P481) RETURNING MATERIALS: ~ PIace in book drop to remove this checkout from Jilllgllll. your record. FINES wiII ————— r be charged if book is returned after the date stamped beIow. Ngyfifk“ ‘ NOV I 5 1994 W [33344 1399 WHOSE PARADISE? THE PROBLEM OF REDUCED WORK AND AUTONOMY By Cynthia Lea Nagrey A DISSERTATION Submitted te Michigan State University in partiaI fquiIIment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of SocioIogy 1988 ABSTRACT WHOSE PARADISE? THE PROBLEM OF REDUCED WORK AND AUTONOMY By Cynthia Lee Negrey SociaT structuraT conditions associated with post- industriaTism, such as persistentTy high rates of unempToyment, the decTine of empToyment in manufacturing, the increased participation of women in the paid Tabor force, and the Tack of wideTy avaiTabTe and affordabTe chdecare, have Ted to caTTs for work-time reduction and fTexibTe work-time options. Those who advocate such adJustments to working time assume work-time reduction fosters autonomy off the Job; This is particuTarTy true of the French sociaT critic, Andre Gorz. who argues for work- time reduction to expand the sphere of autonomy off the Job and who cTaims that those who work Tess than fuTT time constitute the forefront of a movement toward a post- industriaT, more egaTitarian, non-market-oriented society. This study chaTTenges the cTaim that reduced work by definition fosters autonomy off the Job by integrating a feminist anaTysis and an understanding of Tabor market segmentation with Gorz'a vision of post-industriaTism. It takes time off the Job as probTematic and sheds Tight on the conditions which enhance or impede autonomy off the Job. It asserts that autonomy off the Job is infTuenced by the nature of one's work scheduTe and one's abiTity to determine that scheduTe; market position associated with the naeure of one's Job. pay. and benefits; and gender. In-depth and partiaTTy structured interviews were conducted with forty-four individuaTs who work Tess than fuTT time. Grounded theoreticaT anaTysis compares the experiences of those who work part time with those of temporary empToyees. Job sharers, and work sharers. There are different time regimes associated with these different types of reduced work, and these time regimes coupTed with a variety of intervening factors infTuenced informants' seTection of off-the-Job activities. In concTusion. this research identifies five types of autonomy associated with reduced work. Each has ramifi- cations for the quaTity of Tife off the Job, and each engenders greater or Tesser degrees of autonomy off the Job. This study aTso evaTuates the cTaim by Gorz that those who work Tess than fuTT time are at the forefront of sociaT change. Copyright by CYNTHIA LEE NEGREY 1988 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are a number of individuaTs and organizations to whom I owe a professionaT debt. First and foremost. I want to thank Rick HiTT. my advisor. coTTaborator, mentor, and friend. His Tight-handed guidance and constant encouragement gave me a sense of security and direction without undermining my sense of autonomy. I aTso want to thank BiTT Faunce, Ruth HamiTton. Kevin KeTTy, and Katie See for heTpfuT comments on this project. I must aTso extend my heartfeTt appreciation to those persons who gave of their time and voTunteered to be interviewed for this study and to those who assisted in the recruitment of voTunteers. WhiTe they must remain nameTess here, without.them this project coqu not have been compTeted. The Department of SocioTogy at Michigan State University and the Sage Foundation of Detroit, Michigan, provided financiaT support which freed me from financiaT worries and permitted me to focus my energies on this dissertation. SeveraT women pTayed criticaT roTes in my inteTTectuaT and sociaT experience whiTe working on this project. As sister members of a dissertation support group, they provided a counterbaTance to the isoTation associated with dissertation research: Nancy Buffenbarger, Ginger Macheski, Mary McCormack, Ginny PoweTT, DeTores Wunder, Jo BeTknap, Mary Roberson. Taffy McCoy, Jo Dohoney, Ruth Harris, Vandana KohTi, and Georgann Lenhart. I wiTT miss the community we created. Steve Esquith's chaTTenging questions encouraged me to expTore uncharted theoreticaT territory. Carmen Sirianni's work on fTexibTe time options as weTT as his friendship and encouragement were affirmation that this was a worthwhiTe project. I am gratefuT to both. Too often teachers don't know what becomes of former students or the extent, if any, to which they had any Tasting infTuence on them. I want to mention particuTarTy two of my teachers here. I had deveToped an interest in socioTogy in high schooT when I read MichaeT Harrington's book, The Other America. BiTT Seaton, who taught me introductory socioTogy in coTTege, kept the fire burning. And Ken Rothrock beTieved I coqu accompTish a task such as this Tong before I beTieved it myseTf. This expression of gratitute to them is Tong overdue. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of TabTes . . . . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . . x Chapter 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 TheoreticaT Framework . . . . . . . . s . . . 7 2. TheoreticaT Issues in Time and Autonomy . . . . 24 Toward a Feminist Rethinking of Autonomy . . . 36 3. Review of the Literature . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Part-Time EmpToyment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Temporary EmpToyment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Job Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Work Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 4. Research MethodoTogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Research PhiTosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 SampTe SeTection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 SampTe Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 AnaTysis of the Interviews . . . . . . . . . . 85 5. Michigan's PoTiticaT Economy in the 19805 . . . 89 Focus: FTint and Lansing . . . . . . . . . . 96 Lansing, Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Reduced work in Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Part-Time EmpToyment . . . . . . . . . . 111 Temporary EmpToyment . . . . . . . . . . 121 vii Job Sharing in State Government Work Sharing . . . . . . . . . 6. Terms and Conditions of Reduced Work Job Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . Work ScheduTes . . . . . . . . Power of Supervisors . . . . . Temporary EmpToyment . . . . . . . . PTacements . . . . . . . . Part-Time EmpToyment . . . . . . . . Work ScheduTes . . . . . . . . Work Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . Work ScheduTes . . . . . . ConcTusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. Chderen and Autonomy . . . . . . 8. Househon Work and Autonomy . . . 9. Recreation and Autonomy . 10. Community and ReTationaT Activities 11. Education and ATternative EmpToyment 12. ConcTusion References . . . . . . . . . . . SchoTarTy Books and ArticTes U.S. Government PubTications State Government PubTications Non-government PubTications PopuTar Press Appendices A. Interview Topic CheckTist viii 123 129 133 133 143 145 149 155 160 164 168 179 181 184 202 214 230 246 260 287 287 296 298 298 299 302 C. D. PersonaT and Househon Data Recruitment Letter . . . . Recruitment Memo . . . . . ix Sheet TabTe 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. LIST OF TABLES Age Distribution of SampTe . . . . . . . . . SampTe by Race . . . . . . . . . . . . SampTe by Education CompTeted . . . . . . . OccupationaT Distribution of SampTe . . . . Income Distribution of SampTe . . . . . . . Union Membership of SampTe . . . . . . MaritaT Status of SampTe . . . . . . . . . . SampTe by Househon Type . . . . . . . . . . Composition of Manufacturing EmpToyment, U.S. and Michigan, SeTected Years. 1972-1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Net and Percentage Change in NonagricuTturaT and Manufacturing EmpToyment, U.S. and Michigan, 1979, 1982, 1985 . . . . . Persons at Work Less Than 35 Hours as a Percentage of aTT EmpToyed Persons, 1980 MaTes and FemaTes as a Percentage of A11 Persons at Work Less Than 35 Hours, 1980 Industry Distribution of Men EmpToyed Less Than 35 Hours, 1980 . . . Industry Distribution of Women EmpToyed Less Than 35 Hours, 1980 . OccupationaT Distribution of Men EmpToyed Less Than 35 Hours. 1980 . . . . . . . OccupationaT Distribution of Women EmpToyed Less Than 35 Hours, 1980 . . . . . Page 77 78 79 81 82 84 86 87 91 93 120 AnnuaT Average EmpToyment in Temporary HeTp SuppTy Services (SIC 7362) in the U.S. and Michigan. 1982-1985 . . . . . . . . 122 Wages in the Temporary HeTp SuppTy Industry. U.S. and Michigan, 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Job Sharers in Michigan State Government by Type of Occupation and Sex, September 5, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Number of Positions Occupied by Two or More Job Sharers by Department. State of Michigan, JuTy 26. 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 xi CHAPTER 1 Introduction This is a study of peopTe's experiences of time and autonomy. Its focus is those who work Tess than fuTT time, particuTarTy part-time workers, temporaries. Job sharers. and work sharers. WhiTe they aTT work Tess than fuTT time or Tess than year round, their time regimes vary as do their type of occupation, terms and conditions of empToyment, reasons for working Tess than fuTT time, controT over work scheduTe, and use of time off the Job. This study takes off from the foTTowing premise: peopTe who work Tess than fuTT time, because they work Tess than fuTT'time, have more time to be autonomous. Few Jobs permit seTf-determination on the Job, especiaTTy controT over one's time. If one has time to do with as one chooses, that time is most TikeTy to occur off the Job. Thus, this study expTores how peopTe who have a Tot of time off the Job, by conventionaT sociaT standards, use their time. But time off the Job does not guarantee fuTT autonomy. SpiTTover effects of the Job (Faunce and Dubin 1975, Meissner 1971, Staines 1980, WiTensky 1960), constraints of the work scheduTe, financiaT constraints, and off-the-Job obTigations may Timit autonomy. This study takes time off the Job as probTematic and differentiates between formaT and substantive autonomy. By examining certain features of one's empToyment and one's Tife circumstances, it sheds Tight on theconditions which enhance or impede autonomy off the Job. The probTem of reduced work and autonomy is an important one as we move into the cTosing decade of the twentieth century. STow economic growth, the avaiTabiTity of cheap Tabor abroad, and widespread automation at home make it unTikeTy that the U.S economy wiTT generate enough Jobs in the foreseeabTe future to absorb aTT who want permanent, fuTT-time empToyment. WhiTe the officiaT unempToyment rate has dropped to beTow six percent in the nation, some regions and communities, particuTarTy decTining manufacturing centers, have unempToyment rates near ten percent or higher at the same time that youth continue their entry into the Tabor market and women's participation in paid empToyment increases. Numerous writers recentTy have caTTed for various types of work-time reduction to decrease JobTessness and redistribute the avaiTabTe wage work.1 Given their 1 For arguments aTong these Tines, see Roy Bennett and Frank Riessman, "Is It Time for the Four-Day Work Week?“, SociaT PoTicy 15 (1) Summer, 1984: inside cover; FrithJof Bergmann, ”The Future of Work,“ Praxis International; Fred Best, ”RecycTing PeopTe: Work-sharing Through FTexibTe Life ScheduTing,” Futurist 12 (February, 1978): 4-17; Fred Best, FTexibTe Life ScheduTing: Breaking the Education-Work- Retirement Locksteg. New York: Praeger, 1980; Fred BTock, ”The Myth of ReindustriaTization," SociaTist Review 73 (January-February, 1984): 59-76; RoTande CuviTTier, IDE Reduction of Working Time, Geneva: InternationaT Labour Office, 1984; Herbert Gans, ”Toward the 32-hour Workweek," SociaT PoTicy 15 (3) Winter, 1985: 58~61; Bob Kuttner, “Jobs," Dissent Winter, 1984: 30—41; WassiTy W. Leontief, propensity to expTain the Jobs crisis in structuraT rather than cycTicaT terms, most proponents of work-time reduction are pessimistic that the U.S. economy can in the future generate enough secure, weTT-paying Jobs to absorb the unempToyed. Increased appTication of automated methods of production, particuTarTy in manufacturing but aTso in services, and the avaiTabiTity to mobiTe capitaT of ever- Targer numbers of Tow-wage production workers in underdeveToped countries wiTT shrink the suppTy of Jobs reTative to anticipated growth in the Tabor force. ATthough vociferous debate continues over automation's Tabor- dispTacing or Tabor-generating quaTities,2 advocates of work-time reduction have generaTTy agreed that whatever productivity gains ensue from the further automation of production coqu and shoqu be equitabTy distributed by a reduction of working time. Future growth in the Tabor force wiTT aTso increase competition for Jobs. Two categories of entrants to the paid Tabor force are expected to contribute to the future -------------------------------------------------------—---- “The Distribution of Work and Income,“ Scientific American 247 (3) September, 1982: 188-204; Sar A. Levitan and Richard S. BeTous, Shorter Hours, Shorter Weeks. BaTtimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977; and WiTTiam McGaughey, Jr., A Shorter Wgrkwggk in the 1980s. White Bear Lake, Minn.: ThistTerose PubTications, 1981. 2 See, for exampTe, PauT AdTer, "TechnoTogy and Us,“ SociaTist Review 85 (January-February, 1986): 67-96; Chapter 9, ”EmpToyment: The Quantity of Work," in Tom Forester, editor, The Information TechnoTogy RevoTution. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1985; and Barry Jones, STeeQers, Wake! TechnoTogy and the Future of Work. MeTbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982. demand for Jobs: women and youth. In particuTar, women have accounted for three of every five additions to the Tabor force in the past 25 years (Levitan and BeTous 1977, p. 19), and they have taken more than 80 percent of the new Jobs created in the U.S. since 1980 (Serrin 1986a). Increases in women's paid Tabor force participation may become a factor in hours reduction because women often have sought to work a shorter paid workweek to better JuggTe home and Job responsibiTities. In addition, the increases in women's paid Tabor force participation observed over the past severaT decades have been associated with an increase in the avaiTabiTity of part-time Jobs. The continued participation of women in paid empToyment may generate greater interest in work-time reduction as a method of equaTizing the distribution of wage and househon work responsibiTities between women and men (Owen 1979). Work/famiTy confTicts have been the impetus for appeaTs for a nationaT famiTy pdTicy incTuding provisions for paid parentaT Teave, more wideTy avaiTabTe and affordabTe daycare, and fTexibTe work options to remedy such tensions.3 3 For a brief summary of work/famiTy confTicts, see "ConfTicts between work and famiTy Tife,” a research summary by Joseph H. PTeck, Graham L. Staines, and Linda Lang in MonthTy Labor Review, 103 (3) March, 1980: 29-32. For recent statements on the need for a nationaT famiTy poTicy and the shape it might take see SyTvia Ann HewTett, A Lesser Life: The Myth of Women's Liberation in America. New York: WiTTiam.Morrow and Company, Inc., 1986, and Ruth SideT, Women and ChiTgren Last: The PTight gijoor Women in Afnggnt Amerigg. New York: Viking, 1986. For these reasons as weTT as others associated with emergent TifestyTes in the Tate twentieth century, severaT writers (Best 1978: CuviTTier 1984: Levitan and BeTous 1977; McGaughey 1981: Owen 1979) have noted widespread preferences for more 'Teisure' time. Studies of time/income tradeoffs (Best 1978: CuviTTier 1984, pp. 37-38) have shown that in many cases individuaTs woqu opt for more time off the Job instead of more income if given the choice. This is consistent with findings for Western Europeans reported by GOP! (1932- P- 140).4 Time off the Job coqu then be used. for meeting househon responsibiTities, education, community service, athTetic and other recreationaT pursuits. Aware of these conditions, empToyers use a rhetoric of autonomy-to seTT part-time and temporary Jobs to potentiaT hires.5 Women with young chderen are an especiaTTy vuTnerabTe target audience. Because women's wage work options are circumscribed by their househon and chdecare responsibiTities, managers advertise part-time and temporary Jobs as ideaT for enhancing "fTexibiTity." Such Jobs permit 4 However, about two-thirds of aTT U.S. workers interviewed in conJunction with the May, 1985 Current PopuTation Survey said they woqu not want to change the Tength of their workweek. Of the remainder, most said that, if given a choice, they woqu opt to work ”more hours at the same rate of pay and make more money." A preference for a shorter workweek (accompanied by a reduction in earnings) was expressed by onTy six percent of the men and nine percent of the women. See U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, News, USDL 86-328, reTeased August 7, 1986. 5 For exampTe, one temporary empToyment agency advertises Twork when you want to work" on the cover of its informationaT packet. SimiTarTy, a fast food chains frequentTy advertise fTexibTe hours for part-time empToyees. women's Tabor force participation at times when it is convenient for them to be away from home and chderen. Students and the ererTy are aTso target audiences. Part- time work is a source of soreTy needed financiaT support for many students. For the ererTy, it is a source of financiaT support as weTT as continued invoTvement in the community. Our increasingTy services-oriented economy Tends itseTf weTT to the creation of part-time and temporary Jobs. EmpToyers find that such Jobs enhance ghgig fTexibiTity by permitting them to scheduTe workers at peak demand times during the day, the week, the year, or upturns in the business cycTe. Indeed, uncertain economic conditions in the United States have made many empToyers reTuctant to expand their permanent, fuTT-time workforce. They have turned increasingTy to-part-time workers and temporaries to meet Tabor demand in good times with the security that these "contingent” (Serrin 1986b) workers are more easiTy Tet go when times are bad. Advocates of work-time reduction, no matter on what side of the capitaT-Tabor divide they faTT, seem to suggest that work-time reduction by definition fosters autonomy off the Job. But reduced work_may or may not engender such autonomy, and this study’expTores that cTaim. Use of time off the Job may be infTuenced, for exampTe, by the work scheduTe and one's controT over it, market position associated with TeveT of pay and benefits, and gender. Through the voices of the individuaTs who participated in this study, it is possibTe to determine some of the conditions which enhance or impede autonomy off the Job. TheoreticaT Framework This study is informed theoreticaTTy by debates over the nature of 'post-industriaT' society, a feminist interpretation of sociaT reTations between men and women in ‘the home and pTace of empToyment, and an understanding of segmented Tabor markets which function to divide Jobs and workers into particuTar market sectors.6 An .xp1opatqon of reduced work and autonomy must be Tocated within the context of these Targer sociaT reTations. The expansion of reduced work, particuTarTy in the forms of part-time and temporary empToyment, are significant eTements in this period of sociaT and economic transition. Because many individuaTs who work Tess than fuTT time are women, a feminist orientation is necessary to comprehend the meaning of these time regimes and forms of work. And because reduced work tends to be concentrated in certain types of Jobs as they intersect with gender, it is cruciaT to connect this anaTysis to the operation of segmented Tabor markets. There is considerabTe debate and uncertainty regarding the nature of the society which wiTT arise, or shoqu arise, from the sociaT and economic changes currentTy underway. Two views are focused on here. The first, the conception of 6 For further expTication of the concept of segmented Tabor markets, see David M. Gordon, Richard Edwards, and MichaeT Reich, Segmented Work, Divided Workers: The Historical Transformation of Labor in the Uniteg States. Cambridge, EngTand: Cambridge University Press, 1982. post-industriaTism put forth by BeTT (1973), is treated for its vaTue as an earTy statement on the subject and its Tocation within the mainstream of socioTogicaT thought. The second, that of post;industria1 sociaTism as envisioned by Gorz (1982, 1985), is treated for its anaTysis of the pTace and promise of work-time reduction in budeing a non-market, egaTitarian society. BeTT's post-industriaTism rests on a service economy in which professionaTs and technicians are preeminent and theoreticaT knowTedge has dispTaced economic growth as the society's axiaT principTe. The new service economy is composed primariTy of human services-~principaTTy heaTth, education, and sociaT services--and professionaT and technicaT services. The rise of services expands empToyment opportunities for women, and work increasingTy represents reTationships between peopTe (e.g. professionaT-cTient) rather than reTationships between peopTe and machines. This is a society in which the industriaT working cTass erodes as the industriaT emphasis on goods production gives way to a society of white-coTTar service workers. The essentiaT sociaT and poTiticaT division in industriaT society, that between capitaT and Tabor, is repTaced by the essentiaT division in post-industriaT society, that between those with and without authority in bureaucratic organizations. Thus, the haves and have nots are not those with and without property but those with and without decision-making power in organizations. As BeTT (1973, p. xvi) states, however, The post-industriaT society. . .does not dispTace the industriaT society, Just as an industriaT society has not done away with the agrarian sectors of the economy. Like paTimpsests, the new deveTopments overTie the previous Tayers, erasing some features and thickening the texture of society as a whoTe. But because the property reTations of industriaTism in the U.S. are capitaTist and, as BeTT notes, industriaT society is not dispTaced by post-industriaT society, this post-industriaT overTay wiTT reproduce capitaTist property reTations. They preserve the “axiaT principTe” of industriaT society, that of economic growth, and more specificaTTy the accumuTation of private profit. As Braverman (1974) has noted, the service economy has not dispTaced capitaTist reTations of production but has arisen within and emerged from those reTations. As various market sectors are saturated, capitaT seeks new markets for investment and accumuTation. As the market expands and sociaT reTations and communities break down, particuTarTy in their abiTity to provide non~market~based services to one another, the market expands even further to fiTT in that void. Thus, it becomes profitabTe for capitaT to move from saturated markets in manufacturing, for exampTe, to unsaturated markets in services. The organization of service provision, then, is imprinted with the overriding goaT of capitaT accumuTation. BeTT has asserted that the primary services of heaTth, education, and sociaT services-- those at the center of the post-industriaT society-~are 'TargeTy nonprofit. This is increasingTy not true of the heaTth care industry, and those sectors of heaTth care that remain non-profit are intertwined with the insurance industry, which is for profit. Education and sociaT services, provided TargeTy by the pubTic sector, may not be profit-making enterprises but they are affected by the market. PubTic-sector revenues are determined by the size and heaTth of its tax base which in turn refTects empToyment and wage conditions and corporate behavior. The pubTic sector, as an empToyer, exists within a competitive Tabor market and its abiTity to hire is infTuenced by revenues avaiTabTe for hiring as weTT as attractiveness of positions. The nature and extent of service deTivery aTso depend on revenue avaiTabiTity (and poTiticaT ideoTogy). The pubTic sector can TegisTate its own revenue increases by raising taxes, but its power to do so is not'unTimited. CeiTings are imposed by popuTar tax revoTt and capitaT strike. Therefore, whiTe the state can raise taxes at wiTT, it cannot do so without poTiticaT and economic repercussions. The state must baTance its own revenue needs with the poTiticaT and economic cTimate. BeTT is naive in perceiving the pubTic sector as disconnected from the private sector. In addition, whiTe we have seen in this century an increase of professionaTs and technicians in both absoTute numbers and reTative proportion, it is misTeading to characterize post-industriaT society by skewed reference to this eTite. ProfessionaT and technicaT workers are stiTT 10 Tess than one in five members of the Tabor force (Ritzer and WaTczak 1986, p. 21). The concomitant expansion of cTericaT work, saTes work, and Tow-paying services suggests not an upgrading in the overaTT skiTT and education of the Tabor force but a bifurcation associated with the decTine of the MODUTBPtUPTDO middTeJ7 In addition, BeTT's optimistic scenario overTooks the probTem of underempToyment among professionaTTy and manageriaTTy trained persons. As Levitan and Johnson (1982, p. 128) have reported, over the next decade the number of coTTege graduates is expected to exceed the number of professionaT and manageriaT Job openings by 2.7 miTTion, and there wiTT be 2.5 coTTege graduates competing for each professionaT and manageriaT Job. Thus, traditionaT manifestations of Tabor-management confTict, such as those associated with getting Jobs, keeping Jobs, TeveT of pay, benefits, and working conditions, inside or outside the private sector wiTT persist into the post- industriaT future. The computer is the technoTogicaT centerpiece of BeTT's post-industriaT service and information society. As noted above, whiTe vociferous debate continues over the Tong-run Tabor-dispTacing capacity of computer-assisted production, there is TittTe question that the productive capacity of computers far exceeds that of more traditionaT technoTogies. The distribution of work and the benefits of heightened 7 On the decTine of the middTe cTass, see Barry BTuestone and Bennett Harrison, "The Grim Truth About the Job 'MiracTe'," The New York Times, February 1, 1987. 11 productivity are pressing questions for post-industriaT society. ATthough it is a critique of Marxist orthodoxy in its rejection of the working cTass as the subject of history, Gorz's work (1982) stems from Marx's critique of poTiticaT economy, particuTarTy the tendency for mechanization to reduce necessary Tabor and increase surpTus Tabor. Whereas increases in productivity which resuTt from mechanization coqu be (and to some degree have been) passed on to aTT workers in the form of more free time, the tendency under capitaTist reTations of production is to expand surpTus Tabor time for some workers and to increase unempToyment for others. In FargweTT to the Working CTass (1982) Gorz deTineates the 'duaT economy' of the future, which consists of an enTarged sphere of autonomy and a reduced, subordinate sphere of necessity. The post-industriaT sociaTist society seeks to increase freedom (the sphere of autonomy) from wage work ”whiTe recognizing, triviaTizing, and Timiting the necessity of work” (Cohen 1983, p. 110). Gorz rejects worker seTf—management as the path to human Tiberation in favor of Tiberation from work by work—time reduction. As specified in Paths to Paradise: On the Liberation from Work (Gorz 1985, p. 63), individuaTs woqu have three TeveTs of activity in the duaT economy: (1) necessary, macro-sociaT work, organized across society as a whoTe, enabTing it to function and providing for basic needs; 12 (2) micro-sociaT activity, seTf-organized on a TocaT TeveT and based on voTuntary participation, except where it repTaces macro-sociaT work in providing for basic needs: and (3) autonomous activity which corresponds to the particuTar desires and projects of individuaTs, famiTies, and smaTT groups. By Timiting the sphere of necessity and expanding the sphere of autonomy, we create a Tiberated Tife space--that is, Tiberation from work. The sphere of necessity can be reduced by appTying more energy- and resource-efficient methods of production to the production of sociaTTy usefuT goods and services and eTiminating destructive and wastefuT production (Gorz 1980, 1982). SociaTTy necessary Tabor woqu be distributed such that working time coqu be reduced and equitabTy distributed to aTT those abTe and wiTTing to work. This makes for more free time--an expanded sphere of autonomy. Because sociaTTy necessary production woqu require such a smaTT quantity of Tabor that individuaTs coqu not survive if they were paid onTy for the hours actuaTTy worked, Gorz (1985) has argued for a sociaT income. This .“income for Tife“ woqu be paid to citizens, not workers. SociaT income is the sociaT form income takes when automation has aboTished, aTong with a permanent obTigation to work, the Taw of vaTue and wage Tabor: At the strategic TeveT of sociaT struggTes, the transition to a post— capitaTist economy is more or Tess anticipated in those union agreements 13 which ensure that the increase in Tabour productivity wiTT bring about a corresponding reduction of hours without any reduction in wages. To put it another way, work which is eTiminated is paid for in the same way as work which is performed, non-workers paid in the same way as workers. The connection between pay and work performed is broken (Gorz 1985, p. 45). . According to Gorz (1982, pp. 68-69), a “non-cTass“ of “post-industriaT proTetarians” wiTT Tead the way to create the duaT economy. This non-cTass incTudes aTT those for whom automation means unempToyment or underempToyment. Post-industriaT proTetarians are those with no job security, no cTass identity, who are empToyed on some sort of probationary, contracted, casuaT, temporary, or part-time basis. As I wiTT show in chapter 3, this portion of the Tabor force is growing.‘ UnTike the working cTass, which is a product of capitaTism, the non-cTass is a product of capitaTist crisis. It is thrown off as extraneous Tabor and generaTTy overquaTified for the jobs it finds (Gorz 1982. pp. 68-69). But in seeking to appropriate areas of autonomy outside and in opposition to ’the Togic of society," the non-cTass expresses its subjectivity in refusing sociaTized Tabor. In this way, the non-cTass is the vanguard of the post- industriaT revoTution, aTthough it Tacks a cTear vision of the future society (Gorz 1982, pp. 72-85). It is here that one must invoke a feminist perspective. This is because (1) women and men experience time off the 14 job differentTy and (2) a significant portion of the non- cTass of post-industriaT proTetarians is women. For Gorz, time outside the sphere of necessity is by definition autonomous time, comparabTe to the notion of formaT autonomy mentioned above. -But is time in the formaT sphere of autonomy substantiveTy autonomous? I woqu argue that whether one experiences time off the job as free, seTf- managed time depends on other circumstances of one's Tife. IndividuaTs with responsibiTities at home, particuTarTy mothers with young chderen, don't necessariTy experience their time away from their wage-paying job as ”free time.” Because Gorz's definition of autonomy rests on a critique of the capitaT-Tabor reTation, his modeT of the duaT economy does not give adequate consideration to the expression of necessity and autonomy in the sex/gender system.8 ATthough Gorz recognizes the nonautonomous nature of women's househon work in capitaTist society, his modeT of the duaT economy perpetuates the work/nonwork dichotomy and the ideoTogicaT division between pubTic and private. He equates necessity with the pubTic sphere (”compTex units of production”) and autonomy with the private sphere (”famiTy"). Feminism is the window through which to see the 8 GayTe Rubin defines the sex/gender system as the set of arrangements by which a society transforms bioTogicaT sexuaTity into products of human activity and in which these transformed sexuaT needs are satisfied. It is rooted in a society's system of kinship and refTected in its division of Tabor by sex. See her cTassic statement, "The Traffic in Women: Notes on the 'PoTiticaT Economy' of Sex," pp. 157- 210 in Rayna R. Reiter, editor, Toward an AnthrogoTogy of Women. New York: MonthTy Review Press, 1975. 15 sphere of necessity as one that extends beyond compTex units of production to the ‘private? reaTm of reproduction. Thanks to the feminist movement, inteTTectuaTs today can no Tonger triviaTize housework and chdecare as nonwork. Noteworthy is the infTuence of severaT writers (Gardiner 1979: Hartmann 1981; Seccombe 1973; Vanek 1974; Zaretsky 1976 to name a seTect few) in the poTiticization of the househon and the eTevation of the status of househon work. By examining the intersection of capitaTist production and the home, they have defined housework and chdecare as sociaTTy necessary Tabor which reproduces the Tabor force on a daiTy and generationaT basis. WhiTe there is debate over whether housework produces surpTus vaTue in addition to use vaTue, and therefore whether housework is productive work in the Marxian sense, there is no question that privatized housework and chdecare are integraT to the overaTT operation of the capitaTist economy. Thus, the distinction between pubTic and private is bTurred, and no Tonger is the "economy“ the echusive domain of work and “famiTy" the site of “nonwork.” Instead, the househon does the work and absorbs the costs of maintaining and reproducing the Tabor force that capitaT finds unprofitabTe. Add the fact that housework and chdecare are disproportionateTy the responsibiTities of women and we have a criticaT piece in the puzzTe of women's oppression in capitaTist society. But the unequaT distribution of housework and chdecare between women and men is aTso an expression of maTe dominance in the 16 househon and in society. CapitaTism and patriarchy intersect to produce the present ogranization of housework and.chdecare.9 The gender division of Tabor in the househon has impTications for men's and women's Teisure. Deem (1986) has argued that women's Teisure is much more constrained than men's and occurs reTativeTy Tess often in proportion to work. Women's Teisure is infTuenced by the work, Teisure, needs, and demands of others, particuTarTy partners and chderen. Women's Teisure may aTso occur simuTtaneousTy with work activities (e.g. foning Taundry whiTe watching teTevision) or may be indistinguishabTe from work (e.g. knitting, sewing, gardening, cooking). Much of the difficuTty in distinguishing women's househon work and Teisure stems from the fact that for women the home is a workaace in a way that it is not for many men. As Deem notes (1986, pp. 80-81), workaaces do not convert easiTy into pTaces for Teisure; undone domestic chores and other aspects of housework are omnipresent. But 9 A vast Titerature has grown up around the question of housework and the househon division of Tabor between men and women. In addition to references in the text, see WiTTiam Beer, Househusbands. South HadTey, Mass.: Bergin and Garvey, 1983: Richard Berk and Sarah Fenstermaker Berk, Labor and Leisure et Heme: Content and Organization of the Househon Day. BeverTy HiTTs: Sage, 1979; Sarah Fenstermaker Berk, The Gender Factgry: The Agportionment of Work in American Househons. New York: PTenum, 1985; Sarah Fenstermaker Berk, editor, Women and Househon Labor. BeverTy HiTTs: Sage, 1980; Ruth Schwartz Cowan, More Work for Mother. New York: Basic Books, 1983; and Joseph PTeck, “Men's FamiTy Work: Three Perpectives and Some New Data,“ The FamiTy Cgordinator (October 1979): 481—488. 17 this may have more to do with the nature of the househon tasks women do. The househon work done by men, such as painting and repair, may be deferred untiT such time that they have time for time-consuming projects (e.g. weekends and vacations), and once compTeted there may not be anything eTse to do for a period of perhaps a week (as in mowing the Tawn), severaT months (the next time the pTumbing is stopped up). or a few years (painting). Thus, men's househon work may be Tess omnipresent and more bounded than women's simpTy because the nature of the tasks they do differ.10 ".31, are generaTTy prepared daiTy, which aTso means daiTy cTean-up, Taundry may be done a few times a week, whiTe other tasks Tike vacuuming and dusting may be weekTy activities. Such tasks are usuaTTy done by women. In addition, aTT members of a househon are TikeTy to see the home as a pTace of Teisure, but women may have to forfeit their Teisure in order to support that of others. Women may have to supervise chderen's pTay or prepare the meaT for her partner's friends who have come for dinner. As Deem (1986, p. 81) states, . ConsequentTy, women's home-based Teisure and enjoyment is often based on or derives from, (sic) the same activities and tasks which form part of their work in the househon, or is fitted into those tasks and activities, sometimes simuTtaneousTy. . .No wonder then that much of women's househon Teisure 10 My research reported beTow supports this cTaim as does research reported by Sarah Fenstermaker Berk in The Gender Factory: The Aegortionment 9f Wgrk in American Househons. New York: PTenum, 1985. 18 consists of needTework, knitting, cooking, dreaming and snatching quick naps. ATT of these activities can be fitted into a fragmented time scheduTe, don't require Targe bTocks of time, are cheap or free, require TittTe space or equipment and can quickTy be disposed of or stopped when work obTigations intervene. Furthermore, the unequaT distribution between women and men of housework and chdecare creates an unequaT' distribution of free time which favors men over women--free time which men, in turn, can use to pursue Teisure activities and other interests in or outside the home. Thus, the traditionaT gender division of Tabor Timits women's autonomy. It is difficuTt to know whether a reduction in men's paid working time woqu reTieve women of some of their househon burden and equaTize the distribution of housework and chdecare. A study by WaTker and Woods (1976) suggests perhaps not. In their study, the men with the shortest workweeks had wives with the Tongest workweeks, housework and wage work combined. By contrast, DiFazio (1985) reports that many Tongshoremen on the guaranteed annuaT income, who report to the hiring haTT for about two hours a day and who worked rareTy in three years, became "famiTy activists" in their newfound free time.11 11 FamiTy activists were those who became more invoTved in famiTy reTationships and househon work. SeveraT questions come to mind, however. Were their wives empToyed outside the home? If so, was the men's famiTy activism confined to the hours during which the wife was away from the home? What happened during the hours the wife was at home? Did she take over (by choice or fiat) the househon responsibiTities? If so, what did he do in the hours she 19 An expToration of the experience of reduced work and autonomy must be Tocated finaTTy within the study of segmented Tabor markets. There are varied types of reduced work which exist in different Tabor markets. This, in turn, may affect autonomy off the job. Certain types of reduced work may afford more opportunities for autonomy off the job. Time regimes associated with job sharing may permit scheduTing fTexibiTity and controT not permitted in other kinds of reduced work. Reduced work in the professions and unionized manufacturing sector may pay'more and provide empToyee benefits not avaiTabTe in other kinds of part-time jobs. Income, in a market economy, infTuences individuaTs' options for use of time off the job. To the extent that Tabor markets intersect with the sex/gender system, the different experiences of time off the job for men and women may be reTated not onTy to gender but to the kinds of jobs they have. Labor markets and the sex/gender system intersect to funneT women into certain kinds of jobs, usuaTTy in the secondary Tabor market. One-fourth of aTT women in the Tabor force are in five occupations: secretary, househon worker, bookkeeper, eTementary schooT teacher, and waitress. Forty percent are in those five pTus four others: typist, was at home? It seems there may or may not have been an equaTization of their work weeks, waged and unwaged work combined. ATso, if she took over responsibiTity for househon work during her hours at home, why is it the husband defers to the wife in this arena just because she is there? 20 cashier, nurse, and seamstress (Fox and Hesse-Biber 1984, p. 34). The crowding of women into this smaTT number of occupations infTates the suppTy of Tabor for these jobs and depresses wages. In contrast, the defTated competition for jobs in management and the professions, which resuTts from the reTative echusion of women (and raciaT minorities) from those jobs, keeps saTaries high, to the benefit of men who are represented disproportionateTy in these occupationaT categories. In addition, the distribution of men across a much Targer number of occupations than women reduces the competition for particuTar occupations, thereby raising wage TeveTs. Women are more TikeTy than men to be empToyed part time. Women's work outside the home is circumscribed by their work in the home. Thus, women often seek jobs, such as part-time, which are more easiTy integrated with their responsibiTities at home. PrevaiTing gender ideoTogies justify women's subordinate Tabor market status by assuming the naturaT primacy of househon and chdecare responsibiTities for women and by ignoring women's work outside the home as an expression of economic need. One fTaw of theories of Tabor market segmentation is a tendency to pTace aTT part-time work in the secondary Tabor market. WhiTe much part-time work, for exampTe nonunion saTes cTerks in stores, certainTy faTTs into the secondary Tabor market as most authors define it, the phenomenon of the part-time professionaT chaTTenges this view. WhiTe 21 part-time professionaTs may Tack empToyee benefits and other perquisites of fuTT-time professionaT empToyment, they must meet the same formaT educationaT requirements as the fuTT- time professionaT, and it is this formaT education which Edwards (1979) takes as a defining feature of the independent primary Tabor market. The partstime professionaT may aTso have opportunities equivaTent to those of the fuTT-time professionaT for creative expression and seTf-controT on the job. Much of the foregoing discussion iTTustrates the conceptuaT difficuTties that ensue when women's experiences are introduced into maTe-centered discourse. TraditionaT definitions of work focus on paid work, and Teisure is nonwork. Thus, work and Teisure are a dichotomy within which it is difficuTt to force women's tripartite experiences of paid work, housework, and Teisure. Even writers on Tabor market segmentation, who make a genuine effort to deaT with the intersection of Tabor markets and the sex/gender system, faTT short when it comes to the part- time professionaT. It's as if partvtime and professionaT are mutuaTTy echusive categories.12 The bias in favor of fuTT-time empToyment and Tinear, uninterrupted "maTe careers" is cTearTy refTected in the conceptuaT tooTs appTied to the study of empToyment, 12 This bias against part-time empToyment is buiTt into the conventionaT socioTogicaT definition of professions. Ritzer and WaTczak (1986), for exampTe, note the estabTishment of fuTT-time occupations as part of the process of the professionaTization of occupations. 