria that only companies should be chosen who have publicly stated, or are publicly reported, to have an initiative or measures targeting employees with informal care responsibilities for older or disabled persons. 51 companies were selected.
Interviewees were mainly HR managers and specialists with responsibility for work-life balance issues. A semi-structured interview guideline was designed and pilot-tested in one country (Germany), modified accordingly, and then distributed (in English language) to a network of national correspondents (native speakers), one in each of the countries covered. National correspondents were briefed in detail about the background of the study and rules & principles to be applied for the fieldwork.