precarious work schedules 49
Precarious Work Schedules in Low-Level Jobs:
Implications for Work-Life Interferences and Stress
Julia R. Henly & Susan Lambert
University of Chicago
March 2010
Draft: Please do not quote or cite without permission of authors.
Address correspondence to either author at 969 E. 60th St. Chicago, Illinois 60637, USA ,
Note: The authors would like to thank Lauren Gaudino and Ellen Frank for excellent research assistance. This research would not have been possible without the generous support of the Russell Sage Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Annie E. Casey Foundation, to which the authors are very grateful.
Abstract
Drawing from a survey of employees in a national apparel chain, this study considers the precariousness of employment in the retail sector by examining two dimensions of work schedules (schedule unpredictability and limited employee input) that are hypothesized to increase general work-to-family conflict, interfere with workers’ ability to plan and structure nonwork time, and heighten levels of perceived stress. We find that net of individual, family, and other work characteristics, unpredictability and limited input into schedules are related to each of the outcomes. Unpredictability appears to have a stronger and more significant influence across model specifications. Overall, the findings for unpredictable schedules are robust to several model specifications, including the inclusion of enabling factors such as supervisor support that may be thought to ameliorate the negative impacts of precarious schedules (Voydanoff, 2004). Limitations of the study and future research directions are discussed.
The current economic recession is increasing the vulnerability of workers at all levels of the U.S. labor market. Unemployment increased from 4.9 to 7.2 percent in 2008[1], continuing its rise to 9.17 percent in February 2010. The destabilizing effects of the economic downturn, however, are felt not only by those who lose their jobs. Those who remain employed face increasingly precarious work conditions. For example, involuntary part-time work has reached a 30-year high (8.8 million) and the length of the average workweek has fallen to a record low of under 34 hours[2].
Although the current recession has extended the reach of precarious work to a broader segment of workers, it did not give rise to these conditions. Indeed, job characteristics and employer-worker relations have become increasingly precarious over the past three decades, due to a combination of factors including macro-economic changes in the structure of the labor market (shifts from manufacturing to service, for example), the decline in unionization, the growth of business strategies emphasizing cost containment, and the loosening of government labor standards (Blank, Danziger, & Schoeni, 2006; Kalleberg, 2009; Lambert, 2008). Precariousness has increased globally, although the focus of this paper is the United States where worker protections are particularly weak.
Growing precariousness is evidenced by increases in nonstandard employment arrangements, such as part-time, contingent and temporary jobs, as well as in the use of scheduling practices that allow employers to make quick adjustments to staffing levels in standard jobs (Henly & Lambert, 2005). Notably, in good times and bad, employees at the front lines of many of today’s firms bear the brunt of routine fluctuations in demand for services and products through their work schedules. Hourly workers have limited control over their work schedules and increasingly experience variable, unpredictable, and reduced work hours that can compromise their job performance and their ability to earn an adequate living (Lambert, 2008). Indeed, the scheduling practices commonly employed across key industrial sectors in the U.S. economy contribute to a growing precariousness of employment that has important implications for individuals, families, and communities (Kalleberg, 2009; Lambert, 2008; Henly, Shaefer, & Waxman, 2006).
In this paper, we focus on the precariousness of work schedules for hourly non-management employees in the retail sector. Drawing from a survey of employees in a national retail apparel chain, we examine two dimensions of work schedules that we hypothesize to influence both behavioral and stress-related outcomes of workers. In particular, we consider (1) the unpredictability of employees’ work schedules, that is, the extent to which employees have limited advance notice of their work schedules and cannot count on or anticipate getting a particular work schedule (in terms of days, shifts, and the number of hours worked) and (2) the lack of employee input into the time, days, and hours they work (e.g., lack of schedule control). We view these two dimensions of work schedules as indicators of employment precariousness in everyday work and hypothesize that net of other employment characteristics and personal and family circumstances, both dimensions of precariousness will increase general work-to-family conflict, interfere with workers’ ability to plan and structure their nonwork time, and heighten levels of perceived stress. Building from Greenhaus and Beutell’s (1985) now classic distinction between strain-based and time-based work-to-family conflict, we further hypothesize that input into scheduling may be particularly important for reducing stress and will compensate to some degree for an unpredictable schedule in terms of reducing workers’ stress but will not significantly reduce interferences with nonwork activities. Our survey findings lend support to these hypotheses (with one exception) and are robust to several model specifications, including the inclusion of enabling factors such as supervisor support that may be thought to ameliorate the negative impacts of precarious schedules. The exception concerns our findings for schedule input and stress. We do not find that increased schedule input is more highly associated to stress than the other dependent variables under investigation, nor do we find that it significantly reduces the association between schedule unpredictability and perceived stress, as hypothesized.