22 judgments made about the Tabor market Tocation of jobs, and off-the-job activities. This study attempts to avoid some of those biases by rejecting the work/Teisure or. work/nonwork dichotomy. The phrase 'time off the job" suggests that work and nonwork activities may occur during that time and that activities need not be paid to be caTTed work. In addition, this study expTores the experiences of those empToyed Tess than fuTT time or Tess than year round and it does not assume informants shoqu have been empToyed fuTT time or shoqu want to be empToyed fuTT time. Further, it does not assume aTT Tess-than-fuTT-time wage work is in the secondary Tabor market but suggests that reduced work itseTf may be segmented into primary and secondary Tabor markets. The tension produced by deaTing with women's reaTity within a Tegacy of maTe-centered concepts is repeated in examining theoreticaTTy the reTationship between time and autonomy. That is the task to which I now turn. 23 CHAPTER 2 TheoreticaT Issues in Time and Autonomy The reader might think it odd that a study that focuses on autonomy off the job woqu take paid work as its anaTytic starting point. But there is good reason for this. The obTigations associated with paid work are time structures that govern many peopTe's Tives. The domination of these time structures is refTected in their typicaT infTexibiTity. We must work to ensure our TiveTihood, we must be at work certain hours of the day and week, and most often those hours are dictated for us by our empToyer. Most everything eTse we do in our Tives is arranged around our work scheduTe. When chderen's or other dependents' scheduTes take priority, the seTection of appropriate empToyment can be a diTemma. But even this demonstrates the power and infTexibiTity of paid empToyment in most peopTe's Tives. If work scheduTes were fTexibTe, finding empToyment that integrates weTT with home responsibiTities woqu not be a probTem. CustomariTy, autonomy is defined as seTf-determination and is associated with the quaTity of a person's Tife or the poTiticaT Tife of a society. This understanding suggests autonomy is a matter of decision-making power. PsychoT- ogists conceptuaTize autonomy as the highest stage of ego 24 deveTopment (HeTson, MitcheTT, and Hart 1985: Loevinger 1966, 1976) and as a centraT eTement in mentaT heaTth (Cassimatis 1979). PoTiticaT theorists, such as Rousseau in The SociaT Contract, have discussed the possibiTities for coTTective autonomy. Worker autonomy recentTy has become a popuTar topic among socioTogists and Tabor activists who argue that workers in modern industriaT society are aTienated and woqu benefit from greater controT over their work. This study foTTows a second strain in the understanding of autonomy, that of autonomy as unobTigated time. SpecificaTTy, the ideaT expTored herein is individuaTs' seTf-determined use of time. As noted in chapter 1, Gorz (1982, 1985) has caTTed for the “Tiberation of time“ through work-time reduction and more equitabTe distribution of free time in the face of productivity increases. To the extent that autonomy is curbed at work, expanded free time increases opportunities for autonomous expression off the job. For Gorz, the heteronomous character of work precTudes the achievement of autonomy at work. Heteronomy and eutonomy are contradictory in this sense.1 Further, 1 The concept "heteronomy“ as used by Gorz refers to the sphere of sociaTTy necessary Tabor. Heteronomy means necessity and in this context refers to work necessary for the maintenance of the society. These sociaT ends must be fquiTTed whether or not the tasks that must be performed to achieve them are personaTTy satisfying. The duaTity of heteronomy and autonomy is an adaptation of the Kantian duaTity of heteronomy of ends and autonomy of the wiTT. For Kant, autonomy means the wiTT is its own and and is determined onTy by its own Taws. Heteronomy refers to the wiTT's obeying Taws not of its own making but those consistent with externaT ends. This interpretation of the 25 according to Gorz, the heteronomous character of work and its attendant division of Tabor cannot be aboTished. As he states, I Without the fier of sociaT production and its division of Tabor, as weTT as reTativeTy important and compTex units of production, we woqu have to work mainTy at producing basic necessities (Gorz 1983, p. 220). UnTess we want to return to a previous state of economic and sociaT deveTopment, the compTex division of Tabor characteristic of advanced industriaT capitaTist societies is a fact of Tife. However, the sphere of necessity can be reduced by appTying more energy- and resource-efficient methods of production to the production of sociaTTy usefuT goods and services and eTiminating destructive and wastefuT production (Gorz, 1980, 1982). SociaTTy necessary Tabor woqu be distributed such that working time coqu be reduced and equitabTy distributed to aTT those abTe and wiTTing to work. This expands the sphere of autonomy. Gorz defines autonomous activity as the particuTar desires and projects of individuaTs, famiTies, and smaTT groups (1985, p. 63). It is that which we choose to do for ourseTves. Autonomous activity is reaT onTy if it is neither an obTigation, imposed on us in the name of moraT, reTigious or poTiticaT principTes, nor a vitaT RESETSE"EBETSR§"6¥'FEEEFBEBEVSEE"SEES};BEVTEYSFFBGSYTFSE“ Dagobert D. Runes, editor, Dictionary of PhiTosoehy. New York: PhiTosophicaT Library, 1983. 26 necessity. But for it not to be one or the other, subsistence has to be assured by means of a perfected productive sociaT system that woqu give us what is essentiaT to Tive on, and that woqu onTy ask of us a smaTT fraction of our time (Gorz 1983, p. 221). Gorz's vision suggests that free time coqu be used for autonomous projects. These might incTude music or fiTm making, educationaT pursuits, recreation, and the Tike. Autonomous projects are supported by a cuTturaT infrastructure that provides open space for communication, circuTation, and exchange: pTaces to make music and fiTms; 'free' radio and teTevision; Tibraries: and conviviaT tooTs. Thus, the post-industriaT revoTution invoTves more than simpTy the reduction of working time. EssentiaT is a O cuTturaT revoTution in sociaT institutions, the use of space, and the avaiTabiTity of tooTs to promote creative use of the free time produced by the reduction of working time. Gorz emphasizes the need for variation even in autonomous activities. As he states (1982, p. 103), ATT activities are impoverishing when they cannot be aTternated with activities drawing upon other mentaT and physicaT energies. Heteronomous activity is impoverishing when it is done fuTT-time to the echusion of aTT others, and the same is true of autonomous activity. As Guy Aznar has said, no one can be creative for 12 hours a day, 365 days a year. ReguTar to-ing and fro-ing between activities requiring intense personaT invoTvement and work divested of mentaT and emotionaT effort is a source of baTance and fquiTment. 27 Greater free time coqu provide opportunities for the reaTization of species being, to use Marx's Tanguage. As Marx argued, capitaTism aTienates humans from their species being--their creativity and opportunities for seTf- expression, that which makes us uniqueTy human. But according to Gorz, because species being may not be reaTized through work, even sociaTTy necessary work, given its heteronomous_nature, an expanded sphere of autonomy is required to expand opportunities for seTf-expression, thus improving the potentiaT for the reaTization of species being.2 The society Gorz envisions in which the productive system is “perfected“ and gives us what is essentiaT without consuming excesses of our time does not exist. Marx's critique of capitaTism is instructive in this regard. What I wiTT argue is that in capitaTist society humans are TiteraTTy aTienated from some of their time and from controT over use of that time. Indeed, the Togic of capitaTist accumuTation demands the aTienation of workers from time. WhiTe aTienation from time is impTicit in Marx's anaTysis of 2 Gorz and Marx differ, I think, on strategies to fquiTT species being. Marx thought work shoqu be an expression of species being and detested capitaTism because work in capitaTist society aTienated workers from the product of their Tabor, controT of the Tabor process, and species being. He, Tike Marxists such as Harry Braverman, can be criticized for romanticizing craftwork and making craft the standard for creative expression of seTf through work. By contrast, Gorz does not advocate a return to a craft-based economy nor does he beTieve the division of Tabor can be transcended. Instead, creative seTf-expression becomes possibTe in the sphere of autonomy, separate and distinct in time from the sphere of sociaTTy necessary work. 28 capitaTism, it was never discussed by him or other students of Marx as one of the principaT forms of aTienation in capitaTist society.3 How does aTienation from time manifest itseTf under capitaTist reTations of production? I argue that it takes three principaT forms: (1) through the worker's saTe of Tabor power/Tabor time: (2) through the increase in surpTus Tabor time reTative to necessary Tabor time; and (3) through the unequaT distribution of free time. As a consequence of their proTetarianization, the direct producers no Tonger have access to the means of production because the means of production have come under private ownership and controT. At the same time, the goods necessary for subsistence have become commodities that must be purchased with money. To get money to buy the necessary subsistence goods, the proTetarians enter into the wage- Tabor reTationship with capitaTists. What does the proTetarian have that the capitaTist wants? An abiTity to do work--Tabor power. Once son, his/her Tabor beTongs to the capitaTist empToyer. But Tabor and time are a unity which means that when the proTetarian seTTs his/her Tabor power for a wage, he/she seTTs it for a specified period of time. As Marx argued, Tabor can onTy be measured by its 3 BerteTT OTTman's book, ATienation: Merx'efiOgnception efi Man in CagitaTist §9ciety, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976, is a cTassic statement. OTTman identifies four principaT types of aTienation in Marx's writings: aTienation from (1) the Tabor process, (2) the product, (3) other human beings, and (4) species being. 29 duration. The admonition, “not on company time,“ refTects cTearTy the transfer of time that takes pTace in the wage- Tabor exchange. It reminds the worker that he/she no Tonger owns and controTs his/her time: it now beTongs to the “company.” First, the worker works under the controT of the capitaTist to whom his Tabour beTongs. . .Suppose that a capitaTist pays for a day's worth of Tabour-power: then the right to use that power for a day beTongs to him, just as much as the right to use any other commodity, such as a horse he had hired for the day (Marx, CagitaT, VoTume 1, 1977. pp. 291-292). The wage-Tabor exchange is at the root of the capitaTists' efforts to ensure that aTT of the time purchased is fiTTed with productive work. They want ”the most“ for their money. But because Tabor is variabTe and obtaining the average Tabor is not guaranteed, it is necessary for the capitaTist/manager to controT the Tabor process in an effort to ensure maximum output and productivity.4 Workers have devised countTess strategies of 4--Edwgrds-(T§79)-identifies three major types of Tabor controT in the history of U.S. capitaTism: simpTe, technicaT, and bureaucratic. SimpTe controT prevaiTed in the era of competitive capitaTism and persists in smaTT businesses today. It represents a form of Tabor controT characterized by direct, paternaTistic, arbitrary controT of workers by an owner/manager. TechnicaT controT rests in machines, such as the assembTy Tine, which set the pace of work for workers. Bureaucratic controT refers to codified ruTes and reguTations which define the nature of the Tabor process for workers and prevaiTs in Targe organizations. For a discussion of the roTe of synchronized cTock-time in controTTing Tabor, with iTTustrations from earTy factories, see E.P. Thompson's cTassic essay, "Time, Work DiscipTine, and IndustriaT CapitaTism," Past and Preeent 38 (1967): 56- 97. 30 resistance to capitaTists' efforts to controT Tabor and the use of their time: taTking on the phone, extended coffee breaks, reading magazines or newspapers on the job, sociaTizing with other workers, rate setting, stopping the Tine, and the Tike. Such 'soniering' is the bane of capitaTist existence. From its inception, workers in capitaTist society have fought against work at the same time that they had no choice but to work. WhiTe the first cTass struggTes, as documented by Marx (CaeitaT, VoTume 1, 1977, Chapter 28), were about whether individuaTs woqu spend their time working in factories at aTT, Tater struggTes deveToped over the Tength of the working day. The issue of whether to work in the factories had been resoTved--in the capitaTists' favor--but subsequentTy the question became one of how Tong.5 The working day consists of necessary Tabor time and surpTus Tabor time. SurpTus vaTue, the source of profit, derives from the Tatter. SurpTus vaTue derives from surpTus Tabor, the Tabor expended during the time that a worker works beyond that which is necessary to reproduce him/herseTf and famiTy. I caTT the portion of the working day during which this reproduction takes pTace necessary Tabour-time, and the Tabour expended during that time necessary Tabour; necessary for the worker, because independent of the particuTar sociaT form of his Tabour; €"FSF’€ET§’TEESFSF€cation of the cTass struggTe, see Harry CTeaver, Reading Cagitej PgTiticeTTy. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press, 1979. 31 necessary for capitaT and the capitaTist woer, because the conditioned existence of the worker is the basis of that woer. During the second period of the Tabour process, that in which his Tabour is no Tonger necessary Tabour, the worker does indeed expend Tabour-power, he does work, but his Tabour is no Tonger necessary Tabour, and he creates no vaTue for himseTf. He creates surpTus-vaTue which, for the capitaTist, has aTT the charms of something created out of nothing. This part of the working day I caTT surpTus Tabour-time, and to the Tabour expended during that time I give the name of surpTus-Tabour. It is just as important for a correct understanding of surpTus-vaTue to conceive it as mereTy a congeaTed quantity of surpTus Tabour-time, as nothing but objectified surpTus Tabour, as it is for a proper comprehension of vaTue in generaT to conceive it as mereTy a congeaTed quantity of so many hours of Tabour, as nothing but objectified Tabour (Marx, CagitaT, VoTume 1, 1977, p. 325). The capitaTist drive for ever-expanding profit requires the expansion of surpTus Tabor time reTative to necessary Tabor time as productivity increases through changes in the division of Tabor, the appTication of mechanized or automated methods of production, greater Tabor controT, and the Tike. It is this drive to accumuTate capitaT which expTains why productivity gains do not resuTt in reductions of working time. Decreasing the Tength of the working day decreases the rate and mass of surpTus vaTue (aTT other factors remaining equaT) or at Teast hons them constant if the decrease in surpTus Tabor time is proportionaT to the decrease in necessary Tabor time--both of which contradict the system's goaT of expansion. 32 What is new in capitaT is that it aTso increases the surpTus Tabour time of the masses by aTT artistic and scientific means possibTe, since its weaTth consists directTy in the appropriation of surpTus Tabour time, since its direct aim is vaTue, not use vaTue. Thus, despite itseTf, it is instrumentaT in creating the means of sociaT disposabTe time, and so in reducing working time for the whoTe society to a minimum and thus making everyone's time free for their own deveTopment. But aTthough its tendency is aTways to create disposabTe time, it aTso converts it into surpTus Tabour (Marx, Grundrisse, 1971, p. 144). Some of the surpTus produced by the workers reproduces the capitaTists such that capitaTists do not have to work, do not have to engage directTy in necessary Tabor for their own upkeep or that of their famiTies. What resuTts is an unequaT distribution of free time wherein the capitaTist cTass usurps the free time that the working cTass woqu have if workers did not have to Tabor beyond that which is necessary for their own subsistence.5 In addition, producing surpTus is a condition of their working to maintain themseTves. It they work at aTT, they work surpTus time as weTT as necessary time (MandeT 1971, pp.106-107). ObviousTy, if they don't work, they can't maintain 6 If one conceives of unproductive Tabor--that which does not produce directTy surpTus vaTue aTthough it may aid in its production and reaTization--as fiTTing "free time,” it is possibTe to see that the surpTus Tabor of productive Tabor produces and supports unproductive Tabor. From this vantage point, and depending on one's definition of productive and unproductive Tabor, it is not onTy capitaTists who usurp workers' free time but aTso managers, academics, artists, and the Tike. ' 33 themseTves: and working onTy necessary time is not an option in the capitaTist system. This foray into aTienation from time in capitaTist society yiered these insights: (1) in the wage-Tabor exchange, capitaTists take from workers their time and controT over the use of their time, at Teast for the duration of the working day and to the extent that work scheduTes dictate the rhythm of Tife; (2) the drive to accumuTate capitaT, the raison d'etre of the capitaTist system, requires the expansion of surpTus Tabor time reTative to necessary Tabor time, thereby preventing or Timiting increases in workers' free time as a resuTt of increases in productivity: and (3) capitaTism is characterized by the unequaT distribution of free time in that the capitaTist cTass usurps the free time workers woqu have if they didn't have to Tabor beyond that which is necessary for their own subsistence. This understanding of time in capitaTist society suggests that the Tiberation of time a Ta Gorz cannot be achieved unTess capitaTism itseTf is.transcended. Indeed, this is Gorz's position. But a difficuTt probTem remains. In a society of unequaT gender reTations, the Tiberation of time may benefit men more than women. For women to have the same opportunities as men for autonomous projects and seTf- deveTopment, sociaTTy necessary Tabor outside compTex units of production, i.e. in the househon, must aTso be distributed equitabTy. To the extent that women are the 34 primary caregivers and tenders of the househon, this means an adjustment in the househon division of Tabor so that men do more and women do Tess. OnTy then wiTT a more equitabTe distribution of free time between women and men be achieved, and onTy then wiTT women have temporaT opportunities equaT to men for seTf-deveTopment and expression of species being. Mechanization of househon work and subcontracting are not whoTTy satisfactory ways out of this bind. HistoricaTTy, mechanization has not served to reduce the amount of time devoted to househon work because it has had the consequence of raising standards of househon cTeanTiness. The washing machine made it easier to do Taundry but it aTso made it possibTe to do more Taundry in a week's time. Subcontracting, if women are hired disproportionateTy, woqu reproduce the sex-segregation of jobs which must be overcome if gender inequaTity is to be overcome. But is there a probTem with the vaTue of autonomy itseTf? UsuaTTy it is beTieved that autonomy Teads to greater happiness, that seTf-determination, seTf- deveTopment, and seTf-expression Tead to seTf-fquiTTment.7 Yet is this emphasis on seTf bankrupt? I suggest it is without some appreciation of the reTationaT nature of sociaT 7 FoTTowing Sartre, however, Fay (1987) has noted the negative consequences of too much freedom and autonomy, particuTarTy jeaTousy in comparing one's Tife with that of others, frustration over one's inabiTity to expTore aTT options, instabiTity and impermanence in reTationships, and restTessness about the options not chosen. As he states (1987, p. 200), “a free society might sometimes be one in which its members are unsettTed, restive, and discontented.“ 35 Tife. A feminist rethinking of autonomy can provide a vision of communitarian autonomy not inconsistent with Gorz's vision of the sphere of autonomy in a post-industriaT future. Toward a Feminist Rethinking of Autonomy Our ideas about autonomy are intertwined with our ideas about seTfhood. The seTf is fuTTy deveToped when it is independent and autonomous, separate and inner-directed, no Tonger attached to parents or other externaT controT agents. Indeed, it seems one 923;; be autonomous if connected to (read infTuenced by) others. In the opening paragraph to her book From a Broken Web, feminist theoTogian Catherine KeTTer summarizes the hoTonic reTationship of independence, autonomy, separation, and seTfhood in Western society.8 To be a seTf, must I be something separate and apart? How eTse coqu I be myseTf? Myth and reTigion, phiTosophy and psychoTogy center our civiTization on the assumption that an individuaT is a discrete being: I am cTeanTy divided from the surrounding woer of persons and pTaces; I remain essentiaTTy the same seTf from moment to moment. Common sense identifies separateness with the freedom we cherish in the name of 'independence' and 'autonomy.' The. 8 KoestTer (1967) coined the term ”hoTonic” from the Greek ”hoTos," meaning whoTe, and “on," denoting the individuaT or segment. A segment is at once an individuaT entity in itseTf and a part of a Targer whoTe. The hoTon is at the same time part and whoTe. I borrow the term here to refer to the meaning reTationships of these various concepts. Each has its own meaning yet each is part of the meaning of the others. 36 assumption that seTfhood requires separation is even rooted in Tanguage. The Latin for 'seTf,‘ se, meaning 'on one's own,' yiers with parare ('to prepare') the verb 'to separate.’ For our cuTture it is separation which prepares the way for seTfhood (KeTTer 1986, p. 1). As KeTTer suggests, the focus on individuaT autonomy has a Tong phiTosophicaT tradition and is deepTy rooted in Western cuTture. Haworth (1986, pp. 11-13) traces the concept to PTato's notion of courage in The RegubTic and AristotTe's concept of seTf-sufficiency in the Ethics and the PoTitics. WhiTe neither spoke directTy of individuaT or personaT autonomy, the PTatonic notion of courage focused on seTf-controT whiTe AristoteTian seTf-sufficiency connoted independence. However, according to Haworth, it is a mistake to attribute the contemporary concept of personaT autonomy to the Greeks. WhiTe the word, autonomy, is of Greek derivation and means 'seTf-ruTe,“ the Greeks did not appTy the term to persons but to city-states. Thus they spoke of poTiticaT autonomy, as in sovereignty, rather than personaT autonomy. This is true despite the prominence of seTf-controT in PTato's thought and seTf-sufficiency in AristotTe's. Haworth's (1986, p. 13) assessment of the contribution of Greek thought to an understanding of personaT autonomy: The components were TargeTy there, but not the idea itseTf, with the fTavor that it has in its contemporary use. PersonaT autonomy with us invoTves an intense individuaTity of a sort to which the Greeks did not aspire. Our idea of 37 an autonomous person is of one who has individuated himseTf vividTy. Rasmussen (1973) traces autonomy and the discovery of the phenomenon of subjectivity to Kant. As he states, . . .the Kantian man is one who freeTy constructs his own reaTity in such a way that he can be said to be the maker of his own destiny. The focus, of course, is internaT, upon the achievements of the inner seTf. . .The Kantian man is on a voyage of internaT Tiberation of seTf-- his probTem is to become what he wiTT begin to recognize as his essentiaT seTf (Rasmussen 1973, p. 9). Kant beTieved autonomy was the foundation of human dignity and the source of aTT moraTity. In the Kantian view, autonomy is impartiaT rationaTity; it requires temporary detachment from one's Toves and hates, desires and aversions, to consider principTes from different points of view to make moraT decisions. Such abstraction from personaT differences takes as its purpose the fair and reasonabTe adjudication of competing principTes and vaTues, with impartiaT regard for aTT persons, in the making of universaT Taw. The true seTf emerges when one is as free as possibTe from concerns, eccentricities, and attachments one is caused to have by nature and circumstance.9 In this conception, one is most fuTTy oneseTf, expressing one's true nature, when one 'rises above' the particuTar 9 See ImmanueT Kant, Groundwork gf the Metaehysic of MoraTs, transTated and anaTysed by H.J. Paton, New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1964, especiaTTy p. 101. I have borrowed this interpretation of Kant from Thomas E. HiTT, Jr., "The Importance of Autonomy," pp. 129-138 in Eva Feder Kittay and Diana T. Meyers, editors, Women and MoraT Theory, Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman and LittTefier, 1987. 38 naturaT and conditioned desires that distinguish one from others: and one does this by adopting principTes from an impartiaT point of view and acting from respect for these principTes. In this way, it is thought, one is seTf-governing, or autonomous, i.e. governed by one's true (impartiaT) seTf (HiTT 1987, p. 132). The existentiaTists equated autonomy with separation, particuTarTy separation from the domination of society, and is symboTized by Kierkegaard's interpretation of the Abraham myth and by the protagonist in Camus' noveT, The Stranger. Abraham's wiTTingness to sacrifice his son is a choice made not on the basis of externaT sociaT codes but on the basis of his own inner courage. And the protagonist in The Stranger reaTizes his freedom and his true authentic seTf at the moment of death--the uTtimate separation (Rasmussen 1973). Haworth's definition of autonomy incTudes eTements of seTf-ruTe, criticaT refTection, and proceduraT independence. It is a decidedTy psychoTogicaT interpretation of the concept with Freudian overtones in understanding the seTf as mediating between externaT domination and personaT impuTse. As he states (1986, p. 14), An autonomous person ruTes himseTf, and this echudes domination by others and by his own impuTses. A seTf is thus effectiveTy interposed and mediates these infTuences. Regarding criticaT refTection, he adds (1986, p. 17), As a person deveTops he becomes increasingTy autonomous. But in addition, the very sense in which he is 39 autonomous shifts. . .This is because he deveTops an abiTity to refTect criticaTTy on his needs, wants, and situation. An autonomous Tife is a refTective Tife, one fostering proceduraT independence aTthough not necessariTy substantive independence. Behavior is proceduraTTy independent, regardTess of how much it may conform to that of others or deTiberateTy foTTow a pattern Taid out by others, to the extent that the decision to initiate it and to continue with it is one's own (Haworth 1986, p. 20). Yet the substance and outcome of criticaT refTection have sociaT structuraT constraints. One may refTect and choose based on that refTection, but what if there are few or no reaT aTternatives? A sTave might imagine and prefer freedom, but knowing freedom is not an option, resign him/herseTf to the oppressed condition. Is this autonomy? Haworth woqu sureTy say not. More suthy, individuaTs may make gender-appropriate choices beTieving fuTTy that this is what they want and not recognizing that gendered sociaT structures and gender ideoTogies have guided them to those choices by Timiting their options. CriticaT refTection may be necessary for autonomy, but it is certainTy not sufficient. The possibiTity of sociaT structuraT constraints forces us to Took at personaT autonomy within the context of sociaT Tife. IndividuaTs cannot reaTisticaTTy be taken out of their sociaT context. ConventionaT notions of autonomy exaggerate and ceTebrate the independence, isoTation, and separateness of 40 individuaTs at the expense of a vision of individuaTs in reTation and connection to others. The Marxian tradition of thought encourages us to examine the institutionaT context of human Tife and suggests that humans must reconstruct the sociaT conditions within which they find themseTves to reaTize their true nature. For Marx, the profound isoTation and separateness ceTebrated by TiberaT notions of autonomy are in fact the substance of human aTienation in capitaTist society. As vaTues they are bourgeois expressions of that aTienation. Marx's pressing concern was to overcome the concrete historicaT conditions which produce that aTienation. FoTTowing KeTTer and feminist theorists CaroT GiTTigan and Nancy ChOdorow, the concept of autonomy has a decidedTy mascuTine bias. .Separation and seTf-controT overshadow reTation and connection and as such are expressions of patriarchaT cuTture in which maTe experience is vaTued and femaTe experience is devaTued, suppressed, ignored, dismissed, siTenced, negated, or erased. To understand this argument more compTeteTy, it is necessary to deTve brieny into GiTTigan's work on moraT deveTopment and Chodorow's theory of mascuTine and feminine personaTity deveTopment. GiTTigan (1982) has argued that men and women undergo distinct but paraTTeT moraT deveTopmentaT processes. She identifies two types of moraT perspectives. One she caTTs a justice perspective, based on a moraTity of rights and formaT reasoning and Tong thought, given the infTuence of 41 Kotherg's theories of moraT deveTopment, to be the onTy moraTity. The second moraT perspective GiTTigan dubs the care perspective. This is a moraTity of care and responsibiTity and is centered on responsiveness to others. It is concerned with ”providing care, preventing harm, and maintaining reTationships“ (Meyers and Kittay 1987, p. 3). She describes this perspective: As a framework for moraT decision, care is grounded in the assumption that seTf and other are interdependent, an assump- tion refTected in a view of action as responsive and, therefore, as arising in reTationship rather than the view of action as emanating from within the seTf and therefore, 'seTf-governed.' Seen as responsive, the seTf is by definition connected to others (GiTTigan 1987, p. 24). GiTTigan's discovery and naming of the care perspective were resuTts of a study of moraT decision making among a sampTe of adoTescent and aduTt men and women. In her study, aTT of the men, with one exception, focused on the justice perspective if they focused on a perspective. By contrast, the women divided, with one-third focused on justice and one-third on care. WhiTe the care perspective was cTearTy not characteristic of aTT women in the sampTe, an aTT-maTe sampTe woqu have shown TittTe or no evidence of the care perspective. This is the substance of GiTTigan's critique of Kotherg. Because his theory of moraT deveTopment was based on a sampTe of maTes onTy, it coqu not detect 42 aTternative modeTs of moraT deveTopment based on femaTe experience, if they exist.10 GiTTigan's research on moraT deveTopment has fueTed specuTation that men and women approach moraT diTemmas differentTy and use different standards in making moraT decisions. These differences woqu seem to stem from differences in men's and women's psychoTogicaT make-up and concrete reaTities. Perhaps the best feminist statement on mascuTine and feminine personaTity in mid-twentieth century Western society, certainTy one that has captured widespread accTaim, is that of Nancy Chodorow (1978). BTending a socioTogicaT perspective with object-reTations theory, Chodorow has deveToped a compeTTing theory to expTain men's separateness and women's reTatedness. These personaTity differences have their origins in the chde's pre-oedipaT period, particuTarTy the reTationship with mother. Chodorow notes that universaTTy women mother. Thus, the chde's first emotionaT attachment is to a woman. This is significant in the chde's deveTopment of gender identity and emergent seTfhood. Because mother and daughter are the same sex, mother identifies with her daughter as does daughter with mother. This “doubTe identification” keeps the daughter attached to the mother for a Tonger period than sons and discourages the 10 See Lawrence Kotherg, The PhiTosoghy of Morel DeveTogment. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1981. 43 mother from pushing the daughter away. The daughter's gender identity deveTops in personaT reTation to and connection with the mother. By contrast, because mother and son are different sexes, the mother does not identify with her son nor he with her. She pushes him away more easiTy. Because the father is emotionaTTy absent in that he is not invoTved directTy in chdecare, the son's gender identity cannot deveTop in reTation and connection to his father. Therefore, his gender identity deveTops in opposition to and negation of the mother. Thus, mascuTinity deveTops through a process of repressing and negating that which is feminine.11 These pre-oedipaT experiences have ramifications for men's and women's sense of seTf and other in aduTthood. As Chodorow states (1978, pp. 169-170), . . .girTs come to define and experience themseTves as continuous with others; their experience of seTf contains more fTexibTe or permeabTe ego boundaries. Boys come to define themseTves as more separate and distinct, with a greater sense of rigid ego boundaries and differentiation. The basic feminine 11 The question might be posed here, does femininity deveTop by repressing that which is mascuTine? FoTTowing Chodorow, I woqu argue no. Because the father is emotionaTTy absent and not invoTved in chdecare particuTarTy in the pre-oedipaT period, the daughter has not formed a bond with her father from which she must separate. Therefore, there is nothing to repress or negate. In turn, because the mother is emotionaTTy avaiTabTe, the daughter identifies easiTy with her same-sex parent. The son, by contrast, cannot identify easiTy with his same-sex parent because the father is unavaiTabTe. To deveTop mascuTine identity, then, he can onTy negate that which is not mascuTine--femininity--as he separates from the parent with whom he has bonded, his mother. 44 sense of seTf is connected to the woer, the basic mascuTine sense of seTf is separate. . .MascuTine personaTity, then, comes to be defined more in terms of deniaT of reTation and connection (and deniaT of femininity). whereas- feminine personaTity comes to incTude a fundamentaT definition of seTf in reTationship. . .This points to boys' preparation for participation in nonreTationaT spheres and to girTs' greater potentiaT for participation in reTationaT spheres. It points aTso to different reTationaT needs and fears in men and women. Chodorow here is not trumpeting the Parsonian (Parsons and BaTes 1955) compTementarity-through-opposition of men's instrumentaT and women's expressive roTes. Instead, the bourgeois patriarchaT nucTear famiTy consteTTation condemns men and women to repeat this asymmetry unTess men and women equitabTy share chdecare, particuTarTy in the chde's first years. Such a shared chdecare arrangement, Chodorow beTieves, woqu permit sons to deveTop gender identity in personaT reTation and connection to a man. MascuTinity, in turn, woqu be defined in reTation and connection to others and woqu not mean the negation of femininity (defined as reTation and connection). Shared chdecare woqu aTso free women of some of the burden of chdecare, permitting them greater opportunities for seTf-deveTopment. Mother's greater sense of separateness coqu discourage her overinvoTvement in her daughter's Tife, thus girTs Tearn to be more autonomous. I think Chodorow's theory vaTues autonomy and reTation and advocates each in baTance as components of human 45 personaTity. This I see as potentiaTTy consistent with Gorz's ideas regarding an expanded sphere of autonomy from work. Gorz's use of the concept of autonomy is not necessariTy an appTication of the Kantian notion of individuaT autonomy. Though it can be that, it can aTso be an opportunity for the reconstruction of community, with an emphasis on reTation and care--perhaps not unTike the moraT economy of time suggested by Sirianni (1987).12 For with an expanded sphere of autonomy in Gorz's sense, we coqu have more time to cuTtivate nurturing reTationships with others and more time to devote to communitarian projects.13 12 With regard to poTiticaT cuTture, Sirianni argues that time scarcity restricts participation and consensus formation and serves as an excuse at every TeveT of the poTiticaT system. Urgency takes priority over importance, and smaTT parceTs of time do not permit refTection. As he states, “it is this ideoTogicaT excuse function that a new economy of time caTTs into question in the most fundamentaT way by Taying cTaim to time for genuine pubTic activity and poTiticaT participation“ (1987, p. 184). On an interpersonaT TeveT, a new economy of time coqu permit us to ”more rightfuTTy demand of each other the time for nurturance, commitment, attention, and civiTity that we think we deserve” (1987, p. 189). 13 Gorz (1982, p. 85) draws on Marcuse's ideas regarding cuTturaT revoTution in deveToping his vision for a post- industriaT revoTution. He advocates repTacing ethics of performance, accumuTation, and competition with reciprocity, tenderness, and spontaneity. WhiTe Gorz and some feminists differ in their understanding of the source of the competitive ethic (for Gorz the source is capitaTism; for feminists, patriarchy). they are in agreement regarding the desirabTe vaTues on which to bude a future society and the roTe the feminist movement can pTay in creating that society. Their differences in defining the source of "wrong“ vaTues, however, inevitabTy Tead to differences in poTiticaT agendas for sociaT change. I see the reduction of working time, with important quaTifications, as an area where the two can be made compatibTe. 46 It has been noted that industriaT capitaTism brought with it an unprecedented Tengthening of the working day (McGaughey 1980). SimuTtaneousTy, it weakened community and has increasingTy atomized persons. Despite reduction of working time from 12- and 14-hour days to the 8-hour day, we have seen TittTe reconstruction of community. Perhaps we are too tired, or the time Teft after work is too harried as we strive to 'fit in“ personaT and famiTiaT obTigations and Teisure.activities before we must return to our jobs. The organization of time off the job is an important coroTTary to questions of work-time reduction. But the extension of the market into virtuaTTy aTT areas of sociaT Tife has aTso diTuted community. Thus, work-time reduction provides an opportunity for the restoration of community, but nothing more. Concomitant with that work-time reduction must come a rethinking of basic sociaT vaTues if our goaT is a more just and caring society. 47 CHAPTER 3 Review of the Literature Gorz's vision of post-industriaT society is admittedTy utopian--that of a non-market, egaTitarian society which many woqu doubt is attainabTe. Many other advocates of work-time reduction (Bennett and Reissman 1984; Best 1978, 1980, 1981; Gans 1985: Levitan and BeTous 1977: McGaughey 1981 to name a seTect few) are Tess romantic and more practicaT in their vision, perhaps. However, most advocates of work-time reduction overTook the fact that numerous types of reduced work aTready exist and, therefore, ignore the possibiTity that a generaTized work-time reduction might Tegitimate and entrench aTready existing reduced work. WhiTe their vision of society-wide work-time reduction has not been instituted, there exist pockets of reduced work in a number of economic sectors and occupationaT categories. This chapter's objective is to review what is known about four types of aTready existing reduced work. The four types of reduced work with which I am concerned are part-time empToyment, temporary empToyment, job sharing, and work sharing. These four are of interest because they are on the rise, they tap a range of occupationaT situations and Tabor market segments as they intersect with the gender divison of 48 Tabor, and they are suggestive of the non-cTass as Gorz has defined it. For purposes of this study, reduced work refers to wage work Tess than the normative ”fuTT time.“ Because government data are organized according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics definition of fuTT-time work as 35 hours or more a week, reduced work in this context is work Tess than 35 hours per week or Tess than year round. Part-Time EmgToyment Part-time empToyment, defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics as empToyment Tess than 35 hours per week, has grown appreciabTy since the mid-1950s. Since that time, the number of part-time empToyees in nonagricuTturaT industries increased at an average annuaT rate of nearTy four percent, more than doubTe the rate of increase for fuTT-time workers (Deutermann and Brown 1978). Since 1970, the proportion of the Tabor force voTuntariTy empToyed part time has remained between 13 and 14 percent. The proportion empToyed part time invoTuntariTy, however, has increased from 3.1 percent in 1970 to 5.7 percent in 1984. This suggests that the strongest factor in the growth of part-time empToyment is not workers' preferences for fTexibiTity but empToyers' response to economic pressures (U.S. Congress, Office of TechnoTogy Assessment 1985, pp. 59-60). Most part-time workers are women, teenagers, and oner persons (Nardone 1986). Of this group, women are the Targest proportion, constituting two-thirds of aTT part-time workers in 1985 49 (Nardone 1986). Part-time jobs comprise 29.4 percent of the jobs in the services industry and 51.5 percent of the jobs in retaiT trade. More than 25 percent of the nearTy 10 miTTion jobs created during the Reagan years have been part time (9 to 5 1986). NearTy han of aTT part-time workers are in saTes and service jobs (Nardone 1986). Temgorary EmgToyment Within the part-time workforce, temporary heTp constitutes a significant subgroup. Gannon (1984) defines temporaries as those workers who are empToyees of temporary heTp firms, such as Manpower, Inc. and KeTTy Services, who are sent out on assignment to various organizations. When the assignment is compTeted, empToyees return to the temporary heTp firm to await another assignment. They do not, however, work for the temporary heTp firm between work assignments. TechnicaTTy, temporaries are empToyees of the temporary heTp firms and not the companies where they work. In 1956 there were approximateTy 20,000 empToyees in the temporary heTp industry. More recentTy it has been estimated that two to three miTTion workers are empToyed as temporaries at some time--often for onTy a few hours, but more frequentTy for severaT days over a period of three or four months--during each year (Gannon 1984). Temporaries comprised about two percent of the American Tabor force in the earTy 1980s, but that number is expected to tripTe by the earTy 19903 (Ostrach 1981). In the two-year period between November, 1982, and November, 1984, the number of 50 empToyees in the industry grew 70 percent (Carey and HazeTbaker 1986). The temporary heTp industry is the third fastest growing industry in the United States today, with 90 percent of businesses and practicaTTy aTT of the Fortune 500 companies using temporaries on a reguTar basis (Ostrach 1981). The industry has grown twice as fast as GNP over the Test 14 years, and faster than the,computer equipment industry, to a payroTT of $5.5 biTTion in 1984. This compares to a payroTT of $431 miTTion in 1971 (U.S. Congress, Office of TechnoTogy Assessment 1985, p. 61). In the earTy 1970s, most temporary jobs were in the cTericaT sector, and most temporary cTericaT workers were young women (Gannon 1974). More recentTy, Gannon (1984) has estimated that 65 percent of temporary heTp empToyment is in cTericaT work, 30 percent is in industry, and 5 percent is in professionaT/technicaT work. RecentTy, there has been considerabTe growth in temporary empToyment in the heaTth care industry, particuTarTy among registered and Ticensed practicaT nurses and other heaTth care professionaTs and technicians (Howe 1986). The exercise of management prerogative has Ted to the expansion of part-time and temporary empToyment. Managers Tike to hire "peripheraT empToyees” (Gannon 1975) for a number of reasons. Part-time workers are cheaper to empToy because their base pay is often Tower than that of fuTT- timers and they often do not receive fringe benefits. Because part-time workers can be scheduTed to cover peak 51 demand periods during the day, they afford managers cost efficiency with greater fTexibiTity than do fuTT-time workers. Temporaries can be hired for speciaT projects or for peak demand periods that occur during an upturn in the business cycTe and can be terminated easiTy when need subsides. The use of part-time workers and temporaries aTTows managers to trim their permanent, fuTT-time workforce, thereby decreasing the number of workers to whom they are “committed." PoTiticaTTy, it may mean fewer workers to Tay off in periods of economic recession. The existence of a part-time and temporary reserve army of Tabor aTso enhances management controT of Tabor. According to AppeTbaum (1987), this restructuring of work has weakened internaT Tabor markets and is cTosing off opportunities for job security and advancement for women that have onTy recentTy become avaiTabTe.1 In contrast to part-time and temporary empToyment, job sharing and work sharing occur when individuaTs or coTTective bargaining units negotiate with their empToyers 1 The research Titerature on part-time and temporary empToyment remains skimpy. In addition to materiaTs cited in this chapter, noteworthy recent titTes are: Harvey R. HameT, ”New Data Series on InvoTuntary Part-Time Work,“ MonthTy Labor Review 108 (3) March, 1985: 42-43; Hdea Kahne, Reconceiving Pert-Time Wgrk: New Persgectives for OTder Wegkers end Women. Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman and ATTanher, 1985; Vicki Smith, “The CircuTar Trap: Women and Part-Time Work," BerkeTey Journel of SocioTogy 23 (1983): 1- 17; SyTvia Lazos Terry, ”InvoTuntary Part-Time Work: New Information from the CPS,” MenthTy Eabor Review 104 (2) February, 1981: 70-74; and Wendy Weeks, “Part-Time Work: The Business View on Second-CTass Jobs for Housewives and Mothers," AtTantis 5 (Spring, 1980): 69-88. 