As early as 1989, Jennifer Glass, professor and chair of the sociology department at the University of Iowa in Iowa City, had “fears that if employers introduced flexible hours and allowed people to work from home, it would be used against women. You know, the old Mommy Track. But the hope was that family-friendly policies would keep women in the workforce and therefore their wages would grow.”
Both scenarios have come true.
“First, these policies keep women working longer: Women re-enter the workforce sooner after having babies and they change jobs less frequently,” said Glass, also chair of the sex and gender section of the American Sociological Association. “But the downside is that if you use these policies, some managers feel you’re not as invested in your career nor as productive as those who don’t. As a result, you pay a financial penalty.”
And Glass knows what she’s talking about: The sociologist is principal researcher of a new study titled “Blessing or Curse? Family Responsive Policies and Mothers’ Wage Growth Over Time.” She gave a talk on her findings at a recent conference of the Business and Professional Women’s Foundation held in San Francisco.
In 1991 and 1992, Glass interviewed some 300 women who were pregnant and employed. She followed up on 200 of them–167 still were employed–in 1998 and 1999.
The new mothers were 18 years and older. For 54 percent of them it was a first birth. Their education ranged from high school dropouts to PhDs. Average salary in 1991 was $18,451 annually, a low figure because 25 percent of the women worked part time.
And two more significant statistics: 81 percent went back to work within six months of the birth of their child and 91 percent worked at companies that had some type of supportive programs, the most common being flexible spending accounts.
Was there wage growth in that seven-year period? “Almost everybody exhibited wage growth because it was a time of tremendous economic growth and low unemployment,” said Glass. “But, on average, women who used flextime had a 20 percent lower wage gain than similar mothers who did not.”
For managers and professionals, for example, the wage penalty for flexible scheduling was $2.15 an hour; for working from home, $2.28 an hour; and for working fewer than 30 hours a week, $1.38 an hour.
“But the wage penalty for working at home or part time gets smaller with each job change,” Glass said. “Perhaps you lose the `stigma’ of using family policies by switching to an employer who hasn’t seen you use them.”
Yet, when Glass and the team of researchers asked women if using family-friendly policies affects their wage growth, the majority said no.
“But it has affected them–they didn’t know how much higher their wages would have been because wages were going up anyway.”
Another focus of the research was to ascertain the effect of supportive policies on personal lives.
“They really do improve family life,” Glass said. “Women who used them had better mental health, and if they worked from home, said they had more control over their schedules.”
The department head, who is married to Bruce Juetten, a social work manager, and has two children, ages 13 and 8, says she feels “extraordinarily privileged because I have the autonomy to craft my own time schedule.”
Should women eschew flexible scheduling in order to make more money? Linda S. Lynes, a secretary at Florida State University in Tallahassee, wishes she had had the choice when she needed it.
“In previous jobs, when my son was younger and I needed flexibility, I never had the opportunity,” Lynes said. She and her husband, Roger, a computer technician, have a teenage son. “I remember how hard it is when you want to be there for your child and for your job–you’re torn between the two.”
And that’s why she thinks flexible hours are worth the cost.
“There’s no price too high to pay for having flexibility,” Lynes said. “Ever.”
———-
Carol Kleiman’s column also appears in Wednesday’s Working section and Sunday’s Business section. Watch her Career Coach segments Sunday and Tuesday mornings on CLTV. Send e-mail to ckleiman@tribune.com.