BACKGROUND
The Growing Precariousness of Work
In his 2009 presidential address to the American Sociological Association, Arne Kalleberg spoke of the growing precariousness of work and increasing insecurity of workers in the United States and globally. By precariousness, Kalleberg refers to “employment that is uncertain, unpredictable, and risky from the point of view of the worker” (p.2, 2009). He states:
Precarious work has far-reaching consequences that cut across many areas of concern to sociologists. Creating insecurity for many people, it has pervasive consequences not only for the nature of work, workplaces, and people’s work experiences, but also for many nonwork individual (e.g., stress, education), social (e.g., family, community), and political (e.g., stability, democratization) outcomes. It is thus important that we understand the new workplace arrangements that generate precarious work and insecurity.
Thus, work has become more precarious over the past 30 years as employers increasingly pass risk from the market onto workers and demand for labor flexibility – the ability of employers to flexibly and quickly adjust the number of employees and their work hours – has increased (Lambert, 2008). In jobs paid by the hour, maintaining a close link between employees’ work hours and variations in labor demand is one strategy employers use in their efforts to contain labor costs. Lambert (2008) demonstrates several ways in which labor flexibility practices operate in workplaces—for example, through strategic use of work status categories and “just-in-time” scheduling practices—suggesting that employer-driven variation in work hours, rather than flexibility that benefits workers, is common practice in many workplaces, especially in lower-level jobs. Whatever the reasons for growing employer reliance on labor flexibility (e.g., global competition, cost over quality strategies, eroding labor standards), the practices used to achieve labor flexibility shift risk from firms to workers, resulting in increased instability and insecurity in hours and income (Lambert, 2008). The literature on firm-level labor markets provides strong evidence that passing instability onto workers leads to problems with performance, such as heightened absenteeism and turnover (Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg, & Kalleberg, 2000; Appelbaum, Bernhardt, & Murnane, 2003; Baron & Bielby, 1980; Jacobs, 1994; Osterman, 1999).
Dimensions of Precarious Work in Low-Level Jobs
Nonstandard Employment Status and Work Schedules
Workers employed in hourly, non-management jobs are at particular risk of precarious employment. Research demonstrates that low-level workers disproportionately hold jobs with nonstandard status and nonstandard schedules (Golden, 2005; Presser, 2003; Henly & Lambert, 2005). Regarding employment status, the literature demonstrates that employers are relying less on “regular, full-time” employment status categories (Herzenberg, Alic, & Wial, 1998; Tilly, 1996), replacing regular status workers with part-time, contingent, and temporary employees and adopting new work statuses such as “full-time flex” and “reduced compensation professional.” These new statuses serve to restrict access to benefits and facilitate employers’ ability to apply flexible labor practices to a wider set of workers beyond the traditional part-time/full-time status distinction (Lambert & Waxman, 2005; Lambert, 2009). Henly & Lambert (2005) argue that employment status is often quite ambiguous in low-level jobs, such that “one’s status on paper may not be indicative of the number of hours worked or even whether an employee is working at all” (p.479). In Lambert’s study of low-level jobs across four industrial sectors (financial, transportation, hospitality, and retail), the primary distinction that is found between part-time and full-time status hourly employees is the classification’s implication for benefit access and employment and training programs. Neither full-time nor part-time status reliably indicated the number of hours worked, with hour fluctuations proving routine for both full-time and part-time hourly workers. Thus, one’s employment status may indeed signal greater or lesser job security—especially in terms of benefit access—but it is an insufficient proxy for work precariousness. Even workers in full-time jobs may have difficulty getting enough hours and may face nonstandard work schedules into which they have little input and are given little advance notice.
Thus, in addition to employment status, it is important to consider the ways in which the scheduling practices that employers use can contribute to the precariousness of employment. Much of the literature on nonstandard work schedules concerns the timing of work (e.g., nontraditional hours). The growth of the service industry and increasing globalization have increased demand for nonstandard hour workers (Presser, 2003). Based on 1997 Current Population Survey (CPS) data, Harriet Presser (2003, p.1) estimates that “two-fifths of all employed Americans work mostly at nonstandard times”, and even more employees regularly work at least some of their hours outside of regular daytime, weekday hours.