52 for reduced work scheduTes. ATthough there are exceptions, these two types of reduced work tend to exist in the primary Tabor market whiTe part-time and temporary empToyment predominate in the secondary Tabor market. Obvious exceptions are (1) cTericaT workers who job share and (2) professions, such as university teaching, which are experiencing the encroachment of part-time and temporary empToyment. The growth in the number of university facuTty who are hired on a part-time or temporary basis has Ted to a concern that university teaching is being deprofessionaTized (Van ArsdaTe 1978) and proTetarianized (AbeT 1977). The Tatter trend suggests a bTurring of the division between primary and secondary Tabor markets. Job Sharing Sometimes taken on as a temporary arrangement, job sharing can be a form of permanent part-time empToyment and is usuaTTy defined as ”two peopTe sharing the responsibiTity of one fuTT-time position, with saTary and fringe benefits prorated” (OTmsted 1979, p. 283). It is designed to increase both the number and quaTity of part-time jobs (Hedges 1980; Meier 1979). Job sharing is usuaTTy voTuntary, requested by workers and negotiated with their empToyers, and is a practice usuaTTy associated with professionaT work aTthough it does occur in cTericaT settings. Some job sharers work in cTose partnership; others work more or Tess independentTy. In some instances, Tike academic settings, job sharers are maritaT partners; in 53 others, job sharers are unreTated but they work in cTose partnership; and in stiTT others, they never meet but communicate by phone or note (Hedges 1980; Meier 1979). Meier's (1979) study suggests the overwheTming majority of job sharers are women. Seventy-seven percent of her respondents were members of job sharing teams comprised of two women. OnTy four percent were members of teams comprised of two men. The remaining 19 percent were members of maTe-femaTe teams. As OTmsted (1979, p. 284) notes, job sharing differs from traditionaT part-time empToyment in two important ways. First, the purpose of job sharing is to restructure career- oriented, professionaT positions which cannot be reduced in hours or spTit between two part-time empToyees. Second, job sharing often requires a significant degree of cooperation and communication between the sharers. Work Sharing Work sharing differs from job sharing in that it is a strategy for rationing the avaiTabTe wage work. Best (1980) has indicated that industriaT societies have consistentTy appTied poTicies to reduce and ration working time as a means of decreasing jobTessness. Approaches have varied, ranging from temporary and permanent reductions of the workweek to removing systematicaTTy various sections of the working-age popuTation from the Tabor force through, for exampTe, proTonged schooTing in youth or earTy.retirement. 54 GeneraTTy, work sharing takes two basic forms. One type seeks to reduce working time among the empToyed to create jobs for the unempToyed, thus distributing avaiTabTe wage work more evenTy among a Targer number of persons. LegisTated reductions of the workweek are one exampTe here. This type has been used with the intent of reducing unempToyment caused by Tong-term conditions that are TikeTy to persist beyond the periodic downturns of the business cycTe. A second type is usuaTTy retricted to specific firms and used as a short-term strategy to prevent Tayoffs and dismissaTs by temporariTy reducing working time. For exampTe, empToyers and empToyees in a given firm may decide to reduce the workweek and earnings for a short period by 10 percent as an aTternative to Taying off one-tenth of existing workers (Best 1980, p. 84: Best 1981, p. 2). Work-time reductions to decrease unempToyment have most. commonTy occurred in the form of shortened workweeks (Best 1980, p» 85). Over the Tast 30 years, approximateTy 30 percent of coTTective bargaining agreements have had formaT provisions for work sharing, aTthough, with the exception of the highTy unstabTe garment industries, these options have rareTy been used. More recentTy, short workweeks were used as an aTternative to Tayoffs by a number of firms in the New York metropoTitan area during the duaT crises of the 1975 recession and city fiscaT crisis (Best 1980, p. 85). Since the Tate 1970s, eTeven states have instituted short-time compensation programs which permit quaTifying empToyers to 55 cut their workers' hours and the workers in turn can receive prorated unempToyment insurance benefits (Business Week, ApriT 14, 1986, p. 77).2 In 1979, Tess than two percent of the totaT number of persons at work were work sharers. WhiTe maTe work sharers outnumbered women by five percent and whites far outnumbered raciaT minorities, women and raciaT minorities were disproportionateTy represented reTative to their percentage of the working popuTation. Work sharers were concentrated among bTue-coTTar workers, with the Targest proportions of work sharers honing jobs as operatives and craft workers. 2 The eTeven states are CaTifornia, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, FTorida, MaryTand, ITTinois, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, and New York. The research Titerature on short- time compensation in particuTar and work sharing in generaT has grown aTong with the number of states that have adopted STC programs. In addition to titTes cited herein, the foTTowing references are exempTary: Fred Best and James Mattesich, ”Short Time Compensation Systems in CaTifornia and Europe,“ MonthTy Labor Review, 103 (7) JuTy, 1980: 13-22; R.W. CrowTey and E. Huth, “An InternationaT Comparison of Work Sharing Programs," ReTations IndustrieTTesZIndustriaT ReTations 38 (3) 1983: 636-647; Stuart Kerachsky et aT., "Work Sharing Programs: An EvaTuation of Their Use," MonthTy Labor Review 109 (5) May, 1986: 31-33: John C. Lammers, "Managing UnempToyment: The RoTe of Union Business Agents and the Use of Work Sharing," SociaT PreeTeme, 32 (2) December, 1984: 133-143; Sar A. Levitan and Richard S. BeTous, “Work-sharing Initiatives At Home and Abroad,“ MonthTy Labor Review, 100 (9) September, 1977: 16-20; RameTTe MaCoy and Martin J. Morand, Short-Time Comgensation: A Fermeleyfer Werk Shering. New York: Pergamon Press, 1984: Maureen McCarthy and GaiT S. Rosenberg with Gary Lefkowitz, Work Sharing: Ceee Studies. KaTamazoo, Michigan: W.E. Upjohn Institute for EmpToyment Research, 1981; Martin Nemirow,.“Work-sharing Approaches: Past and Present," MonthTy Labor Review 107 (9) September, 1984: 34-39: Frank W. Schiff, "Short-time Compensation: Assessing the Issues,“ MonthTy Labor Review 109 (5) May, 1986: 28-30; and John ZaTusky, "Short Time Compensation: The AFL-CIO Perspective," MonthTy Labor Review 109 (5) May, 1986: 33-34. 56 The incidence of work sharing aTso varied by industry. The construction, manufacturing, and trade sectors accounted for disproportionate numbers of work sharers (Bednarzik 1980). No previous research attempts to expTore systematicaTTy the experiences of part-time workers, temporary workers, job sharers, and work sharers in a comparative framework. Instead, studies have assumed discrete experiences of workers in those varied types of reduced work. Few studies have expTored different types of reduced work as they are reTated to conditions which may enhance or impede autonomy off the job. We know reTativeTy TittTe about the terms and conditions of reduced work. WhiTe a few studies evaTuate the job attitudes of part-time workers (Eberhardt and Shani 1984; MiTTer and Terborg 1979), part-time workers generaTTy have been ignored in organizationaT research (Rotchford and Roberts 1982). This is the TogicaT outcome of an ideoTogy that deTegitimates work when it is not fuTT time. NonprofessionaT part-time jobs tend to be Tow-paying jobs (Owen 1978; PTewes 1984) with few fringe benefits (PTewes 1984). Part-time workers who are covered by a coTTective bargaining agreement tend to have higher base pay and some benefits by comparison to nonunion part-time workers (ZaTusky 1984). GeneraTTy, temporary heTp agencies provide their empToyees with TegaTTy required benefits (sociaT security, workers' compensation, and unempToyment insurance) but not sick or hoTiday pay or other benefits common in 57 industry. The actuaT rate of pay for temporary workers is sometimes higher than that of reguTar empToyees: at other times, the same or sTightTy Tower (Gannon 1974). Job sharers generaTTy receive prorated saTaries and fringe benefits (OTmstead 1979). MaritaT partners who job share have indicated difficuTty Tiving on the equivaTent of one fuTT-time saTary (Arkin and Dobrofsky 1978: WinkTer 1979). Work sharers may suffer a Toss of wages associated with their hours reduction, aTthough those who are eTigibTe for short-time compensation make up some of that wage Toss in prorated unempToyment insurance benefits. Because they remain attached to their job instead of being Taid off, work sharers can retain their fringe benefits (Best 1981; MaCoy and Morand 1984: McCarthy and Rosenberg 1981). We know even Tess about the extent to which those who work Tess than fuTT time have an infTuence on their work scheduTes. Can they choose their hours? The avaiTabTe research does not provide a compTete answer to this question. Temporaries may refuse a job assignment aTtogether, aTthough they must weigh carefuTTy the consequences of such refusaT and don't aTways have compTete information (e.g. the range of assignments'avaiTabTe and the merits of each) to make such decisions (OTesen and Katsuranis 1978). TweTve percent of the respondents to a temporary heTp agency survey indicated that the most attractive feature of temporary empToyment was the abiTity to choose one's hours (Gannon 1974). 58 ATthough few studies have expTored directTy how those who work Tess than fuTT time use their time off the job, the fact that some choose reduced work to better integrate wage work with chdecare and househon responsibiTities suggests that many use their time off the job'for those purposes. Numerous studies of women who work part time have examined the factors that infTuence their decisions to seek part-time empToyment, and the primacy of chdecare and househon responsibiTities is an overriding concern (Long and Jones 1980: Long and Jones 1981: Morgenstern and Hamovitch 1976: YeandTe 1982). Gronseth (1975) reported that part-time empToyment is a viabTe strategy for coping with home responsibiTities and fostering roTe sharing reTationships in the househon. However, his concTusions were drawn with some important quaTifications. It seems safe to say, that at Teast for famiTies with smaTT chderen, with an average working man's income or higher, where both parents have above average education, and the wife has a firm and personaT occupationaT commitment, where both are committed to the weTfare of each other and of their chderen, and are strongTy motivated for a work- sharing pattern, the adoption of the pattern generaTTy resuTts in the expected positive kinds of adaptations (Gronseth 1975, p. 219). OTesen and Katsuranis (1978) distinguished between “transitionaT' and “permanent“ temporaries. The former use temporary work as a stepping stone to other occupationaT or personaT pursuits, and the Tatter use temporary work to 59 support other aspects of their Tives, such as artistic pursuits. This is consistent with findings reported by Moore (1963). Meier's (1982) study of job sharers showed that job sharing is preferred by women who have chderen, oner persons, and those seeking fTexibiTity to pursue further education and training; A coupTe profiTed in the ChronicTe of Higher Education reported that job sharing faciTitates shared parenting and permits off-the-job professionaT pursuits, such as consuTting work (WinkTer 1979). McCarthy and Rosenberg (1981, pp. 29, 35) reported that work sharers use their extra time off the job for such activities as farming, hunting, fishing, and famiTy. OTesen and Katsuranis (1978), in their study of women who were temporary cTericaT workers, concTuded that temporary empToyment affords a certain autonomy because the women were abTe to exercise some controT over their work Tives and their time off the job. Arkin and Dobrofsky (1978), whiTe they sought to expTore the reTationship of job sharing and the personaT autonomy of each partner in a maritaT reTationship, tended to emphasize circumstances associated with the job itseTf. SeveraT probTems associated with job sharing were reported, such as probTems of sexism, stigma associated with part-time empToyment, and perceptions of expToitation as each partner finds him/herseTf giving more than 50 percent to a job that pays just one fuTT-time saTary. 60 This chapter has documented the existence of pockets of reduced work in various sectors of the economy and occupationaT cTassifications. Part-time empToyment is concentrated in retaiT trade and services, and about two- thirds of aTT part-time workers are women. Women are aTso a Targe proportion of temporary empToyees. Most temporaries are cTericaT workers, aTthough many are Taborers in industry and there has been considerabTe growth in temporary empToyment among professionaT and technicaT workers particuTarTy in the heaTth care industry. Job sharing occurs predominantTy among cTericaT workers and professionaTs, and, whiTe extensive survey data on job sharing do not exist, it appears that it isTa work-time option seTected by women far more frequentTy than it is chosen by men.) Work sharing is concentrated among bTue- coTTar workers in construction and manufacturing, and maTe work sharers outnumber femaTe work sharers by a sTight margin. The terms and conditions of reduced work vary by type of reduced work, but generaTTy the Titerature suggests that terms and conditions improve if one's reduced work is in the primary Tabor market and if one is represented by a Tabor union. The Titerature provides a cursory anaTysis of workers' use of time off the job and autonomy off the job and does not compare systematicaTTy different types of reduced work. It is a goaT of this study to improve on that weakness in the Titerature. 61 CHAPTER 4 Research MethodoTogy As discussed in the previous chapters, reduced work is on the rise in the United States. EmpToyers favor the use of part-time and temporary empToyees to maximize fTexibiTity in staffing and to minimize Tabor costs. In turn, they use a rhetoric of autonomy to seTT part-time and temporary jobs to potentiaT hires. Women with dependent chderen, students, and the aging are especiaTTy vuTnerabTe target audiences. Women with chderen require fTexibTe work scheduTes to baTance wage work and househon responsibiTities, students need them to integrate wage work and the cTassroom, and the aging prefer Tess-than-fuTT-time empToyment as an adjunct to retirement. AdditionaTTy, the sheer desire to have more time off may motivate individuaTs to want to work Tess than fuTT time. Job sharing is a form of part-time empToyment that permits individuaTs to negotiate for more time off. Work sharing is a form of work-time reduction that permits the redistribution of avaiTabTe wage work and is an aTternative to Tayoff. It is aTso on the rise, especiaTTy in states that have TegisTated short-time compensation programs. Whether individuaTs work voTuntariTy or invoTuntariTy at Tess-than-fuTT-time wage- paying jobs, the phenomenon of reduced work is a fact of 62 Tife. It is Tegitimated on grounds of greater personaT autonomy particuTarTy regarding the use of time off the job, but the reTationship between reduced work and autonomy must be scrutinized empiricaTTy. In addition, Gorz has argued that individuaTs unempToyed or underempToyed are a post- industriaT non-cTass who refuse sociaTized Tabor in an effort to appropriate a sphere of autonomy outside work. The existence of this non-cTass is aTso an empiricaT question. This research project expTores peopTe's experiences of reduced work and autonomy off the job. It focuses on individuaTs empToyed part-time and as temporaries and on those who job share and work share. My goaT is to Tearn about the reTationship between different types of reduced work and autonomy as peopTe experience them in their daiTy Tives. SpecificaTTy, the study seeks to identify conditions that enhance or impede autonomy off the job. Given the project's focus on peopTe's Tived experience --as they woqu define and teTT it--I deTiberateTy avoid imposing on them my own vaTues regarding time, work, and autonomy. This study does not force informants' responses into a preordained autonomy scaTe. Instead, it examines their impressions about their jobs and their time off the job to discern what they define as conditions that enhance or impede their autonomy off the job. Thus, I use a broad definition of autonomy to begin the research: the abiTity to decide how to use one's time off the job. To capture 63 this, informants were asked how they used their time off the job, if there were things they wanted to do with their time that they didn't do, and why they coqun't do those things. I wanted to give voice to peopTe who too infrequentTy have it, therefore, the research method I used foTTowed from my phiTosophy of socioTogicaT research. My first concern was to diminish the power of the researcher, which is why participants in this study are caTTed “informants" instead of interviewees or subjects. Rather than define participants passiveTy, as peopTe who had something done to them by a knowTedgeabTe expert, I chose the term informant to signify gheig knowTedge of their experiences of reduced work and autonomy. After aTT, if I am an aTT-knowing expert, what point is there in doing the research? Granted, I bring a “socioTogicaT imagination” (MiTTs 1959) to the endeavor that my informants may Tack, but their intimate knowTedge of reduced work and autonomy is what I Tack. Thus, this study is best seen as a cooperative venture, a meeting of the minds, in which my socioTogicaT imagination compTements the experiences of my informants, yiering new insight into the socioTogicaT meaning of peopTe's varied experiences of reduced work and autonomy off the job. My second concern was to structure an interview that woqu provide informants with the opportunity to discuss their experiences freeTy and openTy. The interviews were open-ended and TargeTy unstructured. I foTTowed an 64 interview guide (see Appendix A) which functioned in part to sequence the interview but primariTy as a checkTist to ensure that I had covered aTT of the topics I wanted to cover. Each interview began with my asking informants to teTT me about their current job. This portion of the interview inevitabTy Ted to discussion of the informants' actuaT work tasks and job responsibiTities. It was here that we aTso discussed work scheduTes and work histories. About mid-way through the interview we shifted to questions about their use of time off the job. Each interview was concTuded by compTeting the PersonaT and Househon Data Sheet (see Appendix 8) and my asking two summary questions: (1) Is there anything about your job, the hours, your work scheduTe that you'd Tike to say that you haven't aTready said?, and (2) Is there anything about your time off the job that you'd Tike to say that you haven't aTready said? The PersonaT and Househon Data Sheet, which incTuded potentiaTTy sensitive questions about personaT and househon income, for exampTe, was saved untiT near the end of the interview to ensure the estabTishment of sufficient trust between informant and interviewer. Often, however, the information asked for on the PersonaT and Househon Data Sheet had been discussed earTier in the interview, as it had come up in the fTow of conversation, and the Data Sheet became an opportunity to verify information and sometimes triggered additionaT comment on a topic. The summary questions ensured that nothing important to the informant 65 had been echuded by the interviewer's oversight or Tack of intimate knowTedge of the informant's experience. Barring this cadence which was virtuaTTy uniform across aTT interviews, topic sequence varied somewhat depending on the particuTar nuances of individuaT experiences. Thus, whiTe the interview topic checkTist ensured that the same topics were covered in each interview, ensuring comparabiTity across interviews, each interview was aTso taiTored to the unique experiences of each informant. Interviews generaTTy Tasted one to one and one-han hours. Most took pTace in a smaTT meeting room on the Michigan State University campus. In some cases they took pTace in a private meeting room at the informant's pTace of ' empToyment. A few interviews took pTace at the informant's home, and a coupTe were done over the phone. The effort to diminish the researcher's power was admittedTy compromised in the cases where the interview was done on campus. But having informants come to campus ensured privacy that may have been compromised in their homes. Given that a substantiaT portion of the interview covered time off the job, reTationships with other househon members were inevitabTe topics of discussion. I beTieve that informants coqu discuss these reTationships more honestTy and openTy in the privacy of a room on campus than at their homes where other members of the househon might overhear or appear unexpectedTy. However, this Tocation was not imposed on the informants. In each phone caTT I made to voTunteers to 66 scheduTe an interview time, I indicated that I was wiTTing to negotiate a convenient meeting pTace, but that a private room on campus was aTways avaiTabTe to us. 'My sense was that some did not want the interviewer to come to their homes, that the interviewer's presence there might be an excessive invasion of their privacy. In cases where it was not convenient for the informant to come to campus, aTternatives were discussed and the most frequent choice was for me to go to their pTace of empToyment. In these cases, interviews were conducted during the informant's Tunch break, during an hour of personaT time taken during the working day, or immediateTy after the informant's work-day ended. It was my understanding that in aTT of these cases the informant's empToyer knew that the informant was participating in an interview and had given permission for the informant to use space at the worksite without interruption during the interview. Research PhiTosoghy My research phiTosophy and the nature of the interviews are consistent with principTes of research associated with criticaT sociaT science (Fay 1987) and “grounded theory" (GTaser and Strauss 1967). CriticaT sociaT science seeks to expTain a sociaT order or sociaT phenomena such that sociaT science becomes a cataTyst for sociaT change. PracticaTTy, it seeks to become an enabTing, motivating resource for its audience. Thus, criticaT sociaT science is concerned with enTightening, empowering, and emancipating a group or groups 67 in a society. One of criticaT sociaT science's centraT vaTues is that of coTTective autonomy. It promotes seTf- determination and the removaT of barriers which prevent peOpTe from Tiving in accordance with their wiTT. As Fay (1987, p. 75) puts it, . . .its aim is to heTp peopTe. . .to cease being mere objects in the woer, passive victims dominated by forces externaT to them. This, however, is not a recipe for anarchy. Instead, criticaT sociaT science promotes transformation of sociaT institutions and reTations such that they permit greater seTf-determination. Specific to this project, work scheduTes are conceptuaTized as dominating forces that may inhibit peopTe's autonomy off the job. ControT of working time, then, is an important dimension of autonomy. Because this project focuses on reduced work, and because reduced work is gendered as is use of time off the job, gender arrangements must aTso be examined as dominating forces that may inhibit autonomy off the job. Grounded theory is theory generated from data obtained systematicaTTy from sociaT research (GTaser and Strauss 1967, p. 2). It differs from theory generated by TogicaT deduction from a priori assumptions. Research with the goaT of generating grounded theory differs from empiricaT research whose purpose it is to verify (or faTsify) or modify aTready existing theory by testing hypotheses generated from the theory. The advantage of grounded theory is that conceptuaT categories are deveToped from the data, 68 not imposed on the data. Thus, the researcher may see phenomena he or she may not have Tooked for or chosd to ignore if he/she had been Timited by the principTes of an aTready existing theory. As GTaser and Strauss (1967, p. 46) state, PotentiaT theoreticaT sensitivity is Tost when the socioTogist commits himseTf echusiveTy to one specific preconceived theory (e.g., formaT organization) for then he becomes doctrinaire and can no Tonger 'see around' either his pet theory or any other. He becomes insensitive, or even, defensive, toward the kinds of questions that cast doubt on his theory; he is preoccupied with testing, modifying and seeing everything from this one angTe. For this person, theory wiTT serom truTy emerge from data. Furthermore, the researcher may find him/herseTf “hemmed in“ by preconceived notions of theory and research design. . . .data coTTected according to a prepTanned routine are more TikeTy to force the anaTyst into irreTevant directions and harmfuT pitfaTTs. He may discern unanticipated contingencies in his respondents, in the Tibrary and in the fier, but is unabTe to adjust his coTTection procedures or even redesign his whoTe project. In accordance with conventionaT practice, the researcher is admonished to stick to his prescribed research design, no matter how poor the data. If he varies his task to meet these unanticipated contingencies, readers may judge that his facts have been contaminated by his personaT vioTation of the preconceived impersonaT ruTes. Thus he is controTTed by his impersonaT ruTes and has no controT over the reTevancy of his data, even as he 69 sees it go astray (GTaser and Strauss 1967, p. 49). FinaTTy, the researcher whose concern is verification is not free to “pTay” with his/her data. Data that do not fit preordained conceptuaT categories wiTT usuaTTy be dismissed from theoreticaT anaTysis. WhiTe grounded theory and quantitative data coTTection need not be mutuaTTy echusive, the generation of theory from data usuaTTy foTTows from quaTitative data. This permits the theoreticaT anaTysis of sociaT phenomena that are not quantifiabTe or anaTyis of quantifiabTe sociaT phenomena from a different angTe. UnfortunateTy, this Tine of reasoning has Ted many sociaT researchers to caTT research in the tradition of grounded theory 'expToratory," suggesting that quaTitative research is a precursor to quantitative research and not Tegitimate in its own right. According to GTaser and Strauss, the generation of grounded theory permits the generation of theory that fits its data weTT. It is theory of the “middTe range“ that seeks to iTTuminate a Timited range of phenomena represented by and reTated to the data, but it is not an effort to generate grand theory, theory so broad and abstract that it seeks to encompass a wide variety of sociaT phenomena. Because grounded theory's concern is the generation of theory and not its verification, the researcher need not pursue fuTT coverage of evidence, as with statisticaT sampTing. Instead, the researcher's goaT is theoreticaT saturation. One achieves theoreticaT saturation when 70 no additionaT data are being found whereby the socioTogist can deveTop properties of the category. As he sees simiTar instances over and over again, the researcher becomes empiricaTTy confident that a category is saturated (GTaser and Strauss 1967, p. 61). This differs from statisticaT sampTing whose goaT is the fuTTest possibTe coverage and not theoreticaT saturation. . . .in statisticaT sampTing, the socioTogist must continue data coTTection no matter how much saturation he perceives. In his case, the notion of saturation is irreTevant to the study. Even though he becomes aware of what his findings wiTT be, and knows he is coTTecting the same thing over and ever to the point of boredom, he must continue because the ruTes of accurate evidence require the fuTTest coverage to achieve this most accurate count (GTaser and Strauss 1967, pp. 64-65). The method of sampTing foTTowed to generate theory is caTTed theoreticaT sampTing. It is done to discover categories and their properties and to suggest the interreTationships into a theory. It requires onTy coTTecting data on categories for the generation of properties, not the fuTTest statisticaT coverage of a group (GTaser and Strauss 1967, pp. 62, 69). This research project foTTowed the method of theoreticaT sampTing and was concerned primariTy with properties of time regimes, controT of work scheduTes, and use of time off the job associated with four categories of reduced work. 71 SamgTe SeTection The sampTe was composed through a theoreticaT sampTing procedure. It is not a scientific sampTe in that it is not representative of aTT part-time workers, temporary empToyees, job sharers, and work sharers. Given its nonrepresentativeness, findings from this study are not intended to be generaTizabTe to the popuTation of workers in those four categories. AdditionaTTy, this study does not assert and test hypotheses about the reTationship between reduced work and autonomy. Instead, my goaT was to understand the experience of reduced work and autonomy to determine conditions which enhance or impede autonomy off the job. WhiTe the sampTe may not be representative of aTT part-time workers, temporaries, job sharers, and work sharers, I beTieve it is typicaT of those four categories of workers. For exampTe, women predominated among the part- time workers, temporary empToyees, and job sharers in my sampTe and men predominated among the work sharers. This is consistent with the distribution of women and men across categories of reduced work reported in chapter 3. As wiTT be shown beTow, the types of occupations her by my informants were aTso typicaT of those who work Tess than fuTT time as reported in chapter 3. FinaTTy, given the paucity of data on workers in those four categories, it woqu be difficuTt to construct an absoTuteTy representative 1 The U.S. Census does incTude data on part-time empToyees, as do Bureau of Labor Statistics data sets, but they are 72 A11 interviews were conducted in the Lansing-East Lansing, Michigan and FTint, hichigan areas, with the rexception of one done in a smaTT town about 30 miTes east of Lansing.“ Interviews were done between September, 1986 and October, 1987. Part-time workers were recruited from private- and pubTic-sector estabTishments in the Lansing- East Lansing area. Temporary empToyees were recruited through two temporary empToyment agencies in the Lansing- East Lansing area. Job sharers were recruited through the State of Michigan Department of CiviT Service. This concentration of Job sharers attached to a singTe empToyer is probTematic in that in this case the nature of Job sharing refTects the nature of civiT service empToyment, but it soived the diTemma of Tocating 10 to 15 Job sharers to interview. As noted in chapter 3, Job sharing tends to be an individuaTTy negotiated empToyment arrangement, and it can be difficuTt to identify Job sharers and organizations that permit Job sharing. One Job sharer in the sampTe, however, was not a state empToyee. She was a private hospitaT empToyee recruited originaTTy as a part-time worker. It was during her interview that I discovered she was a Job sharer. This "accident" reveaTs the Tack of distinction between part-time empToyment and Job sharing. onTy differentiated by voTuntary and invoTuntary part-time empToyment. The BLS began coTTecting data on temporary empToyment in 1982. The categorization used by federaT government agencies, however, is inadequate for my purposes. For exampTe, federaT data do not distinguish between part- time empToyment and Job sharing. 73 As this study shows, however, Job sharing is part-time empToyment, but it is a distinctive form of part-time empToyment which may afford Job sharers a measure of controT over their work scheduTes not permitted most part-time empToyees and which may require coordination between Job sharing partners not required of most part-time workers. Despite these anaTytic differences, Job sharers as weTT as their empToyers apparentTy think of themseTves as part-time. workers. WhiTe this singuTar case of a Job sharer in the private sector provides a contrast to those in the pubTic sector, it shows the uniformity of Job sharing across sectors. The work sharers were recruited through a UAW TocaT in FTint, Michigan, from an auto pTant that had recentTy Taid off a Targe number of workers. WhiTe there are many types of work sharing, as discussed in chapter 3, in this study work sharing took the form of an inverse seniority Tayoff pTan in which high seniority workers voTunteered to be Taid off for periods of four months, seven months, or one year. Like Job sharing, work sharing is not a common or easiTy identified phenomenon. It occurs on a pTant-by-pTant basis and may go by names other than work sharing, in this case "inverse seniority Tayoff."? 2 The inverse Tayoff pTan permitted high seniority workers to voTunteer to take time off with the consequence that Tess senior workers, who otherwise woqu have been Taid off, stayed on the Job. In this way, inverse seniority Tayoff can be seen as a form of work sharing. Those whose seniority rights protected their Jobs exchanged their gsbs with those with insufficient seniority. This differs from the conventionaT understanding of work sharing discussed in chapter 3 in which aTT workers in a pTant have shortened workweeks and no one is Taid off. 74 The principaT recruitment strategy foTTowed in this study was to send Tetters (see Appendix C) to potentiaT informants teTTing.them about the research proJect, asking them to voTunteer to be interviewed, and providing them with a pre-addressed and stamped postcard with which to respond if they wanted to voTunteer or wanted more information about the proJect. Because the state civiT service and the temporary empToyment agencies woqu not/coqu not provide me with names of empToyees, a staff member seTected randomTy names and sent the Tetters I provided. Work sharers who received Tetters were seTected at random from a Tist of persons on the inverse Tayoff. A Tess formaT, Tess systematic recruitment procedure was foTTowed in the case of the part-time workers. Because I went to severaT estabTishments and onTy sought two or three voTunteers at each, it seemed impracticaT to send Tetters to a Targe number of empToyees. At one hospitaT, the personneT director from whom I gained permission to recruit Tocated voTunteers for me. At one retaiT estabTishment, the manager from whom I sought assistance in recruiting ton me to waTk around the store and ask any empToyees on the fToor. At another retaiT outTet, I posted on the empToyees' buTTetin board a memo (see Appendix D) describing the project and asking for voTunteers. Attached at the bottom of this memo was an enveTope fiTTed with response postcards pre-addressed to me. 75 SamgTe Characteristics Interviews were obtained from 44 informants--27 women and 17 men. ETeven Job sharers (nine women and two men) were interviewed, and they ranged in age from 27 to 53 years. Their median age was 33. TweTve temporaries (nine women and three men) were interviewed, and they ranged in age from 18 to 59 years. As a group the temporaries were the youngest by comparison to the other categories of reduced work, with a median age of 24 years. Part-time workers had a median age of 27 years, ranging from 20 to 46. Nine part-time workers (seven women and two men) were interviewed. FinaTTy, the work sharers were the onest group, ranging in age from 33 to 55 years. Their median age was 42. TweTve work sharers (two women and ten men) were interviewed. TabTe 1 provides the age distribution of the sampTe by type of reduced work and gender. Women ranged in age from 18 to 46, men from 24 to 59. Their median ages were 28 and 41 respectiveTy. The vast maJority of my informants were white. Twenty- six white women and 13 white men were interviewed. One woman and two men were bTack; two men were hispanic. TabTe 2 gives the raciaT characteristics of the sampTe by type of reduced work and gender. 0 TabTe 3 gives the TeveT of education compTeted by my informants by type of reduced work and gender. ATT of the Job sharers, temporaries, and part-time'workers had compTeted high schooT at Teast, whiTe five of the work 76 GIN N N soap: Heady elm v-i Q C so: OIN o o QIO —o M o a soap: cu: onenesm and: olh OIN N d seep: cox euoxuos oeaaluuem .uaofiem mo oowusnuuuean ow< OIO" o n c0803 v—ilm o co: eeaueuoofioa .H oHAeH olox Q o c0603 o—4IN o :02 muewenm now Golan amide oclgm onlom mmlmfi 77 mm o N e w om ma cusps so! Heuoa GIN B a C u—c N m cases do: mueuenm xuos GIN n pesos euexuos mafialuuem .euem an nausea hoe no wooed xoou Hosea one odes: euceaoueam Houseman xoou madman: sea .uceuaoecou xeo oomoaoaeluaem e cede mes cue .uesoeeu Hoosue «adulaasm e cede mes soaps .uoxuos Heuwuoau e no mafia Adam veaoaoau peas mes swaps .uoxwos oue>uoe e we ease open ouaoaofia beam as: soaps u-alh O cusp: Heads Nlr~ v-O C so: IIN o soaps euowesm awe: IIS 0 o o out a |n~ INN a o case: so: unused: oewaluuem .Hecoeeeemouoeusa woo mevsauca mane .uceuooouue oexoaoaelmaoe e cede was :08 amuse we «so .30«>uouc« mo mafia um pawn Amvcoaueosuuo I-IIO‘ Nlm cusps so: mowueuooaea Inn mN soap: IIN o NN cm: enouenm now .oaofiem mo ooqusnwuuewn Hecoaueosuuo .e «Name .m means we use .0 omens no use .N «menu we «:0 .o ewes» no «co .m amuse no use .a .m .N .~ “mouoouoom uceaeueao oz ouw>uum seasons; me>wusueoo oaaawxm modem Heuqueau Heuecnuea Nazcammewowm 81 omoucueo Hudson Adena woueawuee mafia mace wow exams woonloa oexuoa we: on: c0303 039 .coc.N~w ocoowe an eases .uceaeuoao use no ensues one so wowuoomov use: on oo.nw ou mN.mw aoum wowoweo vouuomew menu .Hamwo>o . .oHneuuwvuwoco on we: xuo3 Hausa eeoeuen eoaueuooaeu now megaheuev cu uHsuwmeo mes oaoucw Hesoo< .N .maoucw Heocce Hesow>wvcH .H m B m B o H o d o g o g o a o N d m d n H N N N a o c o a a o o m m o o N c o o g c o o soaps no: cases do: Heuoa euouesm xuoz a Clix OIN :0503 cu: c0803 ewoxuoB eawaluuem N .oaoaem mo coausnwuuowa eaoucH eoeweuooaoa so: c0503 .m manna OIO‘ o can: o euewenm now so: "meuoouoom ama.mss-ooo.nss maa.sss-ooo.oss maa.amsuooo.mms aam.smsucoo.oms aam.a~s-coo.nus mam.s~suooo.oms sas.ass-ooo.mss aam.sssuooo.os» aam.ms-ooo.ms coo.ns can“ mums 82 ' $25,000 and $34,999, but a few had incomes ranging from $35,000 to $49,999. AnnuaT income was difficuTt to determine for temporaries because their work was so unpredictabTe. OveraTT, they reported earning from $3.25 to $5.00 an hour depending on the nature of the pTacement. Those who worked 40-hour weeks reported weekTy incomes of $210 to $250. Two women who had worked 40-hour weeks for some time estimated their annuaT income woqu be between $10,000 and $14,999. About han of the Job sharers were union members. Those who were not who were state empToyees were echuded from representation because their work was considered confidentiaT. The one Job sharer who was not a state empToyee was not a union member. The cTericaT workers at the hospitaT where she worked had not been organized. As woqu be expected, none of the temporaries was represented by a Tabor union aTthough one, a former autoworker, maintained her membership in the UAW. As a temporary, however, she received none of the benefits of membership. About han of the part-time workers were union members. They were municipaT and retaiT workers. Those who were not union members were heaTth care and retaiT workers. ATT of the work sharers were members of the UAW. TabTe 6 shows union membership by type of reduced work and gender. Most (26/44) of my informants were married. Seven were divorced and an equaT number had never been married. Four were cohabiting. They represented a variety of househon 83 .nofi oaNquumo was up: was nan chsueuo eeeulNNom no: :woousu menace cONcs e was “execs moNem maNuluueo moo .m .nNnmumAaoa mo muNmmomn m>Nouou no: see «so swsosuNe as: use up Menace e vocNeaeu .uuxuoaouoe uoauow e .zueuooamu «:0 .N .ouxuos one means NmuNomos ego an unused: NeuNuoNu you cONcs on no: «Hana .uoeama cONco s Hos was .eoNONoao eunum a son as: as: .wouene no“ «so .xuos swans we assess NeNucmeNmoou use No museums oONumucommuouw Edam voosNuxo owes cassava oONco up: «was as: acmecuo>ow women you cusses 0:3 seepage now .N “mauoouoom mm. D. .N. B. .5. w. m .m m m N a c 0 mm o m m m N oz o mN N oN N N o o a N mo» case: do: swaps out soap: so: swap: our cases cm: Neuoa ensuesm apps unease: oaNaluuem NouNuauoeaoH Nmueuenm non .eNoaem mo owneuebaux cows: .c «Name 84 types. Most of those who were married Tived in duaT-earner househons, however, four maTe work sharers were the soTe earners in their househons and one temporary was the soTe earner in her househon. OnTy one informant was the femaTe head of househon. Four informants Tived aTone. The remainder shared a househon with parents or other unreTated aduTts. TabTes 7 and 8 show informants' maritaT status and househon type by type of reduced work and gender. AnaTysis of the Interviews Each interview was tape recorded with the exception of a coupTe that were conducted over the phone and a coupTe in which recording equipment faiTed. These few were reconstructed from notes taken by the interviewer and recorded on paper. Those that had been tape recorded were transcribed. The 44 interviews yiered approximateTy 500 pages of singTe-spaced, typed diaTogue and notes. After they were reproduced in written form, each interview was coded foTTowing a Tine-by-Tine coding procedure. This I caTTed first-TeveT coding and it was at this point that I _ categorized demographic data, type of empToyment, work scheduTes, work history, time off the Job, househon characteristics, autonomy issues, and the Tike. Second- TeveT coding was done within Targe first-TeveT categories. For exampTe, time off the Job had to be categorized according to themes of time use. Because the interviews had aTso been recorded on computer diskettes, I used my word 85 mm .ww m. mw m. m m m m m s m o o a s o s o s masufismnoo o a o o s s m o o o eoauuma uo>oz N m o s a o s s o o emouo>sa as m N o s o m a a s eosuumz soaps no: case: so: coaoz so: c0803 sex c0803 so: Neuoa ensuenm sup: owexuos eeNHquem eoNuewooaoH muuuesm now .eNeaom mo moueum NeuNuez .N oNnoH 86 .vNonomso: mN: cN uecueu «Noe one me: messages» oNea any .mucoueo wouNueu :oNa uoNosmeso: bounce mumuenm suds osu use .euooweo one: encased oNosoeoo: wonuo .euoueam duos one use Nusuooaou mNsa ego emooxo momma NNm cN .N "mmuocuoom R. t. .N. B .m m m m m m e o o N N N n s o a Amvussem woumNmuso wesuo no museums nuNs NoNosmmoo: mouesm .010 a m o N o o s a o o msmcem .N I o I . N I o I o I ecumeuo scenes: on .oeoemsIoNeamm N I o I o I N I c I sesame «Noe ewNz NN a N N a c N N m N uecueeINeon I a I a I c I o I o washes oNom ocenmsm mvNonemoo: «MNslooenmom soap: :0: coaoa cm: ceao3 as: seed: as: swap: cm: Nouoa euouenm xuos euuxuos uaNHquem eoNueuooaeH muuuenm new .ooha vNosuesom an oNoeem .m oNnma processing program to create fiTes of excerpts from each interview pertinent to each code. Separate fiTes were kept for each.of the four categories of reduced work. The write- up of the data anaTysis was organized to foTTow a 'comfortabTe' and TogicaT sequence for the various codes. The data anaTysis begins with an examination of the terms and conditions of empToyment associated with each of the four types of reduced work, incTuding some expTication of the various time regimes associated with reduced work and informants' abiTity to controT their work scheduTes. This appears in chapter 6. Chapters 7 through 11 are organized according to the maJor themes of use of time off the Job. Each of those chapters expTores the conditions which enhance and impede autonomy off the Job reTative to each theme of‘ use of time off the Job. My informants' experiences of reduced work and autonomy off the Job cannot be comprehended fuTTy, however, without some understanding of the poTiticaT economy of the geographic area in which they worked and Tived. I turn next to an examination of the poTiticaT economies of Michigan, FTint, and Lansing in the 19805. 88 CHAPTER 5 Michigan's PoTiticaT Economy in the 1980s Michigan began the decade of the 1980s in the depths of recession--the worst since the Great Depression of the 1930s--and today is haiTed by state administrators as ”the comeback state.“ That comeback, however, is an uneven one as some communities in the state suffer more than others from the effects of structuraT crisis in certain of the nation's manufacturing industries. Michigan is at the center of a badTy shaken production system-~the nation's industriaT heartTand. Michigan became the center of the U.S. automobiTe industry, and the state prospered as the industry grew. Today the domestic automakers are reorganizing in the face of unprecedented foreign competition, and Michigan workers and citizens are feeTing the JoTt of that reorganization. WhiTe the state is most affected, and disproportionateTy so, by changes in the auto industry, the decTine of steeT and machine tooTs, the rise of high technoTogy, and the expansion of services aTso have repercussions in Michigan. This chapter begins with an expToration of the nature of the state's economy. Then it focuses on the FTint and Lansing-East Lansing areas, as cities Tinked to one another in a production system and as the areas in which the persons 89 whose voices foTTow in chapters 6 through 11 work and Tive. FinaTTy, this chapter examines reduced work in Michigan; part-time empToyment in the state, FTint, and Lansing; temporary empToyment in the state; Job sharing among state government empToyees; and work sharing. Michigan's centraTity in the nation's industriaT production system and the extent of the state's empToyment concentrated in durabTe goods manufacturing make the state economy hypersensitive to fTuctuations in the business cycTe.1 TabTe 9 shows that 80 percent of Michigan's manufacturing activity, 20 percentage points more than the nationaT average, is in the production of durabTe goods; and Michigan's durabTe goods manufacturing is eight times more concentrated in auto production than is the rest of the nation (Stateof Michigan 1984, p. 19). Not aTT firms affiTiated directTy with the automotive industry are cTassified under motor vehicTe assembTy (SIC 371), however. Automotive stampings and the manufacture of wheeTs faTT under fabricated metaTs (SIC 34), pistons and vaTves are noneTectricaT machinery (SIC 35), and automotive 1 This focus on manufacturing empToyment is not to deny the importance of nonmanufacturing empToyment in the state. In 1984 nonmanufacturing empToyment constituted 75 percent of aTT empToyment in the state, but the 25 percent share that was manufacturing empToyment was higher than the nationaT average of 21 percent (State of Michigan 1984; Bureau of Labor Statistics, June 1985, p. 61). WhiTe nonmanufacturing empToyment predominates in Michigan as it does eTsewhere in the nation, manufacturing pTays a particuTarTy cruciaT roTe in the state's economy. As in the titTe of a recent book by Cohen and Zysman (1987), "manufacturing matters” in Michigan. ’ 90 Table 9. Composition of manufacturing Employment, U.S. and Michigan, Selected Years, 1972-1980. Fraction of Manufacturing Employment Sector 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 U.S. Durable .57 .59 .58 .60 .60 (Vehicles) (.04) (.04) (.04) (.05) (.04) Nondurable .42 .41 .42 ’ .40 .40 Michigan Durable .80 .81 .80 .81 .80 (Vehicles) (.34) (.33) (.34) (.35) (.33) Nondurable .20 .19 .20 .19 .20 Source: Brazer, Harvey E. and Deborah 3. Laren. Michigan's Fiscal and Economic Structure. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1982, p. 67. 91 foundries are cTassified under primary metaTs (SIC 33). At the four-digit SIC code TeveT, the Michigan EmpToyment Security Commission recentTy cTassified 34 industries as ”motor vehicTe reTated," aTthough onTy four were incTuded under SIC 371. Using this scheme, the MESC found that in March 1979 fuTTy 55 percent of Michigan's manufacturing empToyment was motor vehicTe reTated, compared to onTy 11 percent for the U.S. In addition, 62 percent of durabTe goods manufacturing empToyment in Michigan was motor vehicTe reTated, and more than 21 percent of empToyment in nondurabTe goods was motor vehicTe reTated (Brazer and Laren 1982, p. 68). The cycTicaT sensitivity of Michigan's economy is a function of the concentration of durabTe goods manufacturing and reTated empToyment in the state. When incomes faTT or interest rates are high, peopTe defer purchases of durabTe goods because they are expensive and Tast a Tong time. During such times, Michigan's economy takes a nosedive. However, when the nationaT economy picks up and pent-up demand is reTeased, the state economy tends to bounce back quickTy (State of Michigan 1984, p. 19). In the current nationaT recovery, however, Michigan has not recovered aTT of the Jobs Tost during the recessionary period, 1979-1982. TabTe 10 shows that nonagricuTturaT empToyment decTined by 439,000 Jobs between 1979 and 1982, 277,000 of which were manufacturing Jobs. Between 1982 and 1985, 316,000 nonagricuTturaT Jobs were generated in 92 .omaN .Ahmz .mumscenv n .N oneness .mm oaoNo> .muchwem use ucmahoNoam “lemnmN unmea< one museum .mudNoumm one ~meson . ucmBMonam . «amlnnmN now some .mmew< one season .mchcuom use oceaNonam ou uooaeNmmsm .muNumNueum nonmN mo season .uonmN mo acoauuooeo .m.= “meowsom .ewoue>o Nescom NuecNaNNeum .N nn.¢NI N©.NN NN.QNI NoNI oNN NNNI «mm «mm NmN.N NN.NI uc.m ua.cNI oNo.NI Nun NQN.NI NeN¢.mN mmm.mN oqo.NN nmaNImNmN nomNINme NmmNImNaN mme NmmN mNaN Amocemoosu oNv ucoahoNoam chusuuemscmz N¢.MI ua.m NN.NNI nNNI on omal non.m mmN.m wNo.m N0.m no.a Nm.CI mow.s oao.m NNNI NNmo.Nm omn.am MNm.mm mmaNlmNmN «waNINmmN NmeNImnmN mmmN NmmN NNaN Amusemsosu oNv oceaNoNoam NeuouNouNuwmcoz .nmas .Nmas .ahas .numanuaz can .mha .uoeahONoem wowwsuoeusomz use NeuouNsonwecoz cN emceno «wouoeouom use "meuocuoom assuage: .m.= uuz .oN «Home 93 Michigan, a TittTe over one-third of which were manufacturing Jobs. Thus, between 1979 and 1985 Michigan suffered net Tosses in both manufacturing and nonagricuTturaT empToyment. WhiTe Michigan gained 44,000 nonmanufacturing Jobs between 1979 and 1985, that gain was not sufficient to compensate for Tosses in manufacturing empToyment. .Today unempToyment in Michigan remains near 10 percent, down from a recessionary high of 17.3 percent in December, 1982, but 4 percentage points above the national average. Despite nationaT economic recovery and a nonagricuTturaT empToyment growth rate of 9 percent between 1982 and 1985 in the nation, Michigan stiTT faces a Jobs crisis. Because the U.S. automakers have adopted strategies to recover profitabiTity focused on automation, gTobaT sourcing, pTant reTocation, and extensive use of overtime, they have improved productivity with fewer workers, particuTarTy fewer Michigan workers. Renewed profitabiTity is not guaranteed to persist, however, as the domestic automakers continue to feeT the pressure of foreign competition and as certain companies, GeneraT Motors in particuTar, currentTy suffer Tagging saTes and profits.2 The difficuTties experienced by GeneraT Motors are 2 GeneraT Motors now finds itseTf invoTved in the biggest non-recession cutbacks in its 78-year history in its effort to recover the 46 percent share of the U.S. car market it enjoyed as recentTy as 1984 (MiTTer 1986). 94 especiaTTy pertinent to the Lansing-East Lansing and FTint areas, to be taken up in detaiT beTow. The decTine of manufacturing empToyment in Michigan is the product of the expansion of services reTative to manufacturing, the increased productivity in manufacturing resuTting from changes in the methods and organization of production, and the reTocation of manufacturing empToyment to other parts of the U.S. and the gTobe. Manufacturing has decTined in both absoTute and reTative terms in Michigan. To the extent that post-industriaTism describes the sociaT structure of the advanced industriaT nations, Michigan, as a manufacturing center, is affected by that shift. GTobaT economic change portends a recentering of capitaT, threatening U.S. gTobaT hegemony and the economic might of the nation's industriaT heartTand. Michigan's poTiticaT economy in the 1980s must be understood in this context. Michigan, of course, is not first or unique in its experience of ”deindustriaTization.“ The British economy has decTined more than has the U.S. economy at this point, and within the U.S. New EngTand experienced the effects of structuraT shifts in nondurabTe goods manufacturing a few years before the crisis was feTt in the automobiTe industry. As the effects of gTobaT economic change rippTe across the face of the earth, it was guaranteed that the auto industry, and Michigan in particuTar, woqu be caught in the waves of change. FTint and Lansing, both auto manufacturing cities, have different experiences of economic change. FTint is far 95 more dependent on the auto industry than Lansing and, therefore, is more vuTnerabTe. Lansing appears to be benefiting from the post-industriaT shift to services (and high technoTogy) in a way that FTint has not. Focus: FTint and Lansing FTint, Michigan, nicknamed the 'VehicTe City” when it was stiTT a wagon- and carriage-making center, is the city that gave birth to GeneraT Motors and the United Auto Workers. It is a city whose fortunes rise and faTT with the automobiTe industry. Eighty years ago FTint was among the most attractive cities to Tive in the United States. As 'Edsforth (1987, p. 49) notes, Drawn together by the promise of high wages and steady empToyment in the automobiTe industry, working peopTe TiteraTTy swamped FTint's existing housing faciTities, spTitting shifts in rooming houses and hoteTs, and even setting up tent coTonies that provided homes for more than a thousand famiTies in 1910. Between 1900 and 1910, FTint's popuTation aTmost tripTed, from 13,000 to 38,000 inhabitants, and in that ten-year period the town grew into a bustTing industriaT city (Edsforth 1987, p. 48). FTint's entry into the automobiTe business came in 1903 when five directors of the FTint Wagon Works purchased the financiaTTy troubTed Buick Motor Company of Detroit. With the added backing of WiTTiam C. "BiTTy" Durant, FTint's miTTionaire road-cart entrepreneur and Teading businessman, Buick's financiaT difficuTties were reversed and the company 96 expanded. That expansion contributed to FTint's growth. In 1905, Buick began construction of a huge, 14-acre manufacturing compTex in the city's north end, the Oak Park subdivision, severaT miTes from the originaT Buick engine factory. Oak Park, formerly a 220-acre famiTy farm, became the new industriaT and residentiaT heart of FTint, as smaTTer suppTier firms and thousands of working peopTe were attracted to the rapidTy growing Buick Motor Company (Edsforth 1987. pp. 39-43). In 1908, Buick was absorbed into the General Motors Corporation, founded by Durant. ATong with Buick, the OTds Motor Works of Lansing, Michigan, and the CadiTTac Motor Company became the core of GM. By 1910, a totaT of 27 separate firms scattered across Michigan, Ohio, New York, and Ontario, Canada, had been brought under GeneraT Motors' controT (Edsforth 1987, pp. 45, 47-48). Barring the Depression era of the 1930s, FTint prospered and grew untiT the 1970s. By earTy 1930, nearTy 156,000 peopTe had settTed in FTint, and as many as 24,000 others resided in four surrounding suburban townships (Edsforth 1987, p. 79). Due to some Toss during the Depression, FTint's popuTation was Just over 150,000 in 1940. In the next twenty years, that 150,000 expanded to 200,000. In the suburbs, popuTation growth was even more impressive. In 1940, the entire FTint metropoTitan area contained about 185,000 persons; by 1960 more than 265,000 Tived there. During the 19605, with continued in-migration 97 and some white fTight to the suburbs, the centraT city's popuTation did not grow but with suburban growth the metropoTitan area's popuTation went over 330,000, aTmost twice what it had been in 1929-1930 (Edsforth 1987, p. 217).‘ FTint's economic boom was refTected not onTy in popuTation growth but in the high wages paid to workers there. By 1957, weekTy wages in the VehicTe City were 37 percent higher than the nationaT average (Edsforth 1987, p. 217). Even in the midst of recession in 1980, FTint's average pay was the second highest of any city in the U.S., behind Anchorage, ATaska (Buss 1982). Today the specter of that achievement haunts FTint's working popuTation as GeneraT Motors shifts production to Tower-wage, Tess- unionized sites. The Great Depression has particuTar historicaT significance in FTint since that is when the U.S. Tabor movement came of age and the United Auto Workers achieved formaT recognition through the miTitant efforts of FTint automobiTe workers. On the morning of December 30, 1936, a group of workers shut down Fisher Body 2 to protest the firing of three union inspectors in the sit-down strike that woqu 44 days Tater win recognition and bargaining rights for the UAW. Later in the day the striking workers were Joined by workers at Fisher Body 1. Most autoworkers in FTint remained on the sideTines, fearfuT of retaTiation if they openTy expressed commitment to the union. But after the vioTent confrontation between strikers and poTice that 98 took pTace on January 11, 1937, known as the BattTe of the Running BuTTs, many of those bystanders saw fit to Tend support by signing up as union members. By Tate January GeneraT Motors was backed against the waTT as production was virtuaTTy haTted by the FTint sit-down and strikes in nine other cities. GM sought and won an evacuation order (the second of the confrontation) in FTint courts, but workers responded by seizing the ChevroTet No. 4 engine pTant on February 1. Then Michigan Governor Frank Murphy had pTayed a cruciaT roTe in the FTint sit-down, giving strength to the striking workers. After the BattTe of the Running BuTTs, he caTTed in the NationaT Guard but refused to use the troops to break the strike. Instead, they were used as buffers to prevent further vioTence. Later on, he refused to enforce the court inJunction to evacuate workers. With assistance from President FrankTin RooseveTt, Murphy pressured GeneraT Motors' Vice President WiTTiam Knudsen into bargaining with CIO President John L. Lewis and UAW Vice President Wyndham Mortimer. Thus, on February 11, 1937, Knudsen signed a six- month contract with the UAW that caTTed for the evacuation of the occupied pTants and workers' return to work without discrimination, and granted the union the right to be the soTe bargaining agent for its members (Edsforth 1987, pp. 170-175).3 ----------‘--------- 3 For detaiTed accounts of the FTint sit-down strike, see Sidney Fine, Sit Down: The GeneraT Motors Strike of 1936-37. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1969; Roger Keeran, The Communist Party and the Auto Workers Union. 99 The sit-down is noteworthy for its Tongevity and victory for the UAW; but it was not an isoTated incident. At various points between 1930 and 1936 FTint workers Joined hunger marches and struck to demand (unsuccessfuTTy) higher wagesand better working conditions. VirtuaTTy aTT of FTint's industriaT workers suffered periods of proTonged unempToyment and decTines in standard of Tiving during the Depression. GeneraT Motors' retrenchment poTicies at the time have an eerie ring of famiTiarity in the 1980s. DecTining saTes of Buicks and ChevroTets created an economic disaster in FTint. To maintain profitabTe operations, GeneraT Motors' management pursued rigorous retrenchment poTicies designed to cut costs faster than revenues were faTTing. In FTint, the company reduced its production scheduTes and workforce whiTe simuTtaneousTy raising the speed of production and the output expected from each worker. Throughout the earTy years of the Great Depression, wage cuts and speed-ups Tike those that had prompted the Fisher Body 1 strike (this was a strike that took pTace in JuTy, 1930--author's note) were pressed upon aTT of the company's remaining production workers. SaTaried workers aTso faced Tayoffs and pay reductions. In addition, some fringe benefits, incTuding the savings and BToomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1980; and Henry Kraus, The Many and The Few: A ChrgnigTe 9f the Dynamic Auto Workers. Los AngeTes: The PTantin Press, 1947. For specific accounts of the activities of women in support of the sit-down strikers, see Mary Heaton Vorse, Labor's New MiTTiggg. New York: Modern Age Books, 1938, and her articTe, “Wives of FTint's Strikers Form Emergency Brigade,“ 122 New Ygrk Times, January 21, 1937. See aTso Patricia Yeghissian, “Emergence of the Red Berets," Michigan OccasionaT Papers in Women's Studies, Number X, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1980. An exceTTent fiTm about the Women's Emergency Brigade is "With Babies and Banners” from New Day FiTms. 100 investment pTan for bTue-coTTar workers, were terminated. Together, these cost- cutting measures kept GeneraT Motors out of the red during the Great Depression. The company even managed to show a smaTT profit in 1932, a year of drasticaTTy reduced revenues.- Beginning in 1933, GeneraT Motors' production, saTes, and profits rose steadiTy, approaching record TeveTs as earTy as 1936 (Edsforth 1987, p. 137). These conditions, among others, no doubt fueTed the 1936-37 sit-down strike. Time has yet to reveaT what wiTT happen in.FTint from the aftershocks of GeneraT Motors' present reorganization. FTint remains a company town and its fate continues to rest in the hands of GM executives. GeneraT Motors' activities in FTint peaked in 1978, when the company empToyed about 77,000 peopTe in the FTint area. Ninety percent of aTT manufacturing Jobs and 39 percent of aTT Jobs in the area in 1978 were provided by GM. By 1982, GM empToyment in FTint had decTined to about 60,000, yet the company stiTT provided aTmost 32 percent of aTT Jobs in the area (Buss 1982; Jones et aT. 1986, p. 23). It has been estimated that by the end of 1987 the number of GM empToyees'in FTint wiTT drop to 48,000 (Moore 1987, p. 753).4 GeneraT Motors is puTTing out of FTint. The FTint Body/Pontiac AssembTy pTant is sTated for cTosure, and one 4 Between 1978 and 1985 Genesee County ToSt 24.8 percent of its manufacturing Jobs and 7.8 percent of its nonagricuTturaT Jobs. In 1978 there were 80,098 manufacturing Jobs in the county; in 1985 there were 60,251. There were 157,139 nonagricuTturaT Jobs in the county in 1978 and 144,924 in 1985 (U.S. Department of Commerce 1978, 1985). 101 Tine at GM Truck and Bus in FTint has aTready been shutdown, idTing 3,400 workers (Sorge 1986; Higgins 1987). The company has aTso consoTidated two Buick assembTy pTants into the new Buick City CompTex, a $200 miTTion retooTing effort that reduced the number of hourTy workers from 16,000 to 4,800 (Grenier et a1. 1983). In Tate 1986 it was aTso expected that FTint woqu Tose 1,300 Jobs from the Buick City CompTex as GM Taid off workers due to sTow saTes (Sedgwick and Faust 1986). Moore (1987, p. 753) has commented criticaTTy on GeneraT Motors' reorganization strategy: In 1982, G.M. cTaimed it was going broke, so the U.A.W. agreed to sTash workers' wages and benefits, saving management more than $2.1 biTTion. But G.M. wasn't broke, and the money it saved from those concessions heTped it buy Hughes Aircraft, ETectronic Data Systems and severaT high-tech firms. CTose to 250,000 G.M. empToyees had permanentTy Tost their Jobs by 1984, the year G.M. posted a record profit of $4.5 biTTion. By the end of Tast year (1986 --author's note) G.M. had made another $6.8 biTTion, and had announced that, over a three-year period, it woqu cut 25 percent of its white-coTTar work force and cTose at Teast eTeven pTants in the United States. Before the year was out it woqu aTso open tweTve factories in Mexico. UnempToyment in FTint was the worst among industriaT cities in the U.S. during the recession in the earTy 19805. OfficiaTTy, the unempToyment rate reached as high as 26.5 percent (Grenier et a1. 1983) and unofficiaTTy was estimated to be around 40 percent (Detroit News, August 10, 1980). RecentTy there has been some improvement, aTthough 102 unempToyment remains high compared to Michigan and the nation. In August, 1987, for exampTe, the officiaT unempToyment rate in FTint hovered near 14 percent compared to 8.3 percent in Michigan and 6 percent in the U.S. (U.S. Department of Labor 1987), and has been estimated to be as high as 30 percent unofficiaTTy (Erickson 1986). JobTessness is guaranteed to rise with GM's pTans to. retrench and it has been proJected that the officiaT unempToyment rate may reach 17 percent or higher by 1989 (Faust 1937)-5 The reduction of GM's workforce in FTint is expected to have dire consequences for other businesses and tax revenues. It is estimated that about han of the earnings of FTint businesses are Tinked to the manufacture of durabTe goods (Sedgwick and Faust 1986), and the city wiTT Tose $335,000 in income taxes over three years and $2.4 miTTion in property taxes. To date, the most expensive strategy to revitaTize FTint's troubTed economy has been a TargeTy faiTed effort to turn the city into a tourist mecca. The Mott Foundation, originaTTy estabTished in the 19205 by GM's Targest stockhoner and three-time FTint mayor, CharTes Stewart Mott, has been the prime mover in this effort. It centered in 1981 on the construction of a Tuxury Hyatt Regency HoteT in downtown FTint, supported by $13 miTTion in federaT funds 5 From 1956 to 1982, GM's auto production in FTint and the area's unempToyment rate correTate -.80. This shows rather starkTy FTint's dependence on GeneraT Motors (Jones et aT. 1986, p. 179). 103 and no private support from the Hyatt Corporation. In 1986, the hoteT went into forecTosure (Moore 1987, p. 754). In 1982 the Mott Foundation convinced federaT, state, and TocaT governments to contribute $25 miTTion to bude an indoor theme park caTTed AutoWoer (Moore 1987, p. 754). The $10- miTTion amusement park, a ceTebration through rides, shows, and exhibits of the automobiTe and FTint's Tong history with the industry, opened on the Fourth of JuTy, 1984, but was cTosed in 1985 at the end of its second season because of poor revenues (Risen 1984; Cain and Freedman 1987; Cantor 1935)~6 It had been hoped that AutoWoer woqu generate an estimated 400 fuTT-time and 2,000 seasonaT Jobs (PoTTack 1984) to serve the 900,000 peopTe a year who it was expected woqu come to downtown FTint to see AutoWor d (Risen 1984). In 1986 the faciTity's giant-screen IMAX Theatre was the onTy part of AutoWoer open to the pubTic (Cantor 1986), and in 1987 it was announced that a CaTifornia firm, Wrather Port Properties, woqu take over management of the theme park from Six FTags Corporation, with hopes of reopening in ApriT 1988 with new amusements and a new name (Cain and Freedman 1987). Amidst other cuTturaT and tourist attractions such as the ATfred P. SToan Museum and Crossroads ViTTage (Cantor 6 Moore (1987, p. 754) described AutoWoer as an aTT- encTosed amusement center, "the Targest of its kind in the woer," which offered two rides through the "humorous history of automobiTity, a movie about car commerciaTs, a giant car engine, and an assembTy Tine compTete with robots and an 'auto worker' singing a tender ode to them caTTed, 'Me and My Buddy'." 104 1986) and pTans for a new horse racing track'(PoTTack 1984) is the new Water Street PaviTion, another Mott Foundation- promoted proJect. It is a downtown shopping and eating pTace by deveToper James Rouse, who buiTt New York City's South Street Seaport and Boston's FaneuiT HaTT. Water Street PaviTion is having its own difficuTties; more than a han dozen stores have aTready cTosed (Moore 1987, p. 754). A Tess weTT known response to FTint's economic difficuTties was the creation in 1984 of the Center for New Work by two university professors with the assistance of two UAW members, representatives of GeneraT Motors, and reTigious Teaders. The Center was estabTished in downtown FTint with money raised from the University of Michigan, the UAW, the Michigan Department of Commerce, and other organizations. It promotes work-time reduction as a strategy to cope with automation and unempToyment. Despite the Center's existence, however, no UAW TocaT has yet voTunteered to experiment with a six months on/six months off piTot program advocated by the Center (Erickson 1986). Workers in FTint are organizing to fight GeneraT Motors, and a NationaT CoaTition to Stop PTant CTosings has been formed in the city. The CoaTition is organizing other communities to press for passage of a Taw that woqu haTt factory cTosures across the country (Moore 1987, p. 755). Otherwise, the onTy game in town appears to be the pTacement and training service offered to dispTaced workers by the UAW-GM Human Resource Center and provisions for job security 105 for empToyed workers won in the 1987 contract between GM and the UAW. ATT this, however, Teaves the reader with a rather gToomy impression of FTint. Despite the city's tough times, or perhaps because of them, an estimated 10,000 persons turned out in a demonstration of support and soTidarity to watch the 300-unit parade on Labor Day weekend, 1987, ceTebrating the UAW's fiftieth anniversary. LansingI Michigan WhiTe Lansing, Michigan is tied to the GeneraT Motors empire through its OTdsmobiTe division, the area is in no way as dependent as FTint on GM for its economic stabiTity. That's not to say GM is not a strong force in the area's economy, because economic fTuctuations do resuTt from forces that impinge on the automaker and its actions. But Lansing is the state capitaT and nearby East Lansing is the site of a maJor state university. Thus, the Lansing area's empToyment base is much broader than FTint's and extends into sectors currentTy advantageous to the area. Near the end of the nineteenth century, Lansing was a weTT-estabTished farm machinery manufacturing center. By the turn of the century it was fast becoming the center of gasoTine engine production. The Tatter resuTted from TocaT businessman Ransom E. OTds' work on the internaT combustion 909109-7 OTds had organized the OTds Motor VehicTe Company 7"ifiiié‘STEE'JSE'ESt first to produce an automobiTe (he was preceded by six years by CharTes and FrankTin Duryea of Springfier, Mass.), he revoTutionized automobiTe manufacturing through his subcontracting and merchandising 106 in 1897, which became the OTds Motor Works in 1899. OTds' curved dash OTdsmobiTe was the best-seTTing car of its day with saTes increasing from 400 in 1901 to 4,000 in 1903 (Manassah et aT. 1986). At this time, OTdsmobiTes were produced in both Detroit and Lansing, but by 1905 aTT production had shifted to Lansing.8 In 1904 OTds p.319ngd from the OTds Motor Works, which became part of GeneraT Motors four years Tater, and formed a competitor, REO Motor Car Company, which remained invoTved in the production of automobiTes untiT 1936 and the production of trucks into the 19703.9 One of the first auto suppTier firms was aTso formed in Lansing around this time. W.K. Prudden and Company, the first company to produce ”Just wheeTs“, was organized in 1903. In 1909 Gier Pressed SteeT Company was organized; it speciaTized in the manufacture of brake drums and hubs. ATso in 1909, Auto WheeT Company, a Prudden competitor, was organized. These were three of four companies that were practices. He subcontracted for parts from suppTiers, and he required deaTers to pay for cars as they ordered them rather than taking them on consignment. This merchandising practice soTved OTds' cash fTow probTems (Crane 1984). 8 After the OTds Motor Works was formed, a new factory was buiTt in Detroit--the first ever echusiveTy for the manufacture of autos in the U.S. A fire in March, 1901 destroyed the factory after which aTT OTds auto production took pTace in Lansing. ‘ 9 RED Motor Car Company had gone through severaT name changes. OriginaTTy, in 1904, the company was caTTed the R.E. OTds Company, but after TegaT action from the OTds Motor Works the company became the R50 Car Company. Later it was renamed REO Motor Car Company. 107 Tater Joined together in the Motor WheeT Corporation in 1920. By 1924 Motor WheeT was a woer Teader in the manufacture of wooden and steeT wheeTs (Manassah et aT.' 1986). Like FTint, aTthough on a somewhat smaTTer scaTe, the. automobiTe boom in the earTy part of the twentieth century brought a popuTation boom to Lansing. In 1900, Lansing's popuTation was 16,485. It aTmost doubTed, to 31,738, by 1910. By 1920 it reached 57,327 and 1930, 78.425 (OTdsmobiTe News, JuTy 17, 1935, p. 2, on dispTay at the R.E. OTds Transportation Museum, Lansing, Michigan). Thus, in 30 years Lansing's popuTation grew 375 percent! (In FTint, note, popuTation grew 1100 percent in the same 30- year period.) Lansing was not quite the center of Tabor strife that FTint was in this earTy period of auto production. In fact, in the 19205 the Lansing Chamber of Commerce boasted that Tess than one-han of one percent of Lansing's workers were union members (Manassah et aT. 1986). After the UAW gained formaT recognition, however, there was a month-Tong strike of REO empToyees in March-ApriT 1937 and in May that same year workers at CapitaT City Wrecking Company went on strike for severaT weeks (Manassah et aT. 1986). Thus, it was not Tong before union infTuence was feTt in Lansing.10 10 UnTess otherwise noted, information in the foregoing discussion of Lansing's history of auto manufacturing was gTeaned from exhibits at the R.E. OTds Transportation Museum, Lansing, Michigan. 108 Today, the presence of state government and a maJor university in the area wiTT heTp Lansing weather the transition in the auto industry. The state suffered a fiscaT crisis during the recession of the earTy 1980s, which Governor James BTanchard responded to upon taking office in 1983 by raising the personaT income tax.11 There was a budget surpTus in 1984, and taxes are being 'roTTed back" to earTier TeveTs. PubTic-sector empToyment dropped from approximateTy 63,700 empToyees in 1980 to 61,000 in 1982, but seems to have stabiTized near that figure more POOODt1Y~12 In addition, whiTe the Michigan economy is cTearTy dependent on the automobiTe, the pubTic economy's dependence on the automobiTe is not so cTear. AutomobiTe production in the_state was quite variabTe between the Tate 1950s and the earTy 19805, yet state and TocaT government empToyment grew steadiTy untiT 1979. This suggests that continued variabiTity in the automobiTe industry may not have irreversibTe negative consequences for the pubTic sector. The automobiTe industry may constrain the size of the pubTic sector, but it does not determine it (Jones et a1. 1986, pp. 16-21). Michigan State University in East Lansing is providing a resource base upon which the TocaT economy can bude for 11. UnTike the state's fiscaT crisis, Lansing had a budget surpTus in 1980. See "3 MiTTion SurpTus in City Budget," Detroit News, November 22, 1980. 12 According to the CapitaT Area United Way (1986), pubTic sector empToyees numbered 60,800 in 1983; 60,400 in 1984; and 60,900 in 1985. 109 entry into high technoTogy industries. According to a survey done by Michigan Business magazine, Arthur Young and Company, an accounting firm, and Durocher and Company, a pubTic reTations firm, the Lansing area cTaims ten percent of the state's fastest growing private firms (Manassah et aT. 1986). Some of those are high technoTogy enterprises apparentTy attracted to the University and the new Michigan BiotechnoTogy Institute. MBI scientists are engaged in the manipuTation of pTant and animaT genes to deveTop commerciaT products. State economic deveTopment experts hope the work done at MBI wiTT generate new companies in the area to commerciaTTy produce Taboratory-deveToped products, expanding the market for Michigan-grown crops, hardwoods, and softwoods (MaTTory 1985). The city of Lansing has itseTf recentTy had a ”faceTift” with the construction of a new downtown hoteT and convention center compTex. With the CapitoT within a bTock's waTk of the hoteT, city and state government Teaders are hoping the compTex wiTT become a bustTing center of state and economic deaT making. The scenario for Lansing certainTy appears optimistic by comparison to FTint. Yet many unanswered questions remain. How many new Jobs wiTT be created? High technoTogy industries have been projected to create reTativeTy smaTT numbers of Jobs. What wiTT be the quaTity of the Jobs created? Again, high technoTogy has been characterized as bottom heavy; and service Jobs of the sort generated by tourism are notoriousTy Tow-paying and part time. UnempToyment in Lansing-East Lansing was 8.4 percent in JuTy 1987, up 1.3 percentage points from the previous month and 1.2 percentage points from the previous JuTy (Lansing State JournaT, September 2, 1987). Eight percent unempToyment is considerabTy better than 13 percent in FTint, but it is stiTT above state and nationaT averages. Thus, I think the question, what is to be done?, persists for dispTaced autoworkers in Lansing.13 Reduced Work in Michigan In this section I wiTT expTore in some detaiT part-time empToyment, temporary empToyment, Job sharing, and work sharing in Michigan. This is to further provide a context within which to pTace my sampTe of informants. Part-Time EmgToyment In 1980 there were 826,723 persons empToyed part time in Michigan, or 22 percent of aTT empToyed persons in the state. ATmost two-thirds of these were women. ProportionateTy, there were sTightTy more part-time empToyees in Michigan than in the U.S., and the proportion of part-time empToyees who were women was aTso sTightTy 13 It seems; however, Lansing's auto industry is today pTacing its hopes on the success of GM's "Quad 4" engine. The new engine debuts on a 1988 OTdsmobiTe. A GM officiaT has stated that the Quad 4 engine “wiTT set the standard for future engine technoTogy" not unTike the 1932 Ford V-8 and the high compression OTds Rocket engine introduced in 1949. InitiaT pTanned output of the Quad 4 is 1,600 per day. The engine wiTT be an OTdsmobiTe echusive for a short period of time, according to OTdsmobiTe's chief engineer (Higgins 1986). ObviousTy, it's far too soon to predict the engine's success or its effect on auto empToyment. Table 11. Persons at Work Less Than 35 Hours as a Percentage of All Employed Persons, 1980. Lansing- U.S. Michigan East Lansing Flint All Persons 20.3 22.0 24.8 20.8 Males, 16+ 7.6 7.8 9.6 7.4 Females, 16+ 12.7 14.2 15.2 13.4 Based on data published by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Population, 1980. Chapter D: Detailed Population Characteristics, U.S. and Michigan. Table 12. Males and Females as a Percentage of All Persons at Work Less Than 35 Hours, 1980. Lansing- U.S. Michigan East Lansing Flint Males 37.4 35.4 38.5 35.6 Females 62.6 64.6 61.5 64.4 Based on data published by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Population, 1980. Chapter D: Detailed Population Characteristics, U.S. and Michigan. 112 higher in Michigan than the nation. The highest proportion of part-time empToyees was in the Lansing-East Lansing area, aTmost 25 percent of aTT empToyed persons. This refTects the service nature and student composition of the Tabor market in the Lansing area. In FTint, the proportion of part-time empToyees was cToser to the nationaT average, aTthough the proportion of part-time empToyees who were women was cToser tosthe Michigan figure.14 Differences in the FTint and Lansing area Tabor markets are apparent in the data in TabTes 13 and 14. ATmost 30 percent of the men empToyed Tess than 35 hours in FTint are in manufacturing, compared to 11 percent of the men in Lansing. WhiTe the proportion of men empToyed in retaiT trade is comparabTe in the two areas--differing by Just 1.4 percentage points--the proportion of aTT men empToyed part time in professionaT and reTated services and pubTic administration in Lansing is two to two-and-a-han times that in FTint. There is aTso a greater proportion of women empToyed part time in manufacturing in FTint than in Lansing. ATmost 14 The Census is the onTy data base which provides comprehensive information on part-time empToyment for TocaT areas, thus it is my principaT source in this section. WhiTe the Current PopuTation Survey provides annuaT data, it does not incTude information by occupation and industry. Because of differences in sampTe size and timing of data coTTection, the Census and CPS are not strictTy comparabTe. The CPS shows an absoTute increase between 1980 and 1986 in the number of persons empToyed part time in Michigan, from 3.25 miTTion to 3.77 miTTion. In 1980 part-time workers were 26.4 percent of totaT empToyment in the state. In 1986 they were 25.9 percent of totaT empToyment in Michigan (PersonaT Correspondence from Michigan EmpToyment Security Commission, JuTy 7, 1987). 113 N.N n.NN N.N c.N ¢.a n.N N.mN e.N m.m N.NN m.m N.c NQ.N spasm .AmeuN>uem cheeeuoue dump one .uceaewooma .suumemeu Newswoeaou mchmNuuo>oo moeoNuxev oeuN>uue uNeeeu use mmocNmsn nosuo “mooN>uom use uNooeu e>Nuoaouo< .N N.a o.mN N.N N.NN N.N N.N N.NN N.N N.o Nd.< monoeN seem ImoncmN N.N m.eN N.N m.N N.n N.N c.aN N.N N.a N.NN m.a m.o N.o um.m ommNsuNz c.N N.mN N.N N.N a.m m.m «.0N a.m o.n «.mN o.NN N.o m.o NN.@ .m.= ”meuocuoom ooNueuumNcNav< oNNnom meoN>uom veuoNom one NocONmmeNoum mooN>uom coNueouoom use oceacNouuoucm mooN>uom chomuom meoN>uom “Nosed poo mmocNmsm oumumm Noam use .oocousch .eococNm snowy NNouom moose onmoNons maNpNNNps ueanm pupae app .mooaumowcoaaoo .oONusuHOQmomwe chusoudwocmz coNuusuumooo wcwofiz mononmNm one Nuumouom oaouN30Nuw< .ome .muoom mm omna mmuN oehoNoam no: mo oONuanuumNQ zwumoch .mN oNnoH 114 115 .cmmNnoNz use .m.= .euNumNueuueuoso coNumNsoom veNNeuon “a neuoeno .ommN .coNueNooom uo momcoo .momceu one No season .m.= neuusom .Nedonm Nansen use Henson meeuu>wem somehow pom .moNcmoNo .huvcseN “meoeNd monvoN one Neuon eeszuxev oeuNpuee Nocomuod nesuo umpNosooson ouo>Num .N .p.upou Me «News N.N m.om m.N N.c N.N N.¢ m.mm ¢.N n.N N.N. N.c «N.o upeNm .AmoUN>uom chmmeuouo some one .uoeaomeces .nuwoomou NoNouoEEoo uchmNuuo>oo N.¢ m.Na N.N o.o N.N w.¢ m.mN N.N N.N N.< w.o um.N choceN seem ImoumcmN ¢.N m.om o.N m.o N.N m.a o.Nm m.N N.N o.N N.o NN.N sameness N.N m.mm c.m m.m N.m N.om ¢.N ¢.N N.N N.N N.c N.o Nn.N .m.= eovoNuxov mouN>uom uNoeou one meecNeon Hosuo neo0N>uom one uNooeu o>Nuoaouo< .N ”meuoouoom coNuouumNoNap< uNNnom meuN>uom pouoNem one NecoNemoNoum mouw>uom cONueauuem pom ucoaonuwoucm mo0N>wem Nmoomwem me0N>uem uNodem use mmocNmsm museum Noam poo .eocowsch .oucmst apnea NNouem ensue oNemeNonz meNuNNNuD uNNnom uosuo pom .moONumuNcanoo .cONumuuodmomufi woNuouummscez coNuuouumcoo chch moNuenmNh one huumewom ewouN=UNuw< .omeN .musom mm coca mmoN oeNONoam 50803 no coNuanuumNa Nuumoch .qN oNnoB 116 .sewwsuNz use .m.= .moNumNuouumwoco coNuoNseom veNNeuen “a weummso .owaN .cONuoNsoom No momcou .msoooo one No omunom .m.D neuusom .Aeoosm season one Henson «mouN>uoe oceahmw use .chcmeNo .NuvcseN «meumNe woavaN one Neuo: moosNuxev eeuw>aee Necoeuoo Honuo meoNonomoos oum>Num .N .e.p:oo as peppy 117 twice the proportion of women part-time empToyees in manufacturing in Lansing are empToyed in manufacturing in FTint. The differences in the proportion of part-time empToyed women in professionaT and reTated services in FTint and Lansing is not so great as it is for men, but a Targer proportion of part-time empToyed women in Lansing are in professionaT and reTated services than in FTint (42.3 percent and 36.9 percent respectiveTy). FinaTTy, more than twice the proportion of part-time empToyed women in pubTic administration in FTint are empToyed in pubTic administration in Lansing. So the greater diversity of the empToyment base in Lansing compared to FTint is refTected in the data on the distribution of part-time empToyees across industries. This argument is further suppported by data in TabTes 15 and 16. In FTint, part-time empToyed men are more TikeTy to be empToyed in occupations as operators, fabricators, and Taborers whiTe in Lansing they are equaTTy TikeTy to be empToyed in this occupationaT category or as technicaT, saTes, and administrative workers. Among women there does not appear to be great variation between part-time empToyees in the various occupationaT categories in FTint and Lansing, with one notabTe exception. A greater proportion of part- time empToyed women in FTint are operators, fabricators, and Taborers than in Lansing (9.7 percent and 5.7 percent respectiveTy). .nemNnoNz one .m.= .eoNueNuouoeueno noNueNnmom ooNNeuoo an wouneno .cmaN .nONueNnmom mo oneneo .enenoo one «0 season .m.= "mounom m.mm o.ON o.mN e.nN euouopeq one .euoueuNunem .ewoueueno e.en 0.55 e.sn «.mn panama can .peppo .nONuonooum noNeNoeum m.~ ~.n «.4 a.e menswem ppm .muueeuom .wnNeuem N.NN N.oN «.MN m.mN enoNuenoooo eoN>uem N.eN o.ON N.NN o.mN uuonnnm o>NueuueNnNno< one .eoNem .NeoNnnooH no.0N um.mN N¢.NN NN.MN NenONeeemoum one NeNuowenez unNNm wnNeneNiueem nemNNuNz .m.= IwnNeneN .ommN .muno: mm nenh eeeN oohoNnem no: mo nowunANuueNn NenoNuennuuo .mN eNnee 119 .nemNnouz one .m.= .eUNueNueuoeweno noNueNndom oeNNeuen “a weumesu .ommN .nouueNndom mo eneneu .eneneo use No neennm .m.= "eonnom N.N N.m o.N N.w eneuoneN one .euoueoNunem .enoueneno «.5 N.N «.5 m.s pnaapm ppm .peppo .nONuonoonm noNeNoenm e.o 5.5 m.o ~.n massage ppm .huueenom .wnNanem s.on c.5m e.nm e.e~ eponueasouo pon>pam «.Ns $.55 o.ms p.54 appease a>Npeppmnpnap< one .eeNem .NeUNnnueH ne.mN no.9N um.nN um.oN NenoNeeemonm one NeNuemenez passe epnmpan some sameness .m.= ImnNeneN .omaN .eunom mm nenh eeeN oomoNnam noses mo noNuonNuueNn NenoNuennuuo .oN eNneH 120 Temgorary EmpToyment At this time there is TittTe aggregate data on temporary empToyment in Michigan. As noted above, the Bureau of Labor Statistics Just began compiTing data on the industry in 1982. An examination of the avaiTabTe data, however, shows that temporary empToyment has soared in Michigan reTative to the nation where it has aTso grown rapidTy. TabTe 17 shows the annuaT average empToyment in temporary heTp suppTy services in the United States and Michigan, 1982-1985. In that three-year period, temporary empToyment in the nation grew 72 percent, from over 411,000 empToyees to aTmost 708,000. In Michigan, temporary empToyment grew 209.5 percent, from aTmost 9,000 empToyees in 1982 to aTmost 28,000 in 1985. These data confirm that Michigan empToyers have adopted with a vengeance the use of temporaries in their post-recession recovery strategies. Wages in the temporary heTp industry in Michigan were sTightTy Tess than those in the nation overaTT in 1985. TabTe 18 shows that temporary empToyees in Michigan earned annuaT wages of $8,897 or $171 per week. In the nation overaTT, they earned $9,174 in a year or $176 per week. These figures do not fquiTT expectations that strong Tabor unions in Michigan have driven up the wage rate for aTT workers in the state. If that were true, wages for Michigan's temporary empToyees shoqu be higher than the nationaT average. 