Nonstandard schedule work is common across occupations, but service and laborer positions disproportionately require nonstandard hours (Presser, 2003). These occupations also heavily employ workers for whom precarious work schedules are likely to be most detrimental; for example, workers with limited education and skills, limited financial resources, minorities, and single parents (Presser & Cox, 1997; Presser, 2003).
Unpredictability of Work Schedules and Limited Employee Control Over Schedules
In addition to concerns about the timing of work (e.g., nontraditional hours), other nonstandard scheduling features may also be important to understanding precarious employment. In particular, when someone works may be a less relevant indicator of precariousness than the predictability of one’s work or the control a worker has over his or her work schedule.
There has been limited research attention to work schedule predictability—that is, the extent to which workers can count on or anticipate receiving a particular work schedule from week to week, and the length of advance notice given regarding work hours. Recent studies suggest that unpredictable schedules in low-level hourly jobs are widespread. Lambert’s previously mentioned study of low-level jobs across four industrial sectors found that unpredictable scheduling practices (limited advance notice and frequent last-minute changes) were a typical employer strategy for managing fluctuations in consumer demand, observed in all 22 workplaces studied (Lambert & Waxman, 2005). In Henly’s companion study of low-income mothers employed in six of the retail settings studied by Lambert, the majority of participants reported having less than one week’s notice regarding the following week’s schedule, and changes to schedules were often made after the schedule was posted (Henly, Shaefer, & Waxman, 2006). Moreover, two-thirds of participants reported that posted schedules routinely varied week to week. Workers were regularly called in for unscheduled, “last-minute” hours, sent home early, or pressed to stay later than a shift’s scheduled end-time. Thus, schedule unpredictability – distinct from the timing of work hours – may be an important dimension of precarious work that has implications for workers and their families.
The benefits of a predictable schedule for workers may be attenuated in situations where schedules are not sufficiently flexible to accommodate nonwork-related responsibilities. Indeed, schedule predictability may turn into rigidity if workers have limited input into their work schedules or if posted schedules are not amenable to change. Thus, another key dimension of work schedules is the control (or input) that employees have over the hours, days, and shifts they work.
Unlike the paucity of work on predictability, control over schedules has received relatively more attention, especially by work-family scholars concerned with flexibility. It is important to distinguish between employee-driven flexibility, which is discussed here as indicating employee input into the number and timing of work hours, and employer-driven variation, which indicates employer control over the scheduling process, as in the aforementioned concern over an increasing reliance on labor flexibility practices by employers (see Lambert & Waxman, 2005; Moss, Salzman, and Tilly, 2005; Henly, et al., 2006). Although the work-family literature does not always distinguish these two very different sources of variation in work hours, there is little ambiguity that it is the first – employee-driven control over schedules – that is assumed to benefit workers.
Flexible work is often heralded as a critical workplace benefit that has the capacity to deliver workers greater control over how, where, and when they carry out their work, thereby easing the integration of work with family (and other nonwork) roles (Kossek, Lautsch, & Eaton 2005). For example, employee input into work schedules may make it possible for a parent to arrange work hours around a child’s school schedule or allow a worker to make a last minute schedule change to accommodate an unanticipated medical appointment. Employee surveys consistently demonstrate that workers desire flexible work arrangements, believe flexibility in hours would improve their quality of life, and would even trade other forms of work opportunity for flexibility (Golden, 2005). Yet, research based on national samples of workers indicates that employee-driven flexibility in work hours is rare among low-level workers (Galinsky, Hughes, & David, 1990; Golden, 2005). For example, Current Population Survey (CPS) data demonstrate that low-skilled unmarried mothers – who may arguably have the greatest need for flexible work arrangements – are least likely to have them (Golden, 2005). In fact, flexible work schedules are distributed according to predictable stratification statuses: men more than women, whites more than nonwhites, and those with higher education over lesser education benefit disproportionately from flexible work schedules (Golden, 2005). Smaller, more focused studies of specific job sectors demonstrate how the process used to set work schedules for low-level, hourly, nonmanagement workers typically provides only very restricted formal avenues for employees to exercise input over their work hours. As a result, employee input into scheduling is negotiated informally, if at all, and is at the discretion of the manager (Henly et al., 2006).