121 Table 17. Annual Average Employment in Temporary Help Supply Services (SIC 7362) in the U.S. and Michigan, 1982-1985. Percentage Change 1982 1985 1982-1985 U.S. 411,364 707,715 72.0 Michigan 8,993 27,833 209.5 Source: U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment and wages, Annual Averages, 1982, 1986. Washington, D.C.: GPO. Table 18. Wages in the Temporary Help Supply Industry, U.S. and Michigan, 1985. Annual Wages Average Per Employee Weekly Wage U.S. $9,174 $176 Michigan $8,897 $171 Source: U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment and nges, Annual Averages, 1985. Washington, D.C.: GPO. 122 State government is one of Michigan's maJor empToyers of temporaries. Between 1980 and 1985 state government outTays for temporary hiring aTmost doubTed, from $133 miTTion to $257 miTTion, at the same time that the number of fuTT-time state workers feTT from a peak of 72,000 in 1980 to 58,283 in 1985. For the fiscaT year ending September 30, 1981, state civiT service entered into 4,200 contracts for temporary heTp. In the fiscaT year that ended September 30, 1985, the state entered into 5,000 contracts for temporary heTp. Administration-imposed hiring curbs were the main impetus behind increased temporary hiring (Detroit News, December 26, 1985). Job Sharing in State Government In his 1984 State of the State Message, Governor BTanchard directed “aTT state departments to deveTop pTans to increase shared Job arrangements“ to expand empToyment options and generate empToyment opportunities in state government for persons who cannot work on a fuTT-time scheduTe (Memo to Department Directors from Robert H. NaftaTy, Director, Michigan Department of Management and Budget, and John F. Hueni, Jr., Director, Michigan Department of-CiviT Service, December 26, 1985). The State of Michigan defines Job sharing as “the utiTization of two or more positions on a part-time basis to perform the Job duties which typicaTTy woqu be assigned to a singTe position“ (Memo to Department Directors from Robert H. NaftaTy, Director, Michigan Department of Management and 123 Budget, and John F. Hueni, Jr., Director, Michigan Department of CiviT Service, December 26, 1985). Job sharing may be empToyee or management initiated (Michigan Department of SociaT Services internaT memo, March 14, 1986) but is Timited to positions that are identicaT in cTass and TeveT or those that are simiTar in nature. It can be arranged onTy between positions that are in the same department and share common agency number codes, time keeping units, payroTT/personneT systems, and county/city Tocation codes (Memo to Department Directors from Robert H. NaftaTy, Director, Michigan Department of Management and Budget, and John F. Hueni, Jr., Director, Michigan Department of CiviT Service, December 26, 1985). EmpToyees sharing a Job may be assigned individuaT caseToads, individuaT portions of a Job, or may TiteraTTy share the same Job at different scheduTed times (Michigan Department of SociaT Services internaT memo, March 14, 1986). Therefore, in practice, Job sharing in Michigan's pubTic sector may take the form of "Job spTitting“ as in the first two cases Just cited or "cTassic” Job sharing in which sharers must coordinate their duties and responsibiTities on a reguTar basis. Job sharers' work scheduTes vary, but the totaT number of hours worked by aTT empToyees invoTved in a particuTar shared Job situation cannot exceed 80 hours in a two-week pay period. EmpToyees sharing a Job earn annuaT and sick hours each time they compTete 80 hours in pay status. These 124 and other behefits are subJect to poTicy for other part-time empToyees in the pubTic sector (Michigan Department of SociaT Services internaT memo, March 14, 1986). Job sharing is aTso subJect to existing civiT service procedures or coTTective bargaining provisions as they appTy to part-time empToyment (Memo to Department Directors from Robert H. NaftaTy, Director, Michigan Department of Management and Budget, and John F. Hueni, Jr., Director, Michigan Department of CiviT Service, December 26, 1985). However, the concept of Job sharing and affected empToyees' rights or obTigations are not weTT defined in coTTective bargaining agreements (Michigan Department of SociaT Services internaT memo, March 14, 1986). Thus, Job sharers may be vuTnerabTe in areas not governed by civiT service ruTes or protected by coTTectiveTy bargained contracts. Controversy has stirred in the pubTic sector regarding empToyee headcounts in reTationship to Job-share arrangements and part-time empToyment. To support Job sharing and to ensure that empToyment count poTicies do not adverseTy affect Job-share arrangements, Job sharers are counted as one-han position in empToyee counts. However, a non-Job-sharing part-time empToyee is not counted as a portion of a position but instead as one empToyee (Memo to Department Directors from Robert H. NaftaTy, Director, Michigan Department of Management and Budget, and John F. Hueni, Jr., Director, Michigan Department of CiviT Service, December 26, 1985). Thus, part-time empToyees have been 125 discriminated against in efforts to Timit the size of the state workforce. Some departments, responding to recent Timitations imposed by the Governor, gave notice to part- time empToyees that they woqu be Taid off unTess they started working fuTT time (WSG Wire, March, 1986, p. 1). In September 1986 there were 400 individuaTs empToyed by Michigan state government who were Job sharing; 355 were women and 45 were men. Combined they accounted for 178.5 positions, or 0.3 percent of aTT state government positions. ATmost 50 percent of Job sharers are in cTericaT occupations and about one-fourth are professionaTs. Another 20 percent are paraprofessionaTs.. TabTe 19 compares the distribution of men and women in Job-share positions across types of occupations. The maJority of Job-share positions are in the Department of SociaT Services (37.5 percent). Nineteen percent are in the Department of MentaT HeaTth. Another 29 percent are distributed across four departments: Attorney GeneraT, Education, NaturaT Resources, and Transportation. The remaining nine departments in TabTe 20 account for 14 percent of aTT Job-share positions. Eight state departments report having no Job-share positions. Whether Job sharing has increased in popuTarity over time among state government empToyees is impossibTe to discern at this time. Job-share positions were not coded distinctTy in state government empToyment data sets prior to 126 .eue: Beau oeonNuxe e>en N .eooo auowoueo no“ nNenu eeenw nenu wenuem .Nenne: noNueenenaou e0N>nem omN no a Neuos NH>NU NN NN 0N o no unmanneneo newesuwz one nN onnom son enoNueonNeeeNu now nN one one .neaos he oNe: enoNeNeon oneneloon man one omega .N “eeuonuoom Nmmm euexuoz eoN>nem e>Nuoeuonm m we NenoNeeeNonoeuem N wN eoneneunNeZIeoN>nem o o , tape 323m m mmN NeoNueNo one eoemmo e m eneNoanoeH M Na NenoNeeewonm N o enoueuueNnNno< one eNeNuNwNo N neaos nONuennuuo eooo no: Nuowoueo poo .ommN .n weeaeunem .xem one noNuennuuo mo enma he uneenue>ou eueum nemNnuNz nN eneuenm poo .mN eNoeH 127 o.N G.MN o.N o.No O.N enoNnNeom .enen oeonNuxe one zone unneeens nONuennonenena onenm eeoN>nem Nenoom nnNeem oNNenm unmanneneo. .omaN .oN mNno .Aunounwnn neonoaouv ennenm NNonNem e>Nnu< no uneannenen an eeeonnEm oewmneeeNu .eoN>nem NN>NU mo uneannenen .newNnoNz mo enenm "eonnom m.mNN Neuoa o.eN \ eeonnoeem Nennnez o.en :uNee: Nennez n.o newonn one uneaewenez o.n hnenuoN o.e noneN enownNeom uneannenen m.eN o.e o.N o.N m.oN enoNuNeom .eemN .eN NNne .neeNnoNs no eueum .oneauneeoo so enenesm now one: no one he oeNonouo enoNuNeom mo neeanz .ON eNneH .enonnneon oneneInofi on oeunonen euneaoneneo unmNm .N "eeuonuoom nonueonom enoNuoennoo eoneaaoo eoN>nem NN>NU Neneneu Nonnonn< Noneauneneo 128 January 15, 1986. Thus, Timited TongitudinaT data are avaiTabTe. Work Sharing Work sharing does not appear to have widespread appeaT in Michigan, aTthough it does occur as this study reveaTs. The fact that the Detroit News caTTed the inverse seniority Tayoff pTan from which a portion of my sampTe was drawn 'unusuaT“ (Higgins 1987) conveys the reTative obscurity of work sharing in Michigan. A few efforts to promote work sharing in recent years in Michigan have failed. For exampTe, in 1983 state Senator Jerome A. Hart (D-Saginaw) and 24 coTTeagues introduced Senate BiTT 200 in the Michigan LegisTature--a biTT to estabTish a “shared-work program” in Michigan aTong the Tines of short-time compensation pTans in CaTifornia and other states (Gribbin 1983). The biTT never made it through committee and hearings were never her. Timing may weTT have worked against this TegisTation. In 1983 there was some optimism that Michigan's economy woqu turn around with nationaT recovery, and some Taid-off workers, particuTarTy in the automobiTe industry, were being caTTed back. At the time, additionaT Tayoffs seemed unTikeTy, and the state had its own agenda for revitaTizing Michigan's economy which focused on improving the state's business cTimate, targeting industries for retention and growth, and creating state-supported investment capitaT funds to encourage business expansion.. It appears that 129 short-time compensation in Michigan wiTT have to wait at Teast untiT the next recession. Work sharing schemes proposed by Buick and the UAW in FTint aTso faiTed. EarTy'in 1984 Buick proposed scheduTing a third, swing shift at two GM pTants in FTint--which woqu have created 1,700 Jobs--if aTT three shifts woqu give up overtime pay on hours worked over eight and for work on Saturday and Sunday. The pTan woqu have required current and recaTTed empToyees to work four 10-hour days at straight pay. A UAW counterproposaT aTTowed the waiving of Saturday and Sunday premiums but retained overtime pay for work over eight hours. The two proposaTs aTso differed in the days chosen for the swing shift. The company wanted the extra shift to work days on Friday and Saturday and nights on Monday and Tuesday. The UAW wanted it to work days Friday and Saturday and nights on Sunday and Monday, so workers coqu have three consecutive days off. Workers on the other shifts woqu have worked days Monday through Thursday and nights Wednesday through Saturday. At the time, the two shifts at the two pTants were working six days a week, nine- and-a-han hours a day (Job 1984; Nehman 1984). At the time, there were aTso 9,000 Taid off autoworkers, or 15 percent of GM's workforce, in the FTint area (Brown 1984). Both proposaTs were turned down by workers. In a straw vote by one UAW TocaT that was invoTved, 576 workers voted for the status quo (two shifts pTus overtime) and 440 workers favored the union pTan. The company's proposaT 130 received 28 votes (Job and Roach 1984). Regional UAW officials attributed worker opposition, especially to the company plan, to worker morale and fear of layoff. With overtime pay averaging at least $200 a week, workers wanted overtime for fear they might not have Jobs a year later. The two plants involved were slated to be closed and merged into the new Buick City Complex, which would operate with a smaller workforce than the two-plants combined. Workers were also hostile because concessions agreed to in the 1982 contract had not resulted in the recall of laid-off U.S. workers but instead in further foreign investment by the company (Job and Roach 1984; Nehman 1984). Overtime has developed as a hot political issue in the automobile industry. By conservative estimates, up to a million, or 15 percent, of 1983's passenger cars were built on overtime. Industry executives claimed overtime production then was the highest since the mid-19405 and perhaps the highest in the industry's history. UAW President Owen Bieber has been critical of the companies for "abuses“ of overtime, but internally the union is split on the issue (Grenier 1983). Overtime has been an important component of company strategies to recover profitability. That strategy, however, was undermined somewhat in the 1987 contracts between Ford, General Motors and the UAW. Under those agreements, temporary layoffs are permitted only in the event of a sales slump, and Taid-off workers must be 131 recalled when demand increases. In other words, a company could not put those workers on indefinite layoff and use overtime to accommodate increased demand (Fogel, Lupo, and Spelich 1987). Such a plan ensures the spreading around of available work. In sum, Michigan's economy was thrown into turmoil during the recession in the early 19805 and the maJor pTayers--state government, companies, unions, unemployed workers, and unrepresented workers--are scrambling to gain some measure of control over it. Reduced work strategies, some more widespread than others, have figured prominently in that effort. To what extent reduced work enhances or limits people's autonomy off the Job is the question to which I now turn. In chapter 6 I examine the terms and conditions of reduced work and my informants' reasons for working less than full time. Chapters 7 through 11 explore their use of time off the Job and conditions which enhance or impede autonomy off the Job. 132 CHAPTER 6 Terms and Conditions of Reduced Work This chapter introduces the informants in this study by examining their reasons for being employed less than full time and the terms and conditions of their reduced work. By terms and conditions of reduced work, I mean in particular the type of Job, employee benefits, work schedules and control of those schedules. It will be shown that different types of reduced work permit varying employee benefits and varying degrees of control of time. Job Sharing With one exception, all of the Job sharers in this study were state government employees. Thus, they were subJect to the employment regulations established by state civil service in Michigan. Most state government offices operate on an 8 a.m. to.5 p.m. schedule, Monday through Friday. However, the state adopted flexitime some time ago, which means state employees may alter somewhat their starting and leaving times from the standard 8 to 5 and lunch hours may also be reduced to one-half hour at the employee's discretion. In addition, civil service grades and pay levels organize state employment, and several labor unions are involved in negotiating contracts and determining terms and conditions of employment for employees in various 133 occupational classifications. Some employees, such as those whose work is considered confidential, are excluded from labor union representation. It is within this bureaucratic system of state employment that Job sharing occurs. Job sharers are paid the same hourly rate as full-time employees in the same occupational classification and grade. They are eligible for most of the employee benefits of full- time employees. Sick leave, vacation time, and retirement benefits accrue according to hours worked, thus at any given time a Job sharer will accumulate proportionally less than a full-time worker. Holiday pay is prorated. Job sharers are eligible for the same health insurance coverage as full-time employees. Like other part-time state employees, Job sharers are not eligible for long-term disability, the only significant area of difference between employee benefits for Job sharers and full-time employees. The vast maJority of Job sharers who work for the State of Michigan are clerical workers. This reflects the state's reluctance to permit Job sharing in high-level positions and the concentration of women in clerical positions. Given that Job sharing is practiced far more by women than men, it would be expected that Job sharing would occur most frequently in occupations where women are concentrated. As noted in chapter 5, almost 50 percent of the Job sharers who work for the State of Michigan are clerical workers. About 25 percent are professionals and 20 percent are paraprofessionals. 134 Six of the state Job sharers in this study were clerical workers, two were accountants, and two were social services caseworkers. The one Job sharer in the study who was not a state employee was a clerical worker at a local private hospital. The Job sharers in this study had combined experience of almost 23 years with Job sharing. Length of experience ranged from six months to seven and one-half years, with an average of about two years. Eight of the eleven Job sharers were motivated to try V Job sharing because they had young children to care for at home. All eight were married women, and, with the exception of one whose husband was laid off at the time she began Job sharing (he was employed when I interviewed her, however), had a second earner in the home to cushion the blow of lost income from the reduction of working time. All eight had been employed full time before they began Job sharing, and while a few would have continued working full time had they not gained the opportunity to Job share, most would have quit their Jobs under the demands of caring for young children. Martha's (008) case is especially poignant in this regard. She considered quitting her full-time Job as a secretary under the pressure of caring for a newborn and two toddlers. Instead, a sympathetic supervisor created a Job- share position in the office, but taking the position constituted the equivalent of two demotions for Martha. Her superiors were unwilling to consider Job sharing for her 135 secretarial position, so she moved into a position in the same department as a receptionist. Her situation was complicated by the fact that her emplOyment provided her family's insurances. Her husband is self-employed and without her employment, they would have to purchase their own insurances. Martha characterized her decision to Job share as a difficult one to make because she believed her position as a secretary was much more interesting than the receptionist position she would have to take to Job share. She was also attending school part time and “working her way up the ladder.“ But she believed someone at home had to make the commitment to raising the children. Although she believed her husband would have been better at it, her husband could not give up his work. "One of us had to slow down a little bit and make our presence in the home, for the children's sake. So it was me. I couldn't ask him to give up his business customers because that would have meant asking him to give up his business." Carol (001) was motivated to Job share when she heard from other state employees that Job sharing was available in other departments. At the time, she had an 18-month-old and a four-year-old and "really wanted to have some more time at home with them." She called Civil Service and had her name put on a Job-share or part-time list. Within three months she was called for an interview and within an additional two months she was hired for her Job-share position. If she had 136 not been able to Job share or work part time, she would have quit her full-time Job. Similarly, Kathy (002) sought to work part time because her six-month-old son was “a terrible sleeper” and working full time "was rough.“ She thought of quitting if she couldn't find a part-time Job. There were no part-time Jobs available in the unit she was working in at the time, so she called Civil Service and they referred her to a full-time employee who was looking for someone with whom to Job share. That woman had the approval to Job share from her immediate supervisor but could find no one who was interested or qualified to share her position. Kathy and she spoke on the telephone several times and managed to negotiate an agreeable Job-share arrangement that also met the needs of the department. The position attainment process was not so smooth for Elaine (003) and Linda (009). Elaine's homelife was stressful with a one-year-old and a six-month-old and a husband who worked second shift. A caseworker, she requested part-time employment when it'was virtually unheard of in her office. There was Just one part-time position allocated to her office and that one was filled. She was planning to quit when it looked like she couldn't go on a part-time schedule. Two days before her last day of work, the office learned that allocations had changed and they couldn't replace her. She was permitted to begin working part time with the proviso that if and when she could be 137 replaced full time, she would have to quit or agree to work full time. At first, Elaine's part-time position was not half of a Job-share position. She worked half days, five days a week, rotating Jobs. She replaced employees who were absent. She did this for about a year. She described the Job as ”okay,” but complained that she never had any responsibilities of her own. Her opportunity to Job share occurred when the organization of work in her office became “generalized." Previously, Job sharing was not feasible because caseworkers specialized in various aspects of the processing of clients, such as intake or follow-up, and had to be at the office all day for client contact. Once the office generalized, however, and caseworkers no longer specialized in one step in the processing of clients but became responsible for entire cases, it became possible for two caseworkers to share one caseload. It was at this time that Elaine and the other part-time employee in her office began to Job share. Linda, an accountant, planned to begin working part time when she returned to her Job from maternity leave. Her request to shift from full time to part time was approved by her supervisor while she was on leave, but when she returned he asked her to work full time for six weeks because work was backlogged in the office. During this six-week period, however, he was promoted and because his position was vacant, he asked Linda to postpone her shift to part time and to continue working full time beyond the originally- 138 agreed-to six weeks. After some time, because of her childcare responsibilities and because her mother had become ill, Linda told her boss, “I gotta work part time or else I'm going to have to quit.“ He asked her if she would Job share and she agreed to “whatever you want to do.“ Her supervisors converted her full-time position to a Job-share position and interviewed candidates for the half position. that would remain when Linda would begin working part time. Linda recounted her efforts to be involved in the hiring process. She asked her supervisors, “'Don't you think it would be a good idea for me to be in the interviews to make sure this is someone I'm going to be able to get along with because we're going to have to communicate well?‘ They said 'no.‘ (She laughed.)“ Fortunately for Linda, the woman hired for the Job had several years of experience as an accountant and they were compatible. They had been Job sharing for almost a year at the time of the interview. Not everyone who was motivated to Job share by childcare concerns actively sought to Job share, however. Barbara (005), the informant with the longest Job sharing experience--seven and one-half years--had worked full time for 15 years and had, with her husband, raised two children, 11 and 12 years old. After giving birth to their third child, Barbara decided, "that was it.“ She was going to quit her Job and stay home with her third and last child, partly because she had not done so with the other two and partly because she was "older." She was in her mid-thirties 139 when the third child was born. Another secretary in the office had become pregnant and sought and gained approval to Job share from her supervisor. She talked to Barbara about Job sharing and convinced her to try it. The position was converted from full time to Job share and Barbara moved into it. They were among the first in their office to Job share and in fact had been called a “pilot.“ Sylvia (007) had also been courted by her Job share partner. Originally Sylvia had no interest in Job sharing. She had one child, had worked full time for six months after her return from maternity leave, had a "good sitter,“ was "making good money,“ and thought she'd 'let things stand.“ Another secretary in the office was pregnant with her second child and approached Sylvia, the only other secretary at the same grade in the office, and asked her to Job share. Sylvia recalled, “I Joked with her and said, 'If I get pregnant again, I'll think about it.‘ Well, I did (get pregnant), and she didn't let off." In the meantime, a few others in the department had begun to Job share and became valuable sources of information about Job‘sharing. After some conversations with them, Sylvia agreed to consider Job sharing. She recounted her reasoning: "I talked with my husband. . .I hated the thought of a reduced income. That scared me because it is good money for doing what we do. But I started weighing the pros and cons. I thought, I want to have more kids. This was gonna be my second and I thought I had 140 already missed so much with my first. So I thought this would be a good opportunity. We went through all the paperwork. . .Our boss was very supportive. They agreed to share Sylvia's position. They had been Job sharing for six months at the time of the interview, and what was Sylvia's assessment of the experience? ”It's great. I love it.“ The remaining three Job sharers in the sample were not motivated to Job share by childcare responsiblities. Tina (004), an accountant, had worked full time for ten years. During her last year of full-time employment, she was pursuing a second career in music. She played in a band in a bar a few nights at the end of the week and thought it would be ideal to work only the first part of the week in her accounting Job. She requested Job sharing and found someone else in her department who wanted to Job share. They began Job sharing in May, 1985, and had done so for more than a year at the time of the interview. Bill (024) and Jim (029) were the only male Job sharers who volunteered to be interviewed. Bill had been a self- employed accountant for twenty years and sought to work for someone else to have firmer boundaries on his working time and to obtain employee benefits. He wanted full-time employment but took a part-time Job-share position that was offered to him in the hope that this might be an avenue to full-time employment. He had been Job sharing a little more than six months with a woman who had planned to quit her 141 full-time Job. Supervisors in her office converted her full-time position to a Job share position to keep her. The week before I interviewed Bill, however, she quit to take a Job in another city. Bill was uncertain what would happen next, but he expected the position to be converted back to full time and that he would be offered the full-time Job. While Job sharing was an avenue of entry to full-time state employment for Bill, it was a mode of exit for Jim (029). Jim had been a full-time caseworker for about five years, but his off-the-Job religious activities motivated him to inquire into part-time employment. He believed he was permitted to Job share because he had the highest seniority of those in his office who wanted to Job share. Once his position was converted to Job share, it was advertised to locate a partner for him. His partner was a man trying to establish his own business. Jim had been Job sharing almost two years at the time of the interview. While he had no plans to quit his Job with the state at that time, he did entertain the thought of doing his ministerial work full time. If he does at some future time make this change, Job sharing will have permitted a gradual rather than sudden transition. The circumstances and interests that motivated informants in this study to try Job sharing reveal a clear gender difference. The vast maJority of women decided to Job share because they wanted or needed to be more involved in the lives and care of their young children. For the men, 142 on the other hand, Job sharing provided an opportunity to make a transition from one type of employment to another or to balance employment with other interests and commitments. Work Schedule! Generally, Job sharers who work for the State of Michigan work 40 hours in a two-week pay period and negotiate their own schedules. Their schedules are subJect to supervisory approval, but sometimes supervisors create the task division between Job sharers as well as their work schedules. In one case in the sample, the work schedule was inherited from the person who was being replaced. Because Job sharers tend to negotiate their schedules to accommodate off-the-Job demands as well as demands of the organization in which they are employed, schedules vary considerably reflecting the individual needs of the workers. Most of the Job sharers in this study worked two or three days each week. Bill (024), whose schedule was not self- determined, worked 8 to 5 Monday and Thursday. Kathy (002), Elaine (003), and Barbara (005) worked the same two days each week and alternated a third with their partners. Others alternated weeks. Carol (001) and Jim (029) worked Monday through Friday while Sylvia (007) worked Wednesday through Tuesday and Linda (009) worked Thursday through Wednesday. Sylvia noted that she and her partner "always have a weekend to break up the week." Given that the state uses flexitime, daily work schedules also varied considerably. Some Job sharers worked 143 8 to 5, others 8:30 to 5 or 7:30 to 4 or 7 to 3:30. Several commented that they preferred working full days to half days for various reasons having to do with commuting, children, and the nature of the Job. Sylvia (007), for example, said, 'I love the schedule. I wouldn't change that for anything. It's better than half days. Especially when we both have to drive quite a distance. If we had to work half days, we didn't want it (Job sharing). You know, you're putting the miles on.” Similarly, commuting was a concern for Elaine (003). “Might as well work all day once here . . .That's nicer than coming in every day a half a day especially since I live 25 miles away.“ Linda (009) noted that working every day half days meant taking the children out every day and getting dressed for work every day. And Barbara (005) commented that four hour shifts “go by so fast that you can't get your teeth into it." Carol (001) preferred her alternating week schedule because she felt she was under a lot of time pressure when she works. On the weeks she was off, she tried to slow down, enJoy time, and enJoy her children. She believed working half weeks would not relieve the time pressure because it took time to unwind. She also believed she accomplished more at home by having full weeks off. Barbara (005), however, found alternating weeks to be confusing to other workers in her office when she and her partner tried that type of schedule. They decided to try to keep confusion to a minimum by working the same two or three days 144 every week. That arrangement ”keeps things more structured at work and at home.“ Jim (029) preferred his early starting (7 a.m.) and leaving (3:30 p.m.) times because it gave him time at the end of his work day to go to a nearby gym to workout, freshen up, and rest before going to religious meetings in the evening. Power of Supervisors Supervisors have considerable discretionary power over Job sharers because they must approve the Job-share arrangement and work schedules. Whether they exercise that power for or against the desires of workers may also be affected by their attitudes toward individual workers. Some Job sharers saw the opportunity to Job share as a reward given to valued workers. Linda (009) put it well: "It's the employer's option. They don't have to make it available to you unless you fight for it. Which is what I had to do. . .It's not like they're saying, 'Here's all these part-time Jobs. Do you want them?‘ They're Just not there. . .I felt like I was in a good position because of the fact that I had worked in my Job for a couple of years and created some value for myself. Had I been not a very good employee, they would have probably told me to take a hike." Martha (008), who took two demotions so she could work part time by Job sharing, expressed similar sentiments. She thought Job sharing in higher Job classifications was “still a fringe" and workers must establish themselves in a high position before they can ask to Job share in that position. Those elements of simple or personal labor control within the larger system of bureaucratic Tabor control 145 generate feelings of insecurity for workers who do get the opportunity to Job share. Sylvia (007) reported that she and her partner felt like they were “walking on ice” because they didn't want to lose their Job-share arrangement. Because they feel insecure, Job sharers may go out of their way to please supervisors and avoid imposing on co-workers to prove the arrangement works. Sylvia and her partner documented their work and coordinated carefully to ensure a smooth transition when one left at the end of her week and the other came in. Sometimes they stayed late on Tuesdays to ensure work was caught up for the partner who came in on Wednesdays. They also sought to keep each other well informed so they did not have to ”bother“ other workers in the office to get information. Susan (018), who shared a clerical Job at a local hospital, noted similar insecurity at first. “When we first started, we wanted this to work so bad. It used to be our boss was kicking us out at night because it was like, 'I gotta finish,’ but now we've settled into, I leave a note . . .and we're both really comfortable with it. . .It was a little hectic at first because for one thing, I was training. Neither one of us wanted this to fail; it was like we had to make this work. It's ideal for both of us. So then we started the notes. We may leave each other a letter at night but we know exactly where we're at and what has to be done so if she gets a call at 8:00 the next morning right when she walks in the door, all she has to do is read the note and vice versa, and whoever's on the phone knows." 146 In Susan's office, however, this meticulous documentation and coordination benefited others. 'Our department manager claims the only reason she knows what's going on with (financial) statements is because of the notes we (the Job share partners) leave each other. She reads them (Taughs).' Job sharers in state employment may be vulnerable in other ways. While Michigan Civil Service permits Job sharing, departments don't necessarily have formal policies on Job sharing to deal with all contingencies. Sylvia (007) explained that her and her partner's Job sharing agreement specifies that Job sharing could be terminated if their supervisor no longer wanted it or if one of the Job sharers didn't want it. But she didn't know what would happen if one of the partners wanted to go back to full time or if there were layoffs or someone was bumped. She confessed that the lack of written policy in these areas frightened her and acknowledged that she could be the one to lose a Job since she had less seniority than her partner. But she also doubted that she would ”end up on the street” because she felt there were always possiblities to bump down. This may well be one of the advantages of civil service employment. Once in the system it is not difficult to transfer from one Job to another within the system if the moves are lateral or downward. Such shifts, however, could mean the loss of desirable working conditions. Sylvia also noted that she didn't know what would happen to her Job-share arrangement if her supervisor were 147 replaced by someone not in favor of Job sharing. She believed that many supervisors don't like Job sharing and added that the personnel director of her own office didn't support it and “had to be fought all the way” despite her immediate supervisor's approval. Elaine (003) also commented on supervisors' negative attitudes toward Job sharing. She claimed that Job sharing increases the amount of supervisoryrecordkeeping. Supervisors are allocated to cover positions, not people. Therefore, a supervisor responsible for ten positions actually supervises 20 people if all of those positions are Job shared. Scheduling training sessions can also be a problem if sessions are scheduled on a day a Job sharer is off and an extra session must be scheduled to accommodate him/her. Kathy (002) had experienced a change in immediate supervisors. She reported during the interview that her new supervisor reorganized task divisions in the unit and gave Kathy and her partner "the crud Jobs." The Job classifications of similarly classified clerks were upgraded, giving those workers higher pay and more opportunities to advance, but Kathy's Job-share position was not upgraded. The supervisor had also questioned Kathy's career commitment. Kathy interpreted these actions as affronts directed at part-time employees by a supervisor preJudiced against part-time workers. 148 In spite of the insecurities and vulnerabilities of Job sharing, virtually all of the Job sharers in this study reported positive attitudes about their experience. Several of them said it was “the best of both worlds." To what extent it is the best of both worlds warrants further empirical investigation. There is no doubt that many of the Job sharers in this study, particularly the women who were caring for young children, found themselves with few other alternatives, as expressed in their thoughts about quitting their Jobs if they hadn't been able to work part time by Job sharing. Job sharing's gray areas--those matters not formally taken up in departmental policies--are rife with promise for labor union intervention to protect workers. Temporary Employment The temporary employees in this study differed from the Job sharers in several important ways. As a group the temporaries were younger, with a median age of 24 compared to 33 for the Job sharers, with less stable employment experience. They earned less and received no employee benefits. Their reasons for seeking temporary employment also differed from those given by Job sharers, particularly with regard to childcare. And most important for this study, the temporaries have less control over working time than did the Job sharers. The twelve temporaries interviewed for this study had combined experience of about five years as temporary employees. Their experience ranged from less than two 149 months to about nine months, with average experience of about five months. A few of the informants had done more than one stint as temporaries. Ten of the twelve did clerical work while two were Taborers, although three were without placements at the time the interviews were conducted. The informants were recruited from two temporary 'employment companies. Each company made benefits available to employees who became eligible after they had worked a certain number of hours and maintained eligibility by working a certain number of hours each month. For example, Company A provided benefits for paid holidays and paid vacations if an employee had worked more than a specified minimum of hours (1,200-1,500) in the previous year. Employees could also receive referral bonuses, life and health insurance, and workers' compensation if they met certain eligibility requirements. None of the temporaries in this study received employee benefits. Few were eligible given their short length of service at the time they were interviewed. Some were not concerned by their lack of benefits because they were covered by a husband's or parent's insurance policies. Others indicated their interest in the benefits packages available to them and thought they would look more deeply into the matter once they became eligible. One woman maintained coverage on insurances she purchased while previously self-employed; and two men, one the sole support 150 of his family and the other who was single, looked to state social services for assistance. Why did the informants in this study seek temporary employment? Three of the informants were students who found temporary employment preferable in pay or a desirable adJunct to part-time employment. Another had recently finished school and temporary employment was a means by which to gain experience in her field to better qualify for desired full-time employment. Most, however, chose temporary employment as transitional employment or because they had had difficulty finding other steady work. Meg (010), for example, had been a self-employed economic policy consultant and found herself spending her time attending meetings and making sales calls rather than doing research and writing which she preferred. She decided to try to find other employment that would permit her to do the sorts of tasks she wanted to without having to manage her own company. With a master's degree in economics, she expected the search for suitable employment to take some time. She chose temporary employment as a clerical worker in the interim. Harold (015) had a custodial Job before he signed with a temporary employment company. He had been hired as a part-time employee, but because his employer knew he preferred full-time work, Harold was able to work 40 hours a week much of the time. The Job paid about $4.75 an hour and required that Harold travel to different sites. The father 151 of four children, Harold complained that he “wasn't making enough.” He received no employee benefits and disliked traveling so much. "Just to get 40 hours I kinda had to bounce all over town. . .It was costing me more to drive around, and we didn't get paid for mileage.” He signed up for temporary employment and planned to use his time between placements to search for a more suitable Job. Jean (027) had worked at an automobile assembly plant for about a year when she was laid off. She had hoped to be called back, but when her unemployment benefits expired and the prospects for callback were dismal, she tried to find other work. An ad in the newspaper led her to a temporary employment company. Ed (013) had an unstable employment history following what he believed was an unJust termination from a Job more than ten years ago. His tarnished work record made it difficult to find steady, full-time employment. He chose temporary employment in the hope that he could find a full- time Job through temporary Jobs. Tom (021), in his fifties with a slight handicap, had worked as a mechanic for 20 years. In his most recent full- time Job, one he had for two years, he worked in the garage's office doing paperwork and computer work because he could no longer do any lifting or work on his feet. He was fired from this Job, in what Tom believed was a clear case of discrimination, and replaced by a young woman who was paid a little more than one-fourth of what he had been paid. 152 Divorced and self-supporting, he had been without a Job for six months when he signed up with a temporary employment company. He had distributed resumes "all over town. . .you know, the surrounding area. . .there's nothing. . .so I Just signed up for temporary. I had to have something.“ Tom, like Ed, hoped to find a full-time Job through temporary work. Given his age, Tom might have opted for early retirement, however his previous employers provided no retirement or pension plan. Only one informant in this study fit the stereotype of the married woman who works as a temporary to give her something to do. Karen (026), a minister's wife, had no desire for permanent or full-time employment when she signed with a temporary employment company. ”At the time, I was Just doing it for something extra to do and to fill in some of my hours. I didn't really care (about permanent employment). It was Just something to fill in my days. It didn't really matter to me if I got a permanent Job or not.” There was a chance that her placement at the time the interview was conducted could become a permanent, part-time Job. I asked her if her attitude about a permanent Job had changed, given this opportunity. “It'd be nice. . .but I'm married and we hope to have children. And so it's Just kind of something that I'm doing for now until we have children. I'm not really sure about it yet. . .I don't want to start working for them and then get pregnant and have to leave." 153 Peggy (014) sought temporary employment when she left an unsatisfactory full-time Job that she had had for six months. She had worked as a temporary prior to this full- time employment and had had a good experience with temporary employment. Because her full-time Job was located in an office near the temporary employment company for whom she had previously worked, she continued to have contact with the staff of the temporary employment company. Members of the staff often asked her when she was going to come back and told her there were placements for her. When she left her full-time Job and went back to that temporary employment company, they "weren't there” for her. She waited two weeks and they never called her. When she called them, they couldn't come up with a satisfactory placement for her. Demoralized and betrayed by a company she had trusted, she signed with a different temporary employment company on her brother's recommendation. Her experience with this company was quite favorable. "My confidence had been really shot down in this last Job. . .I walked in there and my confidence went straight up . . .They were Just thrilled to have me and recognized my talents right off .I appreciate that. . .and they were ready to put me right on the Job. I think they're a little bit more professional, better training. I like the way I was treated, and I like the way I'm still treated and kept up with. When I call anybody there. . .they know me. Peggy had interviewed for a couple of full-time Jobs before resigning from the one she had but felt temporary 154 employment was best for the foreseeable future. She needed steady work because she was supporting her husband through graduate school, but he would finish in a few months and she expected that they would relocate after that. 'I don't know where we'll be. . .It's hard for me. . .It's hard on employers, too, to hire me not knowing if I'll be around after June. (Company A) is secure; I get benefits within a month. I plan on staying with them. I do have another option which would be temporary also, but I think temporary is the best thing for right now. . .They (Company A) pay better than a lot of them do.“ In summary, unlike most of the Job sharers, none of the temporary employees in this study were motivated by childcare responsibilities to seek temporary employment. Instead, with a few exceptions, the temporaries were (1) students who needed money to pay for college and found temporary employment preferable to or a convenient adJunct to part-time employment, (2) persons making a transition from previous unsatisfactory employment, and (3) individuals who had had difficulty finding suitable, steady employment. It is not surprising that childcare did not emerge as a factor that motivated individuals to seek temporary employment. As will be seen below, there is enough unpredictability associated with temporary employment that it would be difficult to coordinate temporary employment and the care of young children. Placements Most of the temporaries interviewed for this study reported that they had had fairly steady employment as 155 temporaries. A significant few, however, reported intermittent placements. This was especially problematic for Tom (021) who, apparently for reasons of age and handicap, had had difficulty finding a Job and desperately needed employment to support himself. Tom had signed up for temporary employment about a month and a half before the interview. He was between placements at the time, and his last placement had been ten days earlier. He worked for six hours at a Job that involved folding letters and statements and stuffing envelopes. Company 8 had called him on a Friday to inform him of the placement that would begin the following Monday at 8 a.m. Tom knew when he accepted the placement that it was for Just one day. "Work is work,“ he commented. Previously, he had had three placements of two or three days each. When Tom signed with Company B, he hoped he would find full-time work through temporary employment. ”They ask you on the form that you sign, they asked me if I wanted temporary work of if I wanted full-time work, morning work, or afternoon or evening. . .I wrote down anytime, part time of full time, preferably full time. . .When they were interviewing me afterwards, they asked me if I'd settle for (less than full time) and I said, 'Oh yeah,' I'd take anything I could get. Because I'm by myself. I have nothing to hold me back. So I can go anytime, day or night." Tom's willingness to work anytime and do almost anything within his physical capabilities might have permitted him to work steadily with numerous placements. 156 Instead, he had had few placements--all of short duration-- and remained largely unemployed despite his willingness to work. Vicki (023) had had two placements in the three and a half months she had been with Company 8. Her first placement lasted two and a half weeks. It was supposed to last three weeks, ”but they got done early.“ This was a full-time placement, 8:30 to 4:30 five days a week. Her second placement, which had ended a month and a half before the interview, lasted a couple days. A month lapsed between these two placements. Vicki wasn't at all disturbed by the few Jobs she had had as a temporary. She babysat a lot, thus she had another fairly regular source of income. She was also selective about placements and exercised freely her right to turn them down. While a month and a half had lapsed between her last placement and the interview, she had been offered placements during that period but turned them down. “There are some places I've heard that are really bad places to work. And I Just don't want to get into something like that." She explained that some other temporaries she met through her placements had taken three-week placements at one place in particular and quit after one week because they felt they were treated badly. Harold (015) had had two placements in the month and a half since he signed with Company A. His first placement was of two-week duration and his second lasted one week. 157 The first could have lasted longer because it was an indefinite placement, but Harold was dissatisfied with the Job. “That was Just Janitorial," he commented. His second placement was at a radiator shop doing auto repair. At the time of the interview, it had been a week since his last placement. He had done stints as a temporary twice before, about ten years ago. His longest placement was one through another temporary employment company that lasted about six months. In contrast to these few cases of intermittent temporary employment, many in this study reported fairly steady employment as temporaries, and some achieved Tom's and Ed's dreams--to locate regular, full-time employment through temporary placements. Meg (010), Terri (011), Chris (012), Ed (013), Peggy (014), Ann (025), Karen (026), and Jean (027) had all worked fairly steadily as temporaries, with placements of two to nine months duration at the time they were interviewed. Most expected their steady, temporary employment to continue for the foreseeable future. Meg's temporary Job had Just become a regular, full-time Job and she hoped to upgrade and expand her responsibilities within the next year. Karen and Jean had been asked to become regular part-time (Karen) and full-time (Jean) employees where they were placed and were mulling it over. Ann worked steadily as a temporary for three and a half months until she found a regular part-time Job. She worked intermittently as a temporary while 158 employed part time. Her part-time Job had recently become a full-time Job, so she was easing out of temporary employment. - There is considerable variation in temporary employment, particularly in the factors that motivate people to seek temporary employment and in the experiences individuals have as temporaries. While temporary employment was designed to meet empToyers' needs for flexibility, it is clearly adaptable to the varied needs of some workers, particularly those for whom temporary employment is transitional, those who have other sources of financial support, and those who want temporary employment. The lack of employer commitment to temporaries, however, may in turn be met with little employee commitment to employers. Thus, Harold (015) could choose to leave a placement of indefinite duration because he was not satisfied with the Job, and Vicki turned down placements that had a reputation among temporaries as bad placements. Yet there are limits to workers' freedom to leave or turn down placements, and these are the limits faced by all workers--those imposed by one's pocketbook. While temporary employees have a certain amount of freedom to accept/reJect offers and to leave placements prematurely, they have little control over their work schedules. Unlike Job sharers who generally negotiate their work schedules and therefore have considerable control over them 159 subJect to supervisory approval, temporaries are generally told when and where to report for placements. Temporaries' control over their work schedules comes in their ability to specify desirable working times on their temporary employment application. Thus temporaries can indicate whether they prefer full-time or part-time temporary employment and whether they prefer to work in the morning, afternoon, or evening. It can therefore be said that temporaries have some choice over their placements, but the difficulty arises in not knowing when placement offers will come and the variability of placement duration. These issues will be taken up more concretely in chapters 7 through 11 on autonomy off the Job. Part-Time Employment The part-time employees interviewed for this study worked in a variety of occupations in state government, municipal government, the health care industry, and the retail sector. They were clerical workers, sales clerks, skilled workers ( e.g. tailor and gardener) and professional (e.g. nurse clinician). Two were employed full time in addition to their part-time employment, one as a clerical worker, the other as a teacher. They had worked in their part-time Jobs for a combined 33 years, ranging from less' than one year to nine years. They had an average 3.7 years in their current part-time Jobs. Some were union members and others were not. Those who were union members received employee benefits, as did a couple of others who were not 160 union members. Those who did not receive benefits (except for merchandise discounts) were not represented by a labor union. The variation in occupation and economic sector was related to further variation in work schedules, number of hours worked each week, and the regularity of hours over periods of several weeks. Few of the part-time workers had control over their work schedules, although many could request preferred working hours and days. Those outside the retail sector had regular hours and work schedules, but those in retail, particularly the sales workers, had experienced considerable variability related to seasonal fluctuations and fluctuations in demand in both their work schedules and number of hours worked each week. Those in retail, therefore, experienced unpredictability in employment not unlike that experienced by temporaries. They differed from temporaries, though, in that the part-time workers expected to work a minimum of hours each week and their work schedules for each week were posted several days in advance. As a group, the part-time workers in this study worked from as few as 15 hours to as many as 48 hours in a week. They averaged about 22 1/2 hours a week. About half of the part-time workers had actively sought to work part time, and most of them were motivated to do so by childcare concerns. Elizabeth (006), for example, had worked full time as a state clerical worker for about five 161 years before she started working part time. She began working part time after her first child was born and after the federal monies that paid her wages and funded the proJect on which she worked were reduced. She spent a year, the period of her pregnancy and the first few months of her child's life, ”constantly pleading" to work part time. She was given the opportunity when the grant monies were cut. Lisa (016), a nurse clinician and the only salaried worker in the sample, also began working part time after the birth of her first child. She had worked full time for several years and part time for seven. She planned to continue working part time for at least another year, until her youngest child would go to school. Sarah (017), a clerical worker in the same hospital, continued to work full time for a few months after her daughter was born until she was given the opportunity to Job share. She Job shared for about a year and a half, but an office reorganization ended that arrangement. She returned to full-time employment, but sought a transfer to another office so she could work part time. Diane (030), by contrast, had not been employed outside the home. She did alterations at home but decided to seek employment outside the home because her "homework” was too irregular. The mother of two, she said “a full-time Job didn't seem possible at the time.” Besides her childcare responsibilities, she and her husband only had one car and had to commute long distances to their Jobs. Their 162 dependence on one car also limited her options, and she didn't think they could afford to purchase a second car. A couple of part-time workers preferred full-time employment but settled for part time. Helen (031) had worked full time for ten years as a clerical worker. She had also worked part time for five years at a retail store. She picked up the part-time Job after she was divorced from her husband. “I was left with a lot of bills and. . .(I) Just needed more money," she commented. The mother of one teenage son, she looked for a full-time Job with better benefits to replace the full-time Job she had, but that Job search was unsuccessful. She settled for a second, part- time Job to increase her income. Joanne (020) sought full-time employment after her graduation from high school but couldn't find it. She was offered a number of part-time Jobs and chose her position as a sales clerk because she could also get benefits, something the other part-time Jobs she was offered lacked. At the time of the interview, after about nine months of employment, she was considering going to college to improve her chances of finding a full-time Job. Mark (028) and Joe (019) sought employment in a particular kind of Job and industry and were not especially disturbed that their Jobs were part time. Mark worked seasonally as a gardener for a municipality. He actively sought work as a gardener; what came his way was a seasonal Job. Joe, a sales clerk whose parents had worked for the 163 retailing company that employed him, hoped to move into management in that company. He accepted part-time employment because today the company hires few full-time employees, and they hire no one full time "off the street“ unless it is for a management position. Too inexperienced to be hired directly into management, Joe was gaining experience in the store and going to college maJoring in business management. He hoped that the combination of in- store experience and a college degree in business management would give him access to a full-time management position at some time in the future. In sum, the part-time workers in this study worked part time for different reasons. Generally, they can be categorized according to those who actively sought part time employment and those who preferred full time but settled for part time. The exceptions were the two men in the sample who worked part time because the Job was desirable or 'because it was a hoped-for step on the career path toward management. Among those who actively sought part-time work (all women), the principal motivator was to integrate employment and childcare. Work Schedules About half of the part-time workers had little control over their work schedules while the others had considerable control. Interestingly, those who had control over their work schedules generally did not work in the retail sector. They worked for the state and for a hospital. The one 164 person in retail who did have control over her schedule did so because she had moved into a sales supervisory position and was responsible for making the schedule in her department. Thus, not only did she control her schedule but she controlled those of the other employees in her department. Elizabeth (006), for example, who was a clerical worker in state government, worked 7:30-4:00 Tuesday, Wednesday, and every other Thursday. SubJect to state civil service employment regulations, she could not work more than 44 hours in a two-week pay period. She also had to be at work certain hours of the day, although starting and quitting times were flexible, consistent with state government's policy of flexitime. Elizabeth determined her own schedule but sought the approval of her immediate supervisor. When she began working part time, she worked Tuesday, Thursday, and every other Wednesday, but recently she had changed her schedule to better coordinate with her babysitter. Similarly, Sarah (017) negotiated her work schedule. She worked six hours a day, four days a week. She experimented with different schedules, for example 12:00- 4:00 and 8:00-1:00, five days a week, but had settled on 8:30-2:30, Monday through Thursday to coordinate with her child's daycare. Lisa (016), a salaried nurse clinician, had the most schedule control of all the part-time workers interviewed for this study. She worked 7:00-3:30, sometimes 7:00-5:00, 165 three days a week. Her schedule varied depending on patient appointments, but she scheduled her patients. She noted that often she took work home, something few of the others in this study (part-time workers or otherwise) did. Her work also involved occasional public speaking engagements, but she decided whether and when to speak. All but one of those who had little schedule control worked in the retail sector. Mark (028), the gardener, worked a shift set by the city: 40 hours a week, April 1- October 30. He had no choice over his houre, although he noted that overtime was optional. Mark was rarely offered overtime; “the more senior workers get it first.“ But he said he had little desire for overtime. Generally, those who worked in retail experienced considerable variation in work schedules and had little control over their schedules because a supervisor made them. Joe (019) was usually scheduled 27 hours a week, but he could pick up extra hours if the demand in his own department was sufficient or if he could be used in another department. Because he had the highest seniority of the part-time employees in his department, Joe had to be given the most hours. If he obtained extra hours inside or outside his department, it was because he asked for them. Joanne (020) had little influence on her schedule because she had very low seniority in her department. She could request days off if she needed them, and she was guaranteed a minimum of 15 hours a week. Her supervisor 166 made her schedule, and Joanne thought she could alter that schedule if her preference were for an unpopular time. She usually worked afternoons and/or evenings and said it would be difficult to get daytime hours because those were popular hours and workers with higher seniority would get them first. She said it wasn't ”impossible“ to change her schedule and accepted that she would have to wait her turn until she accumulated more seniority. Joanne's hours, however, had varied extremely during the period she had been employed. She worked in the toy department, and during the pre-holiday and holiday season she worked 48 hours a week. Two months later, when she was interviewed, she worked the minimum 15 hours a week. Diane (030) was working 40 hours a week when she was_ interviewed, because of the heavy work load in the tailor shop. Usually, however, she worked not more than 30 hours a week. She was satisfied with her schedule. She usually worked during the daytime (the tailor shop was not open in the evenings even though the store was), and she knew she could take time off when necessary. Helen (031) worked anywhere between eight and 20 hours a week in her part-time Job. She estimated that her hours averaged 15 a week over the six months before she was interviewed. Because she had a full-time, 8:00-5:00 Job, her part-time hours were limited to evenings and weekends. Her supervisor made her schedule, but employees could request days off if they did so before the supervisor made 167 the schedule for the upcoming week. Employees could also switch hours with one another, subJect to supervisory approval. 1 In conclusion, those who worked part time outside the retail sector were blessed with regular hours and, for some, control over their schedules. Those in retail experienced variation in both their schedules and the number of hours worked each week. They had little control over their schedules. Sometimes part-time workers in retail worked full-time hours, for example 40 hours or more a week, when the workload demanded it. However, these workers were only guaranteed part-time hours and did not receive the benefits full-time workers received and perhaps received no benefits at all. Such variability of hours would make it difficult for workers to plan the rest of their lives and would also make financial planning difficult. One would have to live with the uncertainty of not knowing how many hours one would work from week to week. Additionally, this variability benefits employers. The knowledge that many part-time workers want and need more hours Justifies empToyers' working them full time when the workload demands it. The desperate workers are grateful for the extra hours, yet they can't get benefits because they remain officially part-time workers. Work Sharing The work sharers differed from all others in this study in that the work sharers usually worked full time but were 168 off work voluntarily for a period of several months to one year under an inverse seniority layoff plan. Because they did not have a work schedule to attend to until they were called back to work, they had considerable control over their time. In addition, because they were UAW members with considerable seniority, they had extensive benefits despite Tayoff. Twelve work sharers were interviewed for this study. Their combined seniority was 243 years with average seniority of 20 1/4 years. Their seniority ranged from 14 to 30 years. At the time they were laid off, they worked as machine operators (e.g. forklift and sweeper drivers) and laborers (e.g. assemblers, inspectors, repairmen, metal finishers, and trim finishers). They had been laid off about four months at the time they were interviewed. The inverse seniority layoff plan was developed in tandem with a system of indefinite layoffs according to seniority, low to high; the latter is the layoff procedure typically followed in automobile plants. While the plant in this study was not being shut down, one of two lines was eliminated, displacing 3,400 workers. A little more than one thousand volunteered to be laid off under the inverse seniority plan. Without this plan, these high-seniority workers would have been required to stay on the Job while an equivalent number of Tow-seniority workers would have lost their Jobs, some permanently perhaps. 169 Workers volunteered for the inverse layoff by completing forms provided by union committeemen. They could take the layoff for four months (June layoff with October callback), seven months (June layoff with January callback), or one year (June layoff with May callback). Six of the informants for this study took the layoff for one year, five for seven months, and one for four months. They indicated their preferences on the form with no guarantee they would get the layoff or their first choice because layoffs were contingent on Job classification and seniority. Workers in some Job classifications were not at all eligible for the inverse layoff. Sharon (044), who took the layoff for a year, recounted her surprise when she learned she was eligible for the layoff. She had doubted her eligibility not because of her Job classification but because of her seniority. With 15 years, she didn't think she had enough to qualify. "When I first learned of it, I had no idea that I could get it. I thought we were talking people with 25 or more years. I was under the understanding, I didn't even think of it. The only thing I thought is wow, maybe this will help save my Job. That's what I thought. And I was so scared to go on nights because of the kids that I was gonna have to go nights in order to keep my Job. And I thought maybe that would save my Job." The UAW is widely recognized as a trendsetter of benefits for workers. Under the inverse seniority plan, workers lost some benefits. Although they lost dental insurance, vision, and educational tuition assistance, they 170 kept their health insurance. Paid sick leave, holidays, and vacations, of course, did not pertain under the layoff. But with state unemployment insurance and supplemental unemployment benefits (SUB), they continued to receive 90 to 95 percent of straight time pay while on layoff. Thus, despite their not working, the work sharers had an income for the period of time they were laid off. They also had the security of knowing they had a Job to return to.1 This might lead some to believe that anyone and everyone would volunteer to get money for nothing. That was not the case, however, and, while this study did not take up the question of why eligible workers did not volunteer to be laid off, it's clear that those who did had weighed.the pros and cons and given the matter serious thought.2 Why did the work sharers in this study volunteer to be laid off? For all but a couple, there was no single reason but a combination of reasons that motivated them to take the layoff. Most said it was an opportunity to take some time off, and many said they wanted to give someone else a chance to keep his/her Job. Those who were near retirement said that figured prominently into their decision, while others 1 There was doubt expressed by some informants about whether they would return to the same Job classification or the same work schedule. The 1987 contract negotiations took place while the informants were laid off and they had heard that some Job classifications were eliminated under the new local agreement. Some had also heard schedule changes had been made. They were unsure what these changes meant for them personally. 2 Although they didn't have a lot of time to mull it over. They had Just a few days to complete and return their preference forms. 171 mentioned family relationships, employment change, contract negotiations and the possibility of strike, and Job-related stress as factors that motivated them to volunteer for the layoff. Tim (041), John (042), and Larry (043) were typical of those who took the layoff because they wanted time off. Tim said it was “the chance of a lifetime.” ”You go out there with 95 percent of your pay knowing that you have a Job when you come back. Working there now with 15 years, I've never had that opportunity. And there's a lot of things I wanted to do." The possibility of a strike in the fall also influenced Tim in his thinking about the layoff, particularly his decision to take it for seven months instead of four. “I wanted at least January because the contract year is here. . .If you're out on layoff and they don't call you back for the strike, if they go out on strike I still get 95 percent of my pay. If I was at work, I would only get strike benefits. So if they do go out, I will really benefit from this layoff if they don't call me back to work. So there were several factors why I wanted it. One, I wanted it anyway, and it Just made it nicer to know that I might be able to get away from a strike." However, Tim feared he would become bored if he took the layoff for a year. "I don't know what I'd do after January. January, February, March. . .you can't do much work on a house in those months and there's not much to do." 172 John (042) also took the layoff for seven months. He, too, feared becoming bored but didn't want to pass up what might have been a one-time opportunity. “I wasn't interested at first. I had to do a lot of thinking about it. First of all, it's not because I don't like my Job. . .I enJoy my Job. I have good relationships at work. I Just thought it would give me an opportunity to spend more time with my family. Do more rebuilding at our church and give me time to spend there. Just opportunity to do some things I wanted to do. I didn't figure this opportunity would come up again. . .I didn't think I could stand being off a year and I didn't think I had enough time to get it for four months, which I found out later I didn't. So I put in for the seven months figuring that if worse got to worse I could always sign up to go back early. . .I didn't do this because I Just don't like work. . .or I wanted to lay around and be lazy. I had to have something to keep me busy. Something that would be constructive. So that's why I took it. . .I didn't want to be the type that Just drawed a check for doing nothing. . .If it gets to where I'm sitting around with nothing to do .I'd have to go back to work. That way I can keep my conscience happy . . .Our plant's never been known for inverse layoff. There's a lot of other plants in the area that guys do this every summer. But I think this is a one-time deal for us. . .And so that was another thing I had to consider, do it now or never." Larry (043) took the layoff for a year. “I've been in the plant for a little over 30 years. . .and never had too much time off. I always wanted to do some stuff of my own, so I thought the opportunity was good. Not only that, I think that today, the young people, that would give another worker, probably, the way I see it, another year of seniority that would maybe balance his future of 173 maybe staying in the plant. I think anybody that stays in the plant an extra year is fortunate the way things are going now. But I always wanted some time off to do things I wanted to do. It was a good opportunity so I took it. I hadn't had too much time off in the last ten years, so I decided it was a good opportunity. I had kind of a question whether to take it for six months or a year or three months. . .I discussed it with the wife and she said, 'Do the best you can,‘ so I tobk the whole year. And I'm enJoying the time . . .I felt that anytime you get a chance to take some time off after 30 years in the plant is pretty good.” While the opportunity to have time off was a maJor consideration for Larry, he was also concerned about younger, less-senior workers. Such altruistic sentiments were also expressed by AT (033), Bob (034), Mike (036), and Dave (040). .Al, who said he would have retired if he hadn't been laid off under the inverse plan, thought 30 years in the plant was long enough. “Once you spend 30 years in the shop, it's time to get out, you know. Let somebody else have a chance. Because I was probably as far as I was gonna go anyway. And I wasn't really thinking about any promotions or anything like that." Bob, with 27 years and near retirement, said that giving someone else a chance to work and his own imminent retirement figured prominently in his decision to take the inverse layoff. "My main reason for taking it was to give somebody else the chance to stay working. Myself, I'm single. I feel why stay there when somebody else can be 174 staying working. That is one of my main reasons but not all of it. . .It gives me leisure time to be able to under- stand, maybe, when I retire what it's going to feel like and what I'm gonna do.“ ' Mike, too, was concerned about less-senior workers. Numerous workers in his shop had nine and a half years seniority and they were going to be laid off. They needed 10 years seniority to be eligible for income beyond state unemployment benefits (specifically SUB and Guaranteed Income Stream) during layoff. But Mike also wanted relief from the stress of his Job. '. . .being a truck driver, I'm subJect to a lot of stress because I'm moving enormous weights around a lot of people walking. You actually like burn out. So I wanted a break from that. That's one of the reasons I took into consideration when I signed up. Just to get away for a while.“ But Mike also worried about a strike. ”Another thing that entered in, too, when I was thinking about it. I was thinking, well, if the contract comes up and there's a three-month strike at General Motors and I'm working, I'm gonna get a hundred dollars a week. And if I'm out here laid off I'm gonna get three hundred some dollars. I was going either way but if I'd have been thinking about staying I'd have been scared to stay on account of the strike possibility. That's one thing that kind of, it didn't really sway me either way, but if I'd have been swayable, that's one thing that would have done it." Dave (040) volunteered to be laid off for four months. He was fearful about his financial security, which is why he didn't take the layoff for a longer period of time, 175 but he wanted to find out what it would be like to have a large amount of time off. 'I Just wanted to find out what it's like to be off that long. . .See what I could find to do to occupy my time. . .Just to really get prepared for retirement.“ He elaborated, 'I think the only time that I've had off like this was when we had a strike or something like that. Then when we had the cars in the plant, that was back in the sixties. This is the longest I've had off since that time. It's not bad. It's something that, it makes you think. It makes you wonder about what's gonna happen when you don't go back to work. When this is it. There's got to be something to keep you going. To keep you active. You have to get into something. Time can really get up on you before you know it." While altruistic sentiments toward less-senior co-workers figured in Dave's decision to take the inverse layoff, he expressed hope that those who benefited by his sacrifice were grateful for it. ”I Just hope the guys that we took the layoff and the guys that we gave a chance to stay in the plant learn something about it. I figure that by being in the union we have, we're called brother and sister, I think we gave a lot. A lot of these guys, they leave the plant and go out to give these guys a chance to build up their benefits. I think they ought to appreciate it. Cuz we really didn't have to do it. By them having low seniority, they would have been out there on the street." The two women in the sample of work sharers saw the inverse layoff as an opportunity to try to solve some family and personal problems. Sharon (044) was reluctant to reveal 176 details but noted that problems at home and some encouragement from others entered into her decision to take the layoff. 'At first I wasn't going to take it. I had some personal problems at home so everybody thought, well, time off will clear your head.“ Mary's (038) situation was interesting because both she and her husband took the layoff for seven months (unfor- tunately, he was unwilling to be interviewed). They were separated and on the verge of divorce when the inverse layoff plan was designed. '. . .my family life was falling apart and I figured if we both had the time off . . .we could make a new start. And that's why I did it. Plus the simple fact that it's that much time off. I was Just glad to take it because I haven't had that much time off in a long time.“ Mary's fears about bill payments and family finances prevented her and her husband from taking the layoff for a year--a decision she regretted. "I regret not taking it til May. [Why is that?) Because I'm really enJoying myself. And we're getting our family life back together and every day is great. It's like every day is Saturday. I've been married fourteen years and I didn't want to lose that. I wish that we could extend it longer, as of now. The bills are fine and we're making it Just fine.“ For Carl (035) and Ted (039), both single and both at mid-career, conditions in the plant led them to take the layoff to consider employment alternatives. Their experiences as autoworkers had made them somewhat bitter and 177 cynical. Carl was quite honest in recounting his reasons 'for taking the layoff. ”Well, there's a lot of factors, reasons why I chose it. One of the basic ones was that I get paid for doing nothing. I wanted out. I was really debating at the time when they came up with this whether to take a complete buyout . . .One of the reasons I didn't take it (the buyout) was because I have 15 years in next month and by about six months I was going to lose $10,000 in the buyout, from 35 gross to 45 gross. . .Actually, it (the layoff) was a chance to get out of there. Get out of there for a year and check out other things. See what else is going on. After 14 1/2 years, I've had Just about enough. To tell you the truth, I don't want to go back. But basically, like I said, it was a chance to get out. I really had enough of that place for a while. Plus I could still collect benefits. My benefits are still in full except for dental. I'm protected under everything else. Why not? Paid vacation for the year. It's kind of the answer to your prayers.“ Carl's discontent stemmed largely from the repetitiveness of his Job and his feeling that he didn't fit into the shop subculture. Ted's dissatisfaction, on the other hand, stemmed from supervisor-worker relations. He had had some problems that affected his work and had been suspended for five months several years ago. His blemished work record still haunted him. He wanted to consider other employment when he took the layoff. In summary, the work sharers had a variety of reasons for volunteering for layoff under the inverse seniority plan. Most wanted time off; many wanted to give others an opportunity to keep their Jobs. Those near retirement 178 thought of their layoff as a kind of temporary retirement, a chance to try retirement before committing themselves to the real thing. Family relationships, the possibility of strike, consideration of employment alternatives, and Job- related stress were also elements in their decisions to volunteer for layoff. While the two women in the sample tended to give greater priority to family concerns than did the men, there was considerable overlap in other reasons given by the women and men interviewed. Perhaps what variation there was in reasons for taking the layoff differed more by seniority and individual experience. Work Schedules The work sharers had almost complete control of their time on the layoff because they had no work schedule to attend to until callback. Picking up checks every two weeks was the main work-related limit on their time, but even this didn't affect those who had arranged for their checks to be mailed to them. On the Job, the work sharers had little control over their work schedules. The plant was organized into three shifts, and starting and quitting times varied somewhat by Job classification. Generally, first shift started at 6:00 a.m., when the line started, and ended at 2:30 p.m. Second shift started at 3:30 p.m. and ended at midnight, and the only member of the sample who worked third shift had a work schedule of 3:30 a.m. to noon. Some informants who didn't work on the line and did work in preparation for the line 179 had starting times earlier than the line's start time, e.g. 5:30 a.m. or 2:30 p.m. Eight informants worked first shift at the time they were laid off, three worked second shift, and one worked third. As a group they weren't working much overtime, perhaps half an hour to an hour each day with few Saturdays. I When these workers began working in the plant, they were generally assigned a shift. Once in the plant, however, it was possible to request a shift change, but one's ability to obtain a shift change depended on one's Job classification, seniority, and which shift was desired. Second and third were generally less difficult to get than first because first is generally more desirable and the competition for it is greater. Workers, However, can also be bumped from a shift, e.g. from first to second. Therefore, the work sharers' ability to control their work schedules on the Job came in their ability to request alternative shifts. They could also request transfers to other departments and/or Job classifications, which could or could not mean a shift change. Such transfers also took place on a seniority basis. In conclusion, the work sharers had considerable control of their time on the layoff but had relatively little control of their time on the Job. This might explain why they embraced the opportunity for time off with such enthusiasm. The layoff permitted a temporary respite from the rigidity of work schedules and the repetition of work in 180 the auto plant, and it was something many of the work sharers believed they deserved given the number of years. they had worked in the plant and the time that had passed since they had ”much time off.” W What should be concluded from the foregoing comparison of the terms and conditions of Job sharing, temporary employment, part-time employment, and work sharing? The Job sharers received prorated benefits with full health insurance coverage. They had considerable control over their work schedules, negotiating them with their partners, subJect to supervisory approval. There were important exceptions, however, in cases where supervisors created the task division between Job-share partners as well as their work schedules. Thus, schedule control is not a component of Job sharing by definition. While Job sharing can permit greater control for workers, management can also take control of Job sharing to use it for its own purposes. Thus, Job sharing remains an obJect of labor-management struggle. The temporaries in this study were eligible for some benefits after so many hours of work. They had little control over their work schedules beyond specifying preferences for full-time or part-time temporary employment and days of the week and periods of time during the day during which they would like to work. Temporaries' control over their schedules really rests in deciding whether to 181 work, whether to accept or reJect placements. However, they cannot assert this control unless they are offered placements, but they cannot control when placements will be offered or their duration. Thus, temporaries must live with considerable uncertainty regarding whether and how much they will work. Some part-time workers must live with similar uncertainty. In this study it was those who worked in the retail sector who experienced the most uncertainty in terms of work schedules and number of hours of work each week. Those in government and health care had regular hours, regular schedules, and most had some control over their schedules. Not all part-time workers received employee benefits, but many did. Some who received benefits were union members, others were not. Those who did not receive any benefits, however, were not represented by a labor union. In the retail sector especially, part-time employment benefits employers by permitting flexibility in staffing responsive to market demand. Finally, the work sharers had considerable control of their time on layoff and substantial incomes and benefits during the period of layoff. They were the beneficiaries of an historical benefit structure established to accommodate cyclical fluctuations inherent in the automobile industry. They had very little control of their work schedules, however, when they were on the Job. Their work schedules existed within a rigid shift system organized around the 182 operation of the assembly line. Not only does the line set the pace of work under a system of technical labor control, it also establishes work schedules in the plant and, indirectly, controls the scheduling of workers' lives. 183 CHAPTER 7 Children and Autonomy To assess autonomy off the Job, one must first know what those who work less than full time do with their time off the Job and what they would like to do with it. Only then is it possible to begin to determine the extent to which what they do is an expression of autonomy or self- determination. What conditions enhance their ability to do what they want to do and what conditions inhibit this ability? Chapters 7 through 11 attempt to answer this question by examining in turn the different ways informants in this study used their time off the Job and autonomy issues related to each. Informants' use of time off the Job has been sorted into five broad categories: Childcare, Household Work, Recreation, Community and Relational Activities, and Education and Other Employment. No one pursued activities in all of these categories, but few reported pursuing activities in Just one area. While one or two areas may have predominated, most everyone had a number of interests and commitments that consumed their time off the Job.1 1 Informants were asked how they spent most of their time off and then were asked what other things they did in their time off the Job. I realize that informants may well have felt compelled to put their best foot forward. Few, for example, mentioned that they watched television. It's entirely possible that this was a sample that represented 184 This chapter focuses on the first of the five categories, childcare, and examines informants' perceptions of autonomy related to the care of children. The relationship between children and autonomy is important to examine because so many women who work less than full time do so to accommodate childcare. Those writers who assume greater autonomy off the Job under conditions of reduced work should consider carefully the relationship between children and autonomy. It is hoped this chapter will point the way. It is obvious from reasons given for working less than full time discussed in chapter 6 that many informants used much of their time off the Job caring for young children. This was particularly true for most of the Job sharers and about half of the part-time workers. Only one of the work sharers spent much of her time caring for a young child and none of the temporaries did. Notably, all of those for whom childcare was uppermost in their use of time off the Job were women . disproportionately non-TV viewers, but I doubt that given national statistics on TV viewing. Instead, I.am inclined to think that television was insignificant in their use of time off the Job. The way the questions were posed in the interview, and the fact that a checklist of items was not used, meant that informants had considerable discretion in deciding how to respond. My goal was not to determine everything the informants did in their time off or exactly how much time they devoted to various activities (thus time budgets were not used) but only that which was most significant to them. In addition, time spent on very private and personal matters was generally not disclosed, nor was it asked for. 185 Few of those who spent most of their time off caring for children did it because they felt they had to or because there was no one else to do it. Instead, they wanted to be involved in their children's lives. Even Martha (008), who was on a career path when she took two demotions so she could Job share and spend more time at home with her children, accepted that having children when she did was her choice. She recognized the limits placed by contemporary society on young mothers, accepted them as limits imposed on her, but hoped someday they could be removed. She commented that having children "did interrupt my Job, but with society being the way it is nowadays, I knew it would. . .I didn't want it to. . .I don't think it necessarily has to . . .but it did. . .It was a welcome interruption. . .I don't have negative feelings. My feelings are more like, it's too bad and let's try and change it.“ Martha also believed if she hadn't been laid off from the management-level civil service Job she had held some years previously, she might have been able to incorporate into that Job the flexibility she needed for childcare. Therefore, she would have had a stimulating Job and time for her children. Susan (018), Sarah (017), and Mary (038) hadn't experienced the employment problems that Martha had. The acquisition of Job flexibility to accommodate childcare had not come at great cost to them. Each spoke rather extensively about the importance of being involved in their 186 children's lives. Susan's children were two and four years old. “I try and plan things. Tuesday and Thursday my son goes to preschool, so we get up and have breakfast and take him to preschool. Then my daughter and I come back and we do Jane Fonda's Workout. She loves that. Then we kind of pick up and do stuff. Quite often we pick up (my son) at 11:30, we either come home and do crafts or something at home, finger painting, baking. My mother-in-law thinks I'm crazy. She can't understand where I get all my patience. But my mother was like that. We had five kids in my family. She let us do everything because you could always clean up. Sometimes I plan things with other friends that have kids. My kids go to a sitter when I work and she has two girls and a newborn. But other than that, my daughter doesn't really get out with other kids. Her brother gets to go to preschool. They both take gymnastics . . .so Tuesday we take (my son) and Thursday we take (my daughter). I guess basically my days off I spend time making sure they get to the places they're supposed to go and getting involved in their lives. That's really important to both my husband and I that they spend a lot of time with us.“ Sarah said she spends most of her time off with her three-year-old daughter. ”When I used to work from 8 to 1, I wouldn't pick her up until 1:30 and at that point in the day she wouldn't have had her nap. She'd be pretty wound up when I'd get her home and I'd struggle with her to get her down for her nap. Before you'd know it, it'd be four o'clock. So now (that I have changed my schedule to 8:30 to 2:30) she pretty much gets her nap out of the way by the time I pick her up. So we do things together. (We go ) shopping. We've been working with her alphabet, reading, drawing, you know, trying to teach her 187 how to write her letters, things like that.“ 7 . Mary, who had worked first shift (6:00-2:30) since her daughter's birth, had missed many of her daughter's waking hours. Her time off on the inverse layoff became an opportunity to spend those hours with her. "I have a four-year-old daughter. It's her last year before she goes to school, and she is so precious that we're enJoying every minute with her. Really get to know her.“ Later in the interview, Mary picked up this line of thought. “Once they go to school, it's like they lose that super innocence that she has now. . .She's so precious in the morning . . .Just eating her breakfast and things like that. And she's got something to say every second, and I missed all that.“ She talked about a nature walk they had taken the day before to illustrate her newfound bond with her daughter. ”We were in the thumb of Michigan yesterday Just walking around on paths . . .we went for a nature walk and ended up right on the beach of the bay, and she collected shells. . .We'll be able to see fall and winter. She's learning how the seasons change; kids even have to learn that. 'Why are the leaves falling?‘ So you can be there and teach her all these things instead of some daycare lady telling her.“ Elizabeth (006) enJoyed working part time and felt sorry for mothers who have to work full time. "You got the best of both worlds, I guess I've always thought, because you've got extra money by working but yet you've got days with your kids at home. I think you have a lot better attitude. . .I feel 188 sorry for mothers who have to work full time because you miss a lot with your kids by not being there, especially when they're younger.“ A few men also commented on spending their time off with children. The three discussed here were all on inverse layoff and hadn't typically had large periods of time to spend with their children. These men differ from the women discussed previously in that their children were adolescents and adults. Adolescents, of course, require a different kind of care and supervision than do young children, and grown children have left the nest. Despite these important differences, these men valued their time with their children. Paul's (037) son was 12. He spent considerable time, even before he was laid off, with his son's Cub Scout troop and softball team. He accompanied the troop on nature hikes and was in a five-man rotation serving as coaches and umpires for softball games. His son had Joined his school's wrestling team and Paul planned to attend his son's matches. During the summer when his son was on summer vacation and Paul was laid off, the family travelled within the state of Michigan. Paul described a playful relationship with his son and contrasted it with his son's friends' relationships with their fathers and stepfathers as well as his own relationship with his father. "I think basically what it is is Just that I have to be home because I see so much. He's got friends that, they'll come over and we'll be wrestling or something like that and they Just 189 can't understand how I'll be off the couch and wrestle with him or kid him or aggravate him and they Just can't understand because their dads or stepdads Just don't do that. They think that's really something. And I've always said that because my dad was never a giving person. ~He'd come in from work and he'd set in his chair and he'd go to sleep and get up and eat supper and then he'd go back and set in his chair and watch TV and go to sleep again. And I've never been that way. . Dad was always work, work, work, and I can't understand that. . .“ John (042), the father of a 16-year-old son and a 14- year-old daughter, had worked first shift since his son was five. He had transferred at that time from second to first shift to spend his evenings at home with his family. Some other work sharers in the sample had made such shift changes for similar reasons. But by working first shift, John had missed mornings with his children. When I asked him to describe a typical day on the layoff, his description of the -day before included reference to newfound time with his children. "Yesterday, got up about 7:00. Hung around until the kids go off to school. They're both in high school. That's something I've really enJoyed. I've never been able to do that before." Ted (039) was divorced and had become estranged from his children over the years. He had begun making some changes in his life before he was laid off, and the layoff gave him an opportunity to continue to make those changes. He rekindled relationships with a brother, his mother, and a grown son. 190 “I've got into the (Detroit) Tigers for the first time in years. I've been to the ballpark eleven times this year since June. . .And that's something that's allowed me to spend some more time with my older brother. . .Kind of a closeness that I kind of like. Get along a little better with my mother. . .and my son and his wife. I've been able to spend some time with them. Took (my son and his wife) to a couple ballgames. Took them down to Detroit one weekend and kept them there for the whole weekend. Went to two ballgames. . .I was pretty well estranged from them. . .I didn't spend much time with kids from my marriage. It's kind of. . .It's nice having the time to reestablish those lines of communication. . .' Clearly, many informants with children reported that they enJoyed the time with their children gained by being laid off or working less than full time. It's noteworthy, however, that those most directly involved in the care of young children were women. The type of care required by young children and the fact that it is women principally responsible for it raises important questions about the relationship between children and autonomy. .How does the presence of children limit autonomy? What autonomy is gained by children's absence or their developing independence? Might the care of children contribute to a parent's autonomy if that care contributes to a parent's self-development? Several women deferred autonomy because they had young children. Carol (001) had attended a community college but quit when her first child was about a year old. She wanted to go back to complete her degree but couldn't see doing it 191 until both of her children go to school full time. She commented that it would be hard to return to school with a preschooler at home. An added difficulty, however, was the fact that her husband worked second shift at an auto plant. ”My husband sleeps late and he's with the kids in the afternoon for four hours before he goes to work. He helps out as much as he can on weekends but then there have been weekends where he has to work Saturdays, too. I think that when they're on an afternoon shift like that,. . .the mother has quite a bit of responsibility with the kids. It's very hard for me to get out in the evenings and do things because I have to find a babysitter." Carol noted that her husband had worked an 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift a couple years ago. ”That was beautiful. He was home every evening to help out. We shared the responsibility of childcare and I was able to get out in the evenings a little bit. That worked out beautiful, but he got bumped off there. . .You have to go where you can. Days does not work out well for him at all. He's not a person to get up real early. They start at 6:30, I think. We tried it for a few months, and he's not a day person." In Carol's case, then, her children imposed something of a limitation on her autonomy, but this limitation was added to by her husband's work schedule. While it appears her husband could work first shift if he wanted to, which would make him available for childcare in the evenings, Carol's autonomy was sacrificed to her husband's need not to work days. 192 Martha (000) missed not being in school as well. She had completed the equivalent of two years of college before her children were born and was considering returning to school. While she did not perceive her marriage and children as having interrupted her schooling because she was "Just taking classes“ and not working toward a degree, she did perceive her children as a interruption in recreational activities she previously enJoyed. ”I used to play volleyball once a week. I miss that. And believe it or not, with four children, I have always enJoyed my private times. Maybe a walk down the road by myself. Maybe Just going to the library and reading for a little while. These are things I would enJoy doing if I had the time. And I will again someday. But right now with trying to work and the little ones and providing for them first of all, those things have gone by the wayside. And they will for a little while longer.” Martha's autonomy was limited by what she perceived as her own unique life circumstance. She had four children, all age five and under, and her husband was self-employed with an irregular, “crazy" schedule. ”I wouldn't change it for the world, but that's the reason for the Job share. I guess sometimes I feel, oh, maybe I feel I was penalized for having the children and needing to have that flexibility in my life." She noted that not only was it difficult to get time to herself, but it had also become difficult for her and her husband to find time alone. They wanted a family, were thrilled to have one, but free time had come to be devoted 193 to the children. Their relationship became secondary in importance to the children. She thought about weekend trips to northern Michigan that she and her husband might make, but felt 'four little ones” was a "tremendous I responsibility“ to leave with someone, even family. Then she Joked, “Unless I was absolutely, positively filthy rich. Then I would hire me a nanny. . .and a housekeeper.“ Here again the demands of childcare coupled with the social constraints of gender have led to a sacrifice of autonomy for Martha. Some women manage to steal some private time after their children go to bed at night. Kathy (002), however, couldn't do that because her son, who she described as a "terrible sleeper,” wouldn't go to bed until she and her husband went to bed. She could only fantasize about what she would do with that time if she had it. She imagined reading, crocheting, “taking a nice leisurely bath." Instead, she summarized her situation by stating, “I don't have free time.” Tina (004) and her husband, both of whom took music lessons and played in a band in their time off the Job, were contemplating having children but had concerns about the effect children would have on their artistic pursuits. “That's one of our most talked about topics. I suppose you can plan and talk but you never really know. I suppose it would put a big crunch on it at least for a few months. I really want to have children and I 194 think it's time. I think we both would continue playing. We'd probably stop somewhat at first. . .Maybe the kid could grow up to be a drummer. . .We'd have a trio.“ The limits imposed on personal autonomy by children were revealed further by informants' comments about freedom gained in the absence of children or as children become increasingly independent. Jean's (027) son was 12, old enough that she could leave him without a sitter. ”If I want to get in the truck and run to (the store) or something, if I don't feel like taking him with me, I don't have to go get a sitter, or I don't have to put up with a screaming, yelling kid in (the store) because I've been in there two hours.“ Larry (043) noted the financial constraints associated with raising children. His children were grown and had left home, but he reflected on their effect on his time off the Job. “I never took vacation time off until the last maybe seven, eight years. It seemed to me like you never had the money to go. Of course, when you're raising a family. . “ He added, "I went through some layoffs when I was bringing my family up. I raised three children, and it's hard. . .you couldn't do nothing. You couldn't enJoy yourself because you couldn't even go someplace, because you was afraid. How about if they call me back and I'm not there?. Sometimes you can't even go fishing for a couple, two, three days because you're afraid they're gonna call you back.“ 195 On the inverse layoff, Larry had the security of knowing he had a Job to return to at the end of his year's layoff, and he could request an early return if he wanted to. “When I was laid off before, I didn't know if I'd go back in the plant. I . didn't know if I was gonna have a Job. Here it's kind of more safe. So you're a lot more relaxed, more at ease in the idea that you can go back to work anytime. I can go back to work anytime I want. And I have the seniority and that's important.“ Because Larry's children were grown and his wife was not employed, they were free to travel. “A lot of peOple don't take time off because they think they don't have enough money. But by being Just you and your wife, like me and my wife, we're doing well. . .I've been off four, five months and I'm doing fine. And I'm willing to stay (off) til next year. . .See, if I had some children I couldn't go anywhere unless I went by myself because the children have to go to school. Since I don't have that, like I said, I go up north quite often. In fact, I had the idea of going up there for the whole year (but decided against it). I can leave here in the middle of the week. I don't like to travel up north and come back on the weekends because, you know, the traffic. But I can go on say Tuesday or Wednesday and come back on Tuesday or Wednesday.” Larry's sense of autonomy came from the security of knowing he had a Job to return to, financial security because his unemployment benefits and SUB were sufficient for him and his wife, and their freedom to travel because 196 they didn't have dependent children. Larry also liked being able to choose his travel time, rather than having to travel on weekends when he worked full time. Helen (031), the single mother of a 16-year-old son, anticipated her son's leaving the nest. "He's looking forward to going into the service. He's wanted to do that for the last five years. I don't know. It's hard to imagine that if you come home, if you don't want to eat that night you don't have to fix anything. If you want to Just sit there and sew until bedtime, you can. More freedom. Possibly go back to school.” The limits imposed by children on personal autonomy were addressed realistically by these informants. As a culture we recognize the financial and time constraints associated with childrearing, but we leave it to individuals to solve pressures and conflicts associated with such constraints. Recent advocates of family policy in the United States, such as U.S. Representative Patricia Schroeder (D-Colorado) and authors Sylvia Ann Hewlett and Ruth Sidel, have called for more generous federal government support for "working families“ through the provision of children's allowances and more widely available and affordable daycare. They have also called for employers to build flexibile work schedules into their organizations. Such changes, they believe, would support parents who work outside the home in their efforts to raise the next generation. 19? But I think it is one-sided to look only at the limitations on autonomy imposed by children. Childrearing also provides opportunities for personal development, a growth that occurs only through intimate involvement in another, unfolding life. Childrearing and the time gained through Job sharing opened such opportunities for growth and self-fulfillment for Barbara (005). “My goal was always, well I'm.going to work a few years then stay home with the children. That's really what I wanted to do. But financially and with Just the way things went. . . so I worked full time with them (her two oldest children) and always felt like I did as much as I physically and mentally could do, but it wasn't what I really wanted to give them. I wanted to give them more of my time. So when this last one came along unexpectedly, the other children were 11 and 12 years old. So my husband and I said, 'okay, if we're ever gonna do it, this would be the time." Barbara's husband owned his own business at the time she became pregnant with their third child and she considered quitting her full-time Job. But six months after her daughter was born, her husband's business failed. Her Job-share partner had been courting her to this time but Barbara kept insisting that she wanted to stay home full time. But once the business failed, she needed a Job, although she still didn't want to work outside the home full time. Job sharing was the compromise she needed. In her time off the Job, Barbara had become very actively involved in her youngest child's school and school- 198 related activities. For example, when her daughter was still preschool age, Barbara worked at and attended board meetings of her daughter's cooperative nursery school. Once her daughter began school, Barbara became an officer in the home-school organization and a troop leader for her daughter's Brownie troop. She described this as ”doing things I always wanted to do with the other kids but Just couldn't.” I asked her how she decided to get involved in her daughter's school activities. 'I think that's a decision you make even before your children are born. You have a predetermined idea in your mind what you want. I'm a firm believer that the more you give your children. . .the more they get out of the educational process. I always wanted to give more to the other kids. I don't know if it's guilt or what. I never really delved into it. I don't consciously feel guilty. . .and maybe it's for my own gratification. But when I had the extra time available to me I thought, oh great, I'm going to do certain things with her that I always wished I could do." Barbara's sentiments reflect what I call the self-other nexus. She is not so absorbed in her daughter's life that she has no sense of herself as a separate being. She is not other-directed. She noted, for example, that she tries to reserve some time off the Job for herself. Yet as a separate being she grows from her involvement in her daughter's education and school-related activities and is fulfilled by them. After all, these are things Barbara “always wished" she could do. Therefore, if she had continued to be prevented from doing them by full-time 199 employment, something in herself would have been denied. This is an unconventional approach to the idea of autonomy because it suggests that separation and connection exist in a kind of yin/yang relationship. Self-development occurs through self-determined activities and relations with others. Self and other are a unity. This is consistent with the feminine sense of self-in-relation expounded by Chodorow and Gilligan. It should be noted that Barbara's autonomy, her freedom to work less than full time in particular, was facilitated by the fact that there was a second earner in the household. This is true for virtually all of the women in this study who worked less than full time, cared for young children, and believed they had “the best of both worlds.“ Few of them addressed the fact that they could have the best of both worlds because there was a second earner in the home. When pressed for what might force them to work full time, many mentioned financial problems and some mentioned divorce. But the ones who mentioned divorce tended to dismiss it as a possibility, feeling secure in the stability of their marriages. Traditional definitions of gender prevailed in this sample of individuals working less than full time. Childcare tended to be the responsibility of women primarily, although men "helped“ when they could. To the extent that reduced work facilitates time for childcare, it reinforces patriarchal gender relations. 200 The argument that childrearing may be a source of personal fulfillment and development is not meant to be an argument for the status quo in gender relations and the childcare division of labor. It is instead meant to be an argument that men miss opportunities for personal development when they are not very involved in their children's lives. Expanded work-time reduction for men, under conditions of adequate pay and employment security with greater control of work schedules, could facilitate greater involvement in their children's lives. Their children could benefit from closer relations with their father as could they benefit from closer relations with their children. It could also benefit women with wage- paying Jobs and children to care for if it frees some of their time to pursue education, recreational activities, or other activities they enJoy. The sheer manipulation of time, however, would not guarantee such benefits. Patriarchal gender ideologies that discourage men from developing their capacity for nurturance and social structures that maintain women's economic dependence on men must also be transcended. As long as patriarchal gender ideologies prevail, few men will risk being nurturant, and as long as women remain economically dependent on men, they will not have the power to challenge patriarchy in their own homes. 201 CHAPTER 8 Household Work and Autonomy Everyone in the sample had household work of some kind to do in his/her time off the Job. This is no surprise, of course, since houses must be cleaned and maintained, meals prepared, clothing laundered, lawns mowed, groceries purchased, bills paid, and the like. Because they are necessary elements of living, everyone does these things unless they hire someone to do them. Many informants talked about household work as something they did in their time off the Job. They discussed how much they did, the quality of what they did, the pace at which they did it, and its organization in time. There were important differences among the informants regarding household work. Those who had children and owned homes tended to have more household work than those who did not, at least to the extent that their conversations reflected this. Single persons who lived alone had less to do than those with children, but they had more to do than singles who shared a household with other singles or with parents. Gender differences were also apparent in the kinds of household tasks my informants did. With some important exceptions, such as single men who lived alone and one man 202 who was a partner in'a particularly egalitarian relationship, women tended to be responsible for cooking, cleaning, laundry, and shapping while men were responsible. for such tasks as maintenance of the dwelling's physical structure, mowing the lawn, automobile repair, and the like. These tasks the men called ”proJects," ”Jobs,“ or "work around the house" as distinct from housework, the latter conventionally thought of as "women's work.” I use the term household work here to refer to “women's work“ and to men's 'proJects.“ Therefore, the term, broad enough to encompass gender differences in household work done by my informants, includes a wide array of activities done in and around the living quarters to maintain them, the yard, household members, and items owned and used by them, for example, automobiles. The obJective of this chapter, however, is not to document the household tasks performed by my informants or how much they did relative to others. Such information is incidental to the relationship between household work and autonomy. The chapter takes as given the household tasks performed by the informants and inquires into the relationship between those tasks and the time available to do them under conditions of reduced work. For many, but not all by any means, reduced work provided opportunities to . catch up on household work and to gain greater control over household work by having more time within which to select 203 time to do it, slowing down the pace at which it could be done, and/or having larger blocks of time in which to do it. The theme of catching up appeared in interviews in which the informants had previously worked full-time weeks, such as part-time workers who had worked 40-hour weeks for some time and autoworkers who had taken the inverse seniority layoff. Joanne (020), for example, had worked 48- hour weeks in her part-time Job during the holiday season but had been cut back to 15 after the holiday rush. ”When you work seasonal, like when I was working 48 hours, I didn't have time to do anything. Now it's like I'm catching up. I took everything in my room apart. It was a mess." Paul (037), who had done some traveling with his family during the summer months while he was laid off, spent the fall catching up on household work. “Now I've mostly spent my time catching up all the little Jobs that I was too tired to do whenever I was working before. Painting the house and so on and so forth.” Mike (036) described at some length his backlog of household work. “Well, you know how you always got these proJects you want to do when you're working you can't do them? I made a list when I got laid off. I took about a week off and I put on my coveralls and I took care of a bunch of stuff I wanted to do for myself, my own stuff. And I got that done. Like I had three off- road machines that I had financed and I wasn't really using them. I got a bad back. So I cleaned 'em up, fixed 'em up, shined 'em up, and set 'em out and sold 'em. Paid all the loans off. I got rid of three loans that I had and 204 three machines that I was paying on and really wasn't using. I got rid of those. I got a real nice Cadillac that had a bunch of rust. . .So I sanded them all out, took and had it painted, had a nice tune up on it. I Just took care of all that stuff that piles up when you're working." . The household work that Paul and Mike did was typical of that done by most of the men interviewed for this study. Bill (024), a Job sharer who worked two days a week, liked to work on and around the old farmhouse he owned. He described himself as a ”do-it-yourselfer“ and enJoyed doing his own auto repair. He also refinished antiques. Ed (013), one of the temporaries, "buttered" around the house, and Harold (015), another temporary, ”worked around the house” and ”on the car." Mark (020), who worked seasonally, painted the kitchen as his first maJor off-the-Job proJect and took over from his partner all the ”household duties” other than shopping, specifically cleaning, laundry, and daily meal preparation. Tim (041) used his summer months on the layoff to remodel an old house he and his wife had purchased. This was a proJect expected to take quite some time since their goal was to restore the house to its original condition as much as possible. He had started the remodelling before he was laid off, working “some evenings, not every one, depending how tired you were.“ The layoff gave him the opportunity to enJoy the work of remodelling and still have free time. He described what it was like to do the remodelling in addition to working full time. 205 'Well, you would do it but you wouldn't have any free time. It'd be work work. Now I have the pleasure of working.“ For Mike, working full time had been a disincentive to doing household proJects because his work schedule interrupted his time to do household work. 'When you're working, like I work second shift. When I get up in the morning, it's hard to start a proJect because you're not gonna get it done, you have to drop your tools and leave things setting around and go to work. So you don't start those proJects. Now that I got all day every day. . .it's easy to start something and get it done. Because you can stick to it.“ Paul's autonomy was in his ability to decide when to work on household “Jobs" and to spread them over time. “I think the biggest difference (between being laid off and working full time) is I feel better because I know that Saturday rolls around I don't have to put everything in two days. I can spread it out. I used to, if I get up on Saturday morning, have to do something. And I'd work myself to a frazzle to try to get it done. And Saturday night would roll around I was on the couch sleeping. Since I've been laid off, I do Just as much but I can spread it out over whenever I want to do it. My brother, his wife bakes cakes. She needed a kitchen put down in the basement. Her business is skyrocketing. . . And so I went over and helped him put that in. Before I would never even think about helping him. Now that I got the time. . I think basically the whole thing of it is that General Motors don't govern my time. I'm my own governor. That's what the difference is. Not that I have that much more time. Because I don't because I usually, even now I 206 usually don't get started until two o'clock in the afternoon, but it is still my time. I don't have to worry about getting up and going in to work. It makes a difference.“ Many of the women expressed similar sentiments about household work under conditions of reduced work. While women and men in the sample tended to do different household 'tasks--women did the housecleaning, meal preparation, laundry, and shopping--the women's attitudes about being able to spread their household work over time and to choose when to do it were similar to those of the men. Elaine (003), one of the Job sharers, married and the mother of two children, said she spent most of her time off» the Job doing what she would “otherwise“ do, but she wasn't rushed. ”My house is cleaner, my laundry doesn't have to be done all day Saturday. I can do it throughout the week. I don't have to do my grocery shopping on Saturday or my banking on Saturday. I can do it slowly throughout the week." For Elaine, then, working less than full time meant she could achieve a higher standard of cleanliness in her house and she could do household work at a slower pace and spread over several days. Her comments, like Paul's, provide some insight into the relationship between household work and autonomy. Most everyone in the sample perceived household work as work that had to be done, although some tasks may be more or less enJoyable. In this sense, there is little autonomy in household work. The autonomy comes, however, in 207 the household worker's ability to decide what to do (to select from an array of tasks that must be done--although even this can be influenced_by the needs of other household members) and when to do it. By working less than full time, informants did not have to try to complete household work in a small, perhaps fixed amount of time, for example, weekends. Barbara's (005) remarks were instructive here. She noted that she stopped grocery shopping on weekends once she began to Job share. She added. ”When I worked full time I did everything on weekends, absolutely everything. And I still don't know how it was done.“ And what she couldn't accomplish on weekends overflowed into her evenings during the week. “(I had) strong resentments about working full time. . .I felt I was being forced to do certain things at a certain time, basically at night. . .(I) felt forced to grocery shop, do laundry at night, because there weren't enough hours on the weekend.“ Kathy (002) had also benefited by getting out from under the tyranny of the 40-hour workweek. She preferred her Job-share arrangement because she felt less pressure. She could use her days off during the week to clean house and grocery shop, household work she had to do on the weekend when she worked full time. Such temporal shifting of household work freed up her weekends. “When you work full time, and even when you have children, you think you should be able to keep up with everything. And it bothers me a lot 208 when I can't. Meaning, you know, crnery. You know, ornery because it's pressure. A lot of pressure on me. I know I take it out on my husband, everybody. Short temper with the kids. . .(Working part time) is a lot less pressure on me. . .I don't have time for everything even now. But I can do my grocery shopping on my day off and try to get the house clean so I can have the weekends more free.“ Once Tina (004) began Job sharing, the temporal shift of household work from weekends to weekdays made weekends quality time for her and her husband. ”I plan to get all my household duties and the cooking and stuff done while (my husband) works full time, say on Thursday or Friday. Then I can have my weekends with him.“ Job sharing and some forms of part-time employment permitted such temporal shifts of household work when the work schedule associated with one's Job was regular and permitted time off during the week. Part—time workers and temporaries who worked full-time weeks were still subJect to the tyranny of the 40-hour workweek, however, despite reduced work. Diane (030), for example, was a part-time worker who worked 40-hour weeks when the work load required it. She still tried to "do everything“ on weekends. She characterized weekends as time "for the kids,“ and for doing laundry, housecleaning, “catching up," and "sleeping in if I can . 209 Peggy (014) had worked full-time weeks as a temporary. She complained that most of her time off the Job was spent doing household work. “I'd rather be doing something other than having to clean house. I don't mind doing it but it seems like that's all I do. This is my first time, really, this last year, working full time. We've been in smaller towns. . part time's been available. . .I enJoy the work but when I get home I'm Just. struggling. I'd rather do fun things. I'd rather have the time. . .A lot of times I skip (my husband's) concerts because of trying to get caught up from the week before. I'd rather really have the freedom to go and do some things. . .I think people are important and relationships are important and I'd like to be able to spend more time on them." Part-time and temporary workers such as Diane and Peggy have to wait until work is slack or there is a break in placements to catch up on household work. Temporaries, of course, can create such a break for themselves by refusing placements for a period of time after a placement ends. This opportunity to catch up on household work, however, comes at the expense of lost income--an expense few temporaries in my sample could afford. Therefore, temporaries like Peggy must live with feeling like they are behind in their household work and sacrificing relationships in their struggle to keep up. It was noted in chapter 6 that work schedules for part- time workers and temporaries can be unpredictable and irregular. Such irregularity, however, did not necessarily inhibit informants' ability to complete their household 210 work. Most household tasks, particularly laundry, housecleaning, and shopping, can be adJusted to small nooks and crannies of time even if they are scheduled irregularly or arise unexpectedly. One might be prevented from doing more time-consuming household work, however, if one is inhibited by one's work schedule from getting blocks of time large enough to complete them. Because household work is elastic, it can be made to fit almost any time available to the household worker. The minimum can be done (perhaps with maximum guilt) when the worker doesn't have a lot of time to do household work. But household work can also expand, perhaps infinitely, particularly if one reclaims from the market production of many household goods. Tom (021), one of the temporaries who had had few placements (each of short duration), an unsuccessful Job search, and a mobility-limiting handicap, had “extra time” on his hands. He spent much of his time doing housework and working in his yard, particularly in warm weather. He tended his flower and vegetable gardens, his fruit trees, grapevines, and berry bushes. His household work included canning produce from his gardens, trees, and bushes. "I do my own canning. I'm divorced now six years so I kind of look after myself. My mother made all of us kids learn how to cook and bake and keep house and can and everything. Now it's come in awful handy. Because I put up all kinds of vegetables. Put stuff in the freezer, can stuff, make pickles." 211 In Tom's case, household work shaded into the realm of recreation. _He had so much time and engaged in sufficiently creative household work that he gained pleasure from doing it, although he still preferred to have a wage-paying Job. His situation is reminiscent of the romanticized image of the nineteenth-century housewife. But he suffered, like her, from the pitfalls of social isolation associated with privatized household work. In summary, reduced work permitted some informants to catch up on undone household work when they experienced a significant reduction in working time. Those who had regular days off during the week could shift household work from weekends to weekdays, freeing weekend time for other activities. Those who gained large blocks of time in their time off the Job were able to accomplish time-consuming tasks that might have remained undone or certainly would have been less pleasurable if such blocks of time had not become available. Reduced work in some forms also permitted informants to do household work at a slower pace and in some cases to raise thein standards of quality. Some forms of reduced work, however, were formally reduced work but substantively full time. Part-time workers and temporaries who worked full-time workweeks remained subJect to the tyranny of the 40-hour workweek. They did not have the freedom that others had to choose when to do household work. Their household work had to be done on weekends and in the evenings during the week, and it imposed 212 on time that might have been used for recreational or relational purposes. ' Household work's malleability permits it to be molded to nooks and crannies of time that become available when work schedules are unpredictable and irregular. It's elasticity permits it to expand to consume large amounts of time if one's reduced work is minimal in number of hours. Household work's expansibility, however, may be limited by other off-the Job activities such as recreation, community activities, and education, topics to which I now turn. 213 CHAPTER 9 'Recreation and Autonomy Almost everyone (32/44 or 3/4 of the sample) reported that they spent some of their time off the Job engaged in recreational activities. For many, these activities included other family members or friends. But for some, recreation was.an opportunity for solitude. - Recreation includes a broad array of activities pursued by my informants: individual and team sports; outdoor activities such as gardening, camping, hunting, fishing, and boating; ”indoor” activities such as sewing, crafts, knitting, reading, and computers; spectator activities such as sports, movies, and television viewing; and artistic pursuits such as music, painting, and photography. What all of these activities have in common is that they were pursued for their own sake (they were ends in themselves even though they produced a product in some cases), they were pleasurable for the individuals who did them, and they were sources of escape, relaxation, or reJuvenation.. The difficulties associated with separating recreation from household work and childcare should be noted. A family camping trip, for example, involves food preparation, clean up, and supervision of children. Sewing often produces clothing for oneself and other household members. Garden 214 produce is often cooked before it is consumed and large yields may be canned or frozen for future use. Deem (1986) has noted that housework and leisure frequently overlap, particularly for women. This occurs because women often pursue recreational activities that can be performed easily in and around the house in the presence of others and, like some household work, are readily adaptable to small quantities of time. However, it was clear in the interviews conducted for this study that the informants--both women and men-~had separate conceptions of household work and recreation. Many implied that some activities had to be done whether they were enJoyable or not. This attitude colored their discussions of what I categorized previously as household work. The pleasurability, or lack thereof, however, was not necessarily an inherent quality of the task. An ordinarily unpleasant task could become enJoyable if one was not rushed in accomplishing it or if one could do it in the company of others. Recreational activities by contrast to household work were unequivocally pleasurable. The attitude that colored my informants' discussions of what I have here categorized as recreational activities conveyed a sense of enJoyment and choice. There were some gender differences in the recreational activities preferred by my informants. Women tended to enJoy sewing, knitting, crafts, and gardening while men enJoyed camping, hunting, and fishing. There were several exceptions to these generalities, however. Some women 215 enJoyed camping and some men enJoyed gardening and knitting. Like the analysis of household work in chapter 8, my purpose in this chapter is not to document gender differences in recreational pursuits so much as it is to examine the ability to engage in recreational activities and the limits on such engagement relative to time regimes associated with reduced work. Theoretically at least, because they worked less than full time or less than year round, my informants had more time than the average full-time worker to pursue recreational activities. While 3/4 of the sample did engage in some kind of recreational activity at least occasionally, as noted above, many still had unfulfilled interests. To what extent reduced work fostered my informants' ability to pursue recreational activities or prevented them from fulfilling their recreational interests is the obJective of this chapter. Reduced work freed up time for recreational pursuits for many of my informants. Job sharers Barbara (005) and Sylvia (007) both set aside some of their time off the Job for such activities. Barbara took dance classes. "I'm still a little bit selfish. I like to have one of those days for me. I try to keep a portion of the day for me.“ Sylvia liked to golf. "The Job sharing isn't Just for the kids. That is my prime reason for being on it, but it gives me a little time to. . .I'll golf now 216 and then. . .it gives me time for myself.“ ~ Other Job sharers and part-time workers with children had difficulty finding time for recreation. This was especially true for Kathy (002) and Elizabeth (006). Kathy complained that she felt a lot of pressure from working outside the home, caring for two children, and trying to keep up with her household responsibilities, although she felt less pressure once she began Job sharing. She complained, ”I'm always doing laundry." Kathy had recently begun to attend a Jazzercise class for one hour once a week. She described it as her “hour out.” ”Being so tied down to the house and kids was really getting to me this summer. I needed Just something by myself, to get away. You know, it's not getting away taking the kids to the store. My husband said, 'You go out all the time.‘ Taking the kids shopping with me is not a release.“ She recounted her decision to take Jazzercise. “My husband gets his times out, and I was resenting it.” Her husband went out two or three times a week and tended to make plans spontaneously. That made it difficult for Kathy to commit herself to a regular recreational activity. Finally, she settled on one night a week when his parents could care for the children if he couldn't. Elizabeth (006) also yearned for time for herself but had had difficulty getting it. 217 \ ”I think I should get away more and do more. . .Probably a few days I'd like to get a sitter and Just go and have time by myself. I mean I know I have time by myself when I work but it'd be nice to take a day every once in a while. . .and Just go shopping and not have to worry about it. But yet I don't because I'm working part time and I think I should be home with my children and things like that. My husband has told me I should do that more at night because he thinks I should take at least one night of the week and Just go out and have time by myself. I'm going through this big thing where I feel like if I'm not working I have no time by myself. . . because my husband's not one of these men who's a real big help around the house or with the children. When I'm home, the responsibility's all put on me. He's aware of it but it Just doesn't change and he doesn't think it'll get better unless I Just leave the house and he's stuck with the responsibility. . .I feel our financial status doesn't really allow me to do that. Everything I enJoy doing costs money. . .I gotta change because my husband has a lot of extra activities that take the money too, but yet if we're both doing that then where's the money gonna come (from) to meet the bills?. . .I feel like one of us has to give so I guess right now it's me. . .I enJoy being home a lot with my kids, too. . .but I want him to be the same way. . .I do think about things I could do for time for myself which are not costly, but I haven't been successful yet. . . I enJoy needlecraft. . .but I can only do that after my kids get to bed and so in order for me to be able to do those things I'm staying up late lacking sleep. . .I don't want to make it sound like I don't get any time to do the things I enJoy doing but it seems to occur only when my other responsibilities are over. Where I feel for men they have it whenever they want. . .they get it periodically throughout the 218 day. . .where a woman has to schedule the time.“ In these two cases, it was not the work schedule that was an obstacle to participation in recreational activities. An argumeht might be made that the children were the obstacle, but closer examination reveals that the husbands' lack of participation in childcare, deference to their wives in this area, and the women's own conception of their duties as mothers combined to prevent Kathy and Elizabeth from pursuing a self-determined recreational goal. These two cases point to the stranglehold of gender despite reduced work schedules (although in these cases only the women had such schedules; the husbands were employed full time). It is circumstances such as these which raise doubts about the potential for greater autonomy for women under conditions of reduced work. Not all women with young children in the sample who wanted time for themselves had such difficulty finding it. Susan (018), for example, bowled once a week while her husband watched the children. This was a respite from her childcare and household responsibilities, but it was also time to spend with other family members and friends. "I bowl on Tuesday nights. That's kind of my time alone. . .I require time. Just to myself. Bowling is that. Or quite often on a weekend when the kids are napping I'll go for a drive or go shopping, walk around the mall, because I require that time alone." Susan had taken up bowling before she was married, as had her husband. They met when they bowled in the same 219 league. For several years they bowled together in a mixed doubles league, but her husband had given it up temporarily to have time to work on their house. Susan continued to bowl. “This year my mother-in-law's team 1' needed another person and so I bowl with my mother and my mother-in-law and one of my best friends. Which is nice because then (my friend) and I have time Just to talk.“ While Susan had this time for recreational activities, she wanted to have had more. “I would like to (go to the spa and) work out more and get back into shape. That's important to me. I would like to either take a sewing or a craft class. I could do it. I could work my time into it, but I feel I brought these two children into the world and I can't be gone from them all the time. I'm gone Monday, Wednesday, and every other Friday, and I don't feel that it's right to leave them on Tuesday and Thursday. . .I figure a lot of things I want to do are put on hold temporarily and I guess in the back of my mind I know if I want to do it bad enough I'll do it later. Right now, that's not the most important thing.“ Would Susan be as reluctant to take a couple hours on Tuesday or Thursday to go to the spa or to a craft class if her husband were able to be home with the children at that time? One can only speculate here, but it's entirely possible that she would be less reluctant to leave the children with her husband than she would be to leave them with a sitter. 220 The few Job sharers without children did not have these dilemmas and were free to pursue most recreational activities they enJoyed in their time off the Job. And in most cases work schedules were not an inhibiting factor. Carol (001), however, worked alternating weeks and noted that there was little time with which to recreate during the weeks she worked. “We don't do a lot in the evenings. Til you get home, fix dinner, there's Just not time. We go for walks. We Just don't have a lot of time to do much.“ Similarly, part-time workers and temporaries who worked 40-hour weeks had little time for recreation. Terri (011) and Chris (012) both worked 40-hour weeks as temporaries. They had little time for recreational activities. Terri said she was usually too tired. “Well, I don't really do much. I get up pretty early. . .so I come home, watch TV a little bit. I'm in bed usually by 8 o'clock.” Chris echoed Carol's sentiments. ”There's not really a lot of time to do anything." Diane (030) liked to garden but had little time for it. She had been working 40-hour weeks in her part-time Job, so by the time she got home from work during the week it was almost dark. Her recreational autonomy was also limited, however, by the fact that she and her husband had only one car. Both commuted long distances to two different towns to work. They usually left home around 5:30 in the morning and 221 her husband dropped Diane off at her sister-in-law's whose van Diane drove to work. At the end of her working day, Diane returned to her sister-in-law's to wait for her husband to pick her up after he got off work. They rode home together to arrive there around 6 or 6:30 in the evening. Diane calculated that if they had a second car and she could get to and from work independent of her husband, she could gain four hours each day. But they couldn't afford a second car. Although Jean had been working 40-hour weeks as a temporary, she thought one advantage of temporary employment was the ability to take time off at will. She had recently been given the opportunity to keep her temporary placement as a permanent full-time Job, and this figured into her thinking on the matter. ”Summer's coming up. My husband and I, we have a temporary campsite up north . . .Every weekend that he doesn't have to work, we go up there. And if he works Saturday, we go up on Sunday. Because of that reason, I would want to stay there as a temporary. When (my husband's place of employment goes) for changeover in July, they get four weeks off. . .If I'm still here as a temporary, then I'll Just take that four weeks off. And Just come back when I'm ready. . .And if I'm working full time, I won't have my six months in yet to take even one week. . .Even though I don't get any benefits and the pay isn't as good. I like that advantage of being able to take off. . .I did that last summer. . .(My husband) works nights. So he didn't have to be to work until Monday at 5:00. . .I'd call them and tell them I'm taking Monday off and we'd get back in time for him (to go 222 to work). . .So he'd take maybe a vacation day here or a vacation day there, sometimes a week. . .and I could Just up and take off with him, which I really liked.” Jean's recreational autonomy was fostered by her husband's secure employment and her attitude that temporary employment required less commitment than permanent, full- time employment. Ann (025) didn't have a husband as a source of financial support and was much more dependent on her temporary employment and consequently much more limited in her recreational autonomy. ”. . .it depended how my financial situation was. If I thought I would be fine for the next month, then I wouldn't worry about it. I'd take a long weekend or whatever. But right when I graduated I needed a lot of money to move out and get a place to live, down payments and everything, so I really had to push for money. That's exactly what it felt like. I had to be home, I'd probably be home cleaning or doing something anyway, but I felt kind of bad if I wasn't there to get a phone call from (the temporary employment company) because I would miss out. Yeah, it was kind of stressful having to worry about whether you'd be working next week or not, even though I did." Ann had taken a part-time Job that had Just become full time. The insecurity and unpredictability of temporary employment had motivated her to make that employment change. “An ex-roommate. . .told me about (the part-time Job). And I kept telling her I'm getting tired of temporary work because I never know when I'm going to work. I hate to wait for these phone calls and feel that I can't take a long weekend and 223 find that on Monday I missed a call and therefore missed a week's worth of work.“ With no work schedule to attend to until callback, the laid-off autoworkers were free to pursue a variety of recreational activities, particularly travel. This was especially true of the men who were single or married to women who were’not employed outside the home and without dependent children. Larry (043) was a good example. His children were grown and his wife was not employed outside the home, so he and his wife were free to travel at will. He had purchased a place in northern Michigan, and the layoff gave him an opportunity to spend more time there as well as control over his choice of travel times--he didn't have to travel on weekends, when traffic is heavy. His freedom to travel was only limited by household finances and the fact that he had to pick up unemployment and SUB checks every two weeks. Similarly, Bob (034), divorced with grown children, spent much of his time off at his campsite. “I got a nice camp. I've been out there all summer since I've been off. I kind of enJoy it. The only time I come back (to town) is to take care of business, get my unemployment check and my SUB check, and go back." For Ted (039), one advantage of the layoff was that it gave him large blocks of time to work on his computer. “The thing I like the most about it is that I can get into some proJects with my computer that may proJect themselves into six, eight, ten hours in order to accomplish the result I'm looking for. When I'm working 224 I don't have that bulk of time, unless it's on a weekend. So that's allowed me to actually learn some concepts about the computers themselves that would (still be) eluding me because I wouldn't have had the time to apply til I came to the results 'that was necessary. It's like any learning process. If you ain't got the time to spend, you ain't gonna learn.“ With regard to recreational activities, being laid off was not fundamentally different from working full time for Dave (040). He had taken up golf as a new activity, although he didn't comment on how much time he devoted to it. He liked to Jog and work out at the local YMCA. “I go do some Jogging. Go down to the Y. Work out a couple hours, set around and shoot the breeze. . I always participated in trying to keep a little fit. So when I'd get off work, I'd go down to the Y and do maybe a mile, mile and a half, maybe two, according to how.I feel when I get off. Then take a nice steam shower. And then I feel a lot better. Come on home. That's about it. I always did that. Now I Just do more of it." For Dave, as well as several of the other work sharers, the financial constraints associated with layoff were most distressing. “I would like to did a little more traveling while I was off. The way the unemployment and SUB pay's divided, you really can't do too much on that because you still have your home bills and different things that you have to pay. . So now I Just have to be careful where I spend, what I spend, how I spend." 225 Bob (034) had plans to go to Florida in the winter but still dreamed of trips to Hawaii and the Caribbean. ”I'd like to go to Hawaii. I'd like to take a Caribbean cruise. I could go on all day. I'm a man with rich tastes when it comes right down to it.“ I asked Bob what prevented him from taking these trips. “It takes a lot of bucks. If you want to have something come to a flying stop, that'll do it. . . And I got responsibilities here, too, that I've got to take care of. You can't have your cake and eat it too. It'd be nice to travel all the way around the world, but you gotta take it one step at a time.” Mary (036) wanted to travel, too. “I really like to travel, but I have to win the Lotto first. If we had worked our bill situation out different. . . I would like to save my money enough to take trips and to explore things and to see different parts of the world. We travel, but it's Just in Michigan." Financial constraints were not the concern of the laid— off autoworkers only. In fact, such concerns cut across all categories of reduced work and a wide range of incomes.1 When I asked Elaine (003) if there were things she'd like to do with her time that she wasn't doing, she responded, 1 I'll take them up only as they pertain to recreation here. The effects of financial limitations on educational aspirations will be discussed in chapter 11. 226 “Yeah, if I had more money. You know, when your income gets cut like that, there are definitely things that I can't do as much. . . Meg (010) had to decrease her attendance at theatre productions when she terminated her consulting business and began working as a temporary and experienced the concomitant loss of income. And Jean (02?) commented that her desires were costly. ”. . .the things I like to do are kind of extravagant. You know, they take time and they take money. I'd like to travel. If I could Just get in a mobile home. I wouldn't want to fly anywhere or take a cruise. I'd want to be able to drive and take my time and Just go here and there and everywhere in the whole United States, because there's a lot of places in the United States I've never been that I'd like to see. And then think about going to other countries.“ Like some household work, some recreational activities are readily adaptable to small amounts of time. Thus, time availability influences the selection of recreational pursuits. Time-consuming activities will be forgone if work schedules and/or other commitments limit the availability of time. By the same token, some recreational activities can be pursued in and around the house while others cannot. Thus, recreational activities for which one must leave home will be forgone if one must remain at or near home. Many of the Job sharers were limited in their recreational autonomy, but this had little to do with their work schedules. Instead, the demands of childcare and the 227 ._ 4__‘_m strength of gender ideologies which define childcare as the primary responsibility of women limited their recreational autonomy. Temporary employment also constrained recreational autonomy, particularly when individuals were also financially insecure and couldn't afford to miss a placement opportunity or when they were working 40-hour weeks. In cases where there was some degree of financial security, however, temporary employment enhanced recreational autonomy to the extent that an individual may feel less attachment to a temporary Job than a permanent Job and therefore feel freer to take time off. I Irregular part-time schedules limited recreational autonomy to the extent that recreation had to be planned around those schedules. Part-time employment also placed financial constraints on recreation. The laid-off autoworkers in this study had the greatest recreational autonomy, unless family ties or other responsibilities were inhibiting factors. Otherwise, they had large expanses of free time and some degree of financial security. However, even they complained, as did many others, about financial constraints on their ability to participate in certain kinds of recreational activities, particularly travel. In the course of the interviews for this study, it was a common occurrence to hear informants talk about how they wished they had more time and money to travel. One can only speculate on the insatiability of 228 human desires and the symbolic meaning of travel. More important, perhaps, is the extent to which recreation has been commodified such that individuals' financial status must influence their ability to recreate. Where the cultural infrastructure is underdeveloped, or where access depends on market position, there are limits on individuals' selection of recreational activities. Reduced work may provide the time for recreational pursuits, but if reduced work restricts one's market position, recreational choices will be limited. Also, if the private sector controls the availability of recreational activities, those that are unprofitable will not be offered or they will be offered by thepublic sector but limited by the availability of tax- generated revenues. Gorz has argued for ”free“ recreation. This may be a desirable goal, but its achievement doesn't seem likely in the foreseeable future. As capital expands into services in search of new markets, the commodification of recreation will grow. Those who work less than full time and who have limited incomes may in the future find that more and more recreational activities are out of their reach despite the fact that they have time to pursue them. The creation of "free" recreation may become more urgent as a larger proportion of the population has time on its hands. 229 CHAPTER 10 Community and Relational Activities Several informants discussed voluntary associations in which they were active participants and time they devoted to volunteer work. A few others wished they could engage in such activities and discussed circumstances that prevented them from doing so. This chapter explores the nature of my informants' actual and desired participation in the community and how their reduced work facilitated or limited their participation. But this chapter's focus is not confined to voluntary associations. It also examines what I call relational activities. Relational activities refers to primary relationships (Cooley 1962, pp. 23-31) with partners, relatives, and friends. Many more informants were involved in these sorts of activities than the more formally organized community activities. I exclude childcare from this category of relational activities not to deny the relational character of childcare but because interaction with children differs fundamentally from interaction with adults. Children need supervision not usually required by adults. Community activities and relational activities are brought together in this chapter because they are of a 230 piece, although analytically distinct. Community activities are by definition relational even if formally organized, and relational activities maintain the human community outside the bounds of formal organization. Certainly, however, community and relational activities may overlap, for example, when relatives and friends belong to the same voluntary association. There is some difficulty in separating community and relational activities from recreation. Community and relational activities can be coterminous-with recreation, and, like recreation, can be means of escape, relaxation, and reJuvenation. This occurs, for example, when members of a church group Join together to play volleyball or have a potluck dinner or when partners go out to dinner and a movie. But recreational activities embody a strong orientation to self-pleasure, as suggested in chapter 9, whereas community and relational activities embody a strong orientation to helping and supporting others and reaffirming ties as members of a group. However, as Cooley (1962) argued, the separation of self and other, or self and society as he put it, is a false dichotomy. Community and relational engagements are sources of self-fulfillment to the extent that we derive pleasure and satisfaction from them, and they are products of self-expression in that our participation in them is an expression of our needs and desires. Therefore, connection to others is an element of self. 231 The central question of this chapter is the relationship between reduced work and community and relational activities. It will be argued that certain types of reduced work fostered greater social participation, but other types, particularly those associated with unpredictable work schedules and financial insecurity, were barriers to social participation. As will become apparent, community and relational activities were not the exclusive province of female informants. Many men spoke Just as forthrightly as women about the important community and relational activities in their lives. Jim (029) was a case in point. He was a lay minister in an evangelical religious organization. Before he began to Job share, he devoted 60 hours a month to his religious activities. ”At times I did find myself using a lot of annual leave around like holidays in order to get more days off and spend more time (on my religious activities). After he began Job sharing, Jim was able to devote 90 hours a month to his ministerial activities. He valued his religious work so much that he thought he might try to find other employment if he lost his Job—share position and had to return to working full time. A number of other Job sharers were involved in a variety of community activities. Carol (001) was a room mother at her oldest child's school and also accompanied the class on field trips. Because these are daytime activities, 232 full-time 8-5 employment would have barred her from such participation. Elaine's (003) work schedule prevented her from being a room mother, but she did accompany children on field trips. She also hosted her daughter's class picnic in the spring. Elaine had become involved in so many community activities that she had to withdraw from some. A Sunday school teacher, she had also been active in CROP walks and other church-related activities. For a period of time, she had meetings to attend every night of the week. She gave up some activities so she could spend more time at home with her husband and children.1 There were no Job sharers who said they wanted to be more involved in community activities but could not. This suggests that those who wanted to be involved were involved and that work schedules associated with Job sharing were not maJor obstacles to such participation. Job sharing facilitated community involvement to the extent that individuals could devote more time or could be involved in activities, such as those that occur during the daytime, that otherwise would not have been options. It appears that those inclined to be active participants in voluntary associations found whatever time they could to participate 1 Barbara's (005) community activities were discussed in chapter 7 in conJunction with children and opportunities for self-development associated with childrearing. I will not repeat that case here, although it does pertain. Suffice it to say that Barbara's case was another example of community activism fostered by Job sharing. 233 even when employed full time. Their participation was facilitated by combining childcare and community activity or° by the availability of substitute childcare. Similarly, there were few temporary employees in my sample who yearned to participate in community activities but felt they could not. Many did not express interest in community activities. One of those who did, Vicki (023), wanted to get involved in community theatre, hadn't done so, but didn't think her temporary employment prevented her from doing so. (But babysitting was her other source of employment and this may have been an obstacle, although she didn't address it.) She did note, however, that she used to be more active in her church. “I used to do a lot of church things . . .I'm in the church choir, but that's about it. I never know when (the temporary employment company) is going to call so I can't really do something during the day.” Here again, the unpredictability of temporary employment put limits on Vicki's autonomy off the Job. Temporary employment, however, facilitated Karen's (026) autonomy. She requested part-time temporary employment to accommodate her commitments as a youth pastor's wife. One-half of a two~person career, she accompanied her husband on weekend trips with the youth.2 2- TRE’EGSIS;F§6n single career occurs when a combination of formal and informal institutional demands is placed on both members of a married couple of whom only the man is employed by the institution. Usually, the wife is inducted into the orbit of her husband's employing institution not because of her own, or the institution's, specific choice but because she is related to her husband through sexual, economic, and 234 . . .a lot of weekends we have to leave on Fridays or there's a lot of preparation on Fridays that I need to do to leave for a weekend with the teens. So that's the main reason why I asked for Fridays off.” Karen estimated that she spent between 25 and 30 hours a week on church activities. In addition to frequent weekend trips with the youth group, she also participated in other groups and served on committees. This amounted to a part-time Job in itself, although Karen was not paid for her church commitments. She differentiated, however, between activities that she perceived to be her duty as a pastor's wife and those that she participated in autonomously. “. . .all of my time is volunteer time, besides being the support for my husband. When they hired him, ‘they hired him personally. But I feel it's my responsibility as his wife to help him. 'Calling' I consider to be part of our duties, but as far as (the children's group) and the committees that I'm on, that's Just my own personal choice to do those types of things.“ Temporary employment provided the flexibility Karen needed to be an active participant in her church. But it would not have been so satisfying if she hadn't had some emotional bonds. It is an extension of her role as wife. The typical, although by no means unique, two-person career is that of the corporate executive and his wife. Her participation is his career, usually not acknowledged or remunerated directly, furthers his career by maintaining and perhaps, over the long run, improving his status. See Hanna Papanek's article, ”Men, Women, and Work: Reflections on the Two-Person Career,“ Ameriggn Journal of Sociology 78 (4) 1973: 852-872. 235 semblance of financial security. Her husband's employment provided that financial security. Few part-time workers were involved in community activities or expressed an interest in getting involved. Joanne (020) expressed an interest in assisting the United Way, “but I can't tell for sure what day I'd be able to help them because of my schedule.“ She worked an irregular schedule at a retail store and had little control over her schedule. She could request days off but was reluctant to do so, particularly because she had low seniority. '. . .I don't like to do that because sometimes they get kind of an attitude about it and the other employees might, too. So I Just like to be free whenever I can, especially now." Mark's (028) seasonal employment provided him opportunities to work with a political group and assist in the city's beautification proJect during the off season. Her newfound time gave Sharon (044), one of the laid- cff autoworkers, an opportunity to help a terminally ill friend. She had found this experience so gratifying that she wanted to be a hospice volunteer. She was reluctant, however, because she thought her full-time Job, which she had to return to, would interfere with the commitment she thought was necessary to provide such care. ”If I didn't have to go back to work ever I would like to be a volunteer that goes to homes where people are terminally ill. Like someone's got to be there to take care of them. I would like to do that. To help take care of terminally ill people 236 and give the other person that's living in the home a break. . . I'm reluctant because I don't want to get into something like that and all of a sudden get called back to work. If I say I'm going to do something, I do it. I don't like to back out. So I hate to start it because I know I can't keep at it.” I asked Sharon if she could imagine a way of changing her work schedule so she could work and do the volunteer care she wanted to do. She replied emphatically, “No. Absolutely not.“ Two of the other laid-off autoworkers were active participants in the church. Their involvement was not new-- they had been active members when they worked full time-~but it extended in time and substance while they were laid off. Paul (037) taught Bible study on Wednesday nights. When he worked full time he could only devote a few hours to preparation for the class. On layoff, his preparation began a few days in advance. "I'd get out of work Wednesday night and I'd go home and take a short nap. And then I would study for an hour or two, eat supper, and then go to church. And now I'll start Monday night, start reading and researching and everything.” The church was at the center of Paul's family life. "I'm the song leader and the head trustee. My wife is the treasurer and Sunday school teacher. And I teach Sunday school. She was involved in the church whenever I met her. We grew up in the church and we got married in the church. Just a big part of our 237 lives. And most of the activities are planned around the church. . . John (042) was also actively involved in his church. He attended several meetings in the evening during the week, which he had done when he worked full time. But on the layoff he could also spend some time during the day at the church. “I helped a guy put on a new roof, cut a tree down, stuff like that.“ John had also become the person who regularly mowed the lawn since the church was without a custodian. Ted (043) worked with a substance abuse program. He had become involved a few years before he was laid off and had served as the financial secretary for a period of time. In fact, he became such an enthusiastic volunteer that at one point he was suspended from his Job. “I went overboard, excessive in spending the time. I equate it with giving something to myself that I'd never been able to do before. I went nuts with it. Missed work. Got confronted with it.“ The layoff gave him time to devote to this program without concern for a work schedule. “ . .a lot of times I stay up til six, seven o'clock in the morning. I get down to the (center) and somebody's in anguish or having difficulties. I enJoy the conversa- tion part. I never had time for that before. I did, but it was always at the expense of something else. Today it's at the expense of nothing.“ 238 In conclusion, participation in community activities was to some extent facilitated by'reduced work, particularly when work schedules were regular or nonexistent. In such cases, work schedules did not interfere with commitments to community activities and sometimes permitted greater participation because more time could be devoted to such activities or because more options became available. Irregular work schedules interfered with participation in community activities in some cases because planning ahead was difficult.. The anticipated return to a rigid full-time schedule in the case of one laid-off autoworker was an obstacle to a long-term commitment to voluntary care of terminally ill persons. Relational Agtivitigg Most of my informants mentioned spending some of their time off the Job with partners, relatives, and friends. They went out to dinner with partners, visited parents or other relatives if they lived in the area, and socialized with friends. These are relational activities we engage in under most any circumstances, employed full time as well as less than full time or not at all. The extent to which we are attentive to others is influenced by our work schedules to the extent that our work schedules determine how much time we have off the Job and when we have it. But our attentiveness to others may also be affected by our needs for sociability, and some individuals may thrive on more 239 social contact than others. In turn, difficult relationships may be avoided. This section, however, is not intended to be a psychoanalytic treatise on variability in needs for affiliation or the origins and management of conflictual relationships. It is intended to explore the relationship between reduced work and relational opportunities. I'll begin with the assumption that everyone participates in relational activities to one degree or another for this is the stuff of human existence. But I will also assume that reduced work may permit greater opportunities for relational activities because a smaller portion of one's time is obligated to wage work. In this section I will not examine the full array of relational activities engaged in by my informants. Instead, I will focus on the relational activities that became possible under conditions of reduced work. Ted (039), one of the laid-off autoworkers, made one of the most eloquent statements on relational possibilities associated with reduced work. “I never had time before. It used to be you'd run into an old friend or something, you get a few minutes to talk with him, you're on your way to work or you're on your way (somewhere). . .Now I can say, well, I'm on my way to nowhere and there ain't nothing that's so important happening to me today that I can't postpone it and sit down and talk to an old friend. Or even a new friend. That, I really really enJoy that. That alone could be more than adequate to offset any 240 economic loss that I gave up when I took this inverse.“ Other work sharers discovered newfound time with partners. Paul (037) and John (042), who had both worked days, enJoyed going out for breakfast or lunch with their wives. Paul suggested that his Job had interfered with his and his wife's ability to communicate with one another. ”We'll go out for breakfast or we'll go out for lunch once or twice a week. It's very hard to communicate. . . Like me, you get off work, you don't feel like doing nothing. You go home and set down and have supper, you don't feel like going anywhere. . . But now that you have time and the patience. . .' ' He also noted, ”My wife enJoys me being home. Well, most of the time. Whenever I get lazy and set there and watch 'The Waltons' instead of doing some- thing, she gets up in arms. But I enJoy being home and she enJoys having me home.” Tim's (041) experience wasn't quite as positive, however. ”Being at home with my wife more, it seems like we don't get along as good as we used to, but then, I don't know, that could be caused by a lot of different things. We're not used to seeing each other that much. Our differences are showing up more.“' Mary (038) and her husband were using their time layoff to repair a failing marriage. They had worked on the split shifts since their four-year-old daughter was born to share her care, which meant they didn't see very much of each 241 other and didn't have much time to deal with problems. Recently, however, they had gone out for breakfast while their daughter was at preschool. '. . .and that was time well spent. Just the other morning we had breakfast together at Bob Evans. That was really nice. We haven't done that together in at least four years. . .It's Just like every day is Saturday while we're laid off, so we can Just enJoy it to the fullest. We haven't had a fight about anything. . .because there Just isn't that tension. See, when we were separated by our shifts, there wasn't time to have that kind of time because we would Just have to tell our troubles and go on our way. There was Just no enJoyable time. So it drove us farther and farther apart.“ To avoid such difficulties in the future, Mary and her husband both intended to work first shift when they are called back to the plant. In some cases at least, a reduction in working time permitted partners to devote time and energy to somewhat neglected relationships with positive results. Such relational outcomes of reduced work cannot be assumed, however, as Tim's case illustrates. More time together may accentuate differences and tensions as much as it may alleviate them. Other laid-off autoworkers found time to help relatives and friends. Dave (040) ran errands for his mother. Mike (036) helped a friend's father build an addition on his house. Carl (035) helped friends remodel their house, 242 repaired his niece's car, and regularly helped a friend with some repair work at his store. Linda (009), one of the Job sharers, also found having more time off meant she had more time for friends. She and her husband planned to visit friends the weekend after the interview. They were going to help them insulate their cottage. Linda thought if she were working full time she probably would not make the trip and her husband would go alone. They were planning to leave their daughter with a sitter, and Linda would have been reluctant to do this if her daughter had been with a sitter all week. Her time off also permitted Linda to accompany her husband on a business trip. Because Linda worked alternating weeks, she was off when her brother-in-law and sister-in-law came to visit for a week, and she had more time to enJoy their visit. Some of the temporaries who worked 40-hour weeks were frustrated by the little time off the Job they had. Chris (012) had complained that she didn't have much time to do anything and had “cut friends out.“ Peggy (014) helped her husband with school-related or household proJects but had difficulty finding time to help other people. The only time she had available was in the evening, a time when other's didn't necessarily need her help. ”A friend of mine had a baby in the spring and she was in bed for seven weeks before the baby (was born) and I couldn't do anything until night and when her husband was home, too. I told (my husband). . .I wish I 243 'had enough time so I could take off and help them. I guess that's one thing that really bothers me. I don't have time to take out for other people.“ Peggy might have viewed her temporary employment as Jean did—-employment not requiring complete commitment and employment from which she could readily take time off. If she had worked enough hours as a temporary, she might also have been able to take some vacation time. But, unlike Jean, Peggy was the sole breadwinner in her household. Without financial security she could not use temporary employment to create flexibility and autonomy for herself. In conclusion, reduced work--when it actually meant a reduction of working time--permitted my informants who were so inclined to devote more time and energy to relational activities. This, coupled with possibilities for greater participation in voluntary associations, suggests that certain types of reduced work can foster greater social involvement. This can occur when reduced work is stable, permitting commitments to others, and when financial insecurity does not hinder such involvement. .When reduced work is unpredictable, however, it interrupts individuals' ability to plan ahead, and financial insecurity, such as that associated with temporary employment, has the consequence of isolating people in their homes waiting for employment opportunities or, as will be shown in chapter 11, forces individuals to seek other sources of employment. Therefore, reduced work does not automatically mean greater 244 community and relational participation, but certain types of reduced work can create the structural conditions within which such participation could occur if individuals are so inclined. 245 CHAPTER 11 Education and Alternative Employment Several informants spent some of their time off the Job engaged in educational pursuits. These were principally temporary and part-time workers. Many informants wanted to go to school but couldn't for one reason or another. The desire to go to school transcended all four categories of reduced work. For some, education's value was in its potential for self-enrichment. This was especially true of those who took adult education classes on an occasional or regular basis. For others, education was a means to an end, that of better-paying and more secure employment or career advancement. Some informants (about 1/4) had secondary sources of income from a small self-owned business or work in the informal economy. A few informants dreamed of self- employment. This chapter examines the last of five categories of use of time off the Job, education and alternative employment, in relationship to reduced work. In what ways did reduced work enhance or limit my informants' educational opportunities? Did reduced work enhance or limit their opportunities for alternative employment? Why did they have or need alternative employment? How did their need for 246 alternative employment relate to reduced work? Finally, what was attractive about self-employment for those who dreamed of it? The fact that so many of my informants who were students worked part time or as temporaries indicates that part-time and temporary employment are readily adaptable to student life. This, of course, was reflected in data presented in chapter 3 that noted the predominance of students among part-time and temporary workers. While few part-time and temporary workers had control over their work schedules, they could specify times when they could not work, for example, because they were taking classes. Most felt supervisors were understanding of the needs of students, and supervisors scheduled their work hours around their classes. Temporary employment was especially suitable for students on recess who wanted employment for only a few months. 1 It's noteworthy that most of the students in my sample were unmarried and childless, with few responsibilities for anyone other than themselves. The one exception was Lisa (016) who was married with two children. She was working on a master's degree in nursing. She attended classes on weekends as part of an outreach program offered by one of the state universities. She spent much of her time studying when she was not on the Job. Had the weekend classes not been available to Lisa, she probably would not have gone back to school because she would have had to give up her Job 247 during the week to attend classes, something she didn't want nor could afford to do. In Lisa's case, although she was employed part time and had considerable control over her work schedule, her schedule could not be made flexible enough to provide time to attend classes during the week. The availability of a specially designed weekend graduate program made it possible for her to keep her Job and go to school. Part-time employment meant she remained attached to her profession, she maintained an income, and she had time to attend classes, study, and spend time with her husband and children. While she was in school, she had given up some recreational activities she enJoyed but was confident she could resume them once she finished her degree. She made some trade-offs, but part-time employment permitted her to do the things that were most important to her: go to school and have a family life. Other informants wanted to go to school, but couldn't at least until some future date. Carol (001) hoped to return to school to finish her degree once both of her children were in elementary school, but Kathy (002) was far. less optimistic. "I always thought I could go back .that's a big Joke," she commented rather cynically. She wasn't sure if she would return to school at some future time because it was becoming less and less important to her. Both Carol and Kathy were Job sharers with secure incomes and financial security provided by a second earner. Childrearing seemed to be the main obstacle to their 248 autonomy in this case, but the anticipated removal of this obstacle restored education as an option only for Carol. Kathy's lost autonomy seemed to have resulted not in a temporary deferral of autonomy but a permanent sacrifice--at least regarding her educational interests. She had become discouraged and lost the motivation to pursue those interests under the pressure and demands of her household and childcare responsibilities. A couple of other Job sharers, Sylvia (007) and Martha (008), wanted to return to school. Sylvia believed she could do so: it was Just a matter of scheduling. Martha had gone so far to make an appointment with a former professor to inquire about returning to school. There is nothing in these four cases to suggest that Job sharing creates any obstacle to educational pursuits. Childrearing, however, did create at least a temporary obstacle for these women. This is yet another area in which gender relations and the division of labor regarding childcare operate to limit women's autonomy despite temporal autonomy associated with reduced work and control over work schedules. For the part-time workers and temporaries who wanted to go to school, money was the primary obstacle. Harold (015) was not satisfied working at low-status and low-paying temporary Jobs and wanted to go back to school to ”make something better, but he couldn't afford to go to school. 249 He needed a better-paying Job to provide for his four children before he could afford to go to school. “What I was trying to do was go back to school, but I haven't got the money either. People always talk about that they got grants, but the thing is having the money to start with. . . I wish I would have went earlier when I first got out (of the service). Then I could have used the VA benefits, but it expired. . .If I worked for a company that paid reasonably well, or for the state. . .that would give me the opportunity to go back to school because I'd be making fairly good money with benefits. . .that's kind of what I wanted but that's kind of hard to do. You can't get a minimum-wage Janitor Job and then go out and try to be something if you haven't got the money to feed your kids let alone to buy books.“ Harold's was a sad case. He attended a local community college with financial assistance from the VA, but his children were born and their needs were more urgent than his to go to school. Harold sacrificed what turned out to be a one-time opportunity to finish school to try to better provide for his family. His sacrifice became a costly one, through no fault of his own. He had been employed at a number of companies that shut down. Since that time he has had difficulty finding other secure, well-paying employment. He complained, “There isn't no work," and lamented the days when Oldsmobile would hire workers off the street. Harold is a victim of the economic transition occurring in the "rustbelt" without a social safety net to help him and his family make the transition. 250 “If there was work, I think that would solve the whole situation. There are minimum-wage Jobs, but I worked for that in high school. YOu can't raise a family on that. . .That's the reason I went back to school. . .Everybody said first you need a high school diploma. Then I got a high school diploma and still didn't find nothing. Then I went to school. . .Hell, you gotta have a damn master's degree now Just to be a Janitor, you know, Just to sweep the floor.” . Some of the autoworkers on inverse seniority layoff will probably have to face economic crisis head-on in the not-too-distant future. Aware of this likelihood, some considered additional education as a bridge to alternative employment. While none of the laid-off autoworkers in my sample was in school during the period of layoff, a few considered it. Those who talked most about going back to school were those at mid-career. They had about 15 years' seniority and their plant's future was uncertain. (One informant told me the plant has no production schedule after 1990.) Their's was a decidedly different experience than an older generation of autoworkers also represented in my sample. The latter, with 25 to 30 years' seniority, entered the plants when the U.S. auto industry was prosperous. It sustained prosperity for most of their careers. They also entered when the demand for unskilled labor was high. Many had not completed high school (they didn't need to) and landed well-paying and largely secure employment in the plants. Some of their children had benefited in that they 251 were able to pay for their children's college education. The younger generation represented in this sample, by contrast, had completed high school, had traveled a much rockier road in their careers as autoworkers, and faced uncertainty in the future. The futures their children will have are also uncertain. Carl (035) considered going to school but hadn't settled on a program to pursue. “Right now I guess I'm kind of at a standstill what to decide about going back to school. I'm Just trying to figure out what area that it would be beneficial to go back to school in. Like I said, I do have background in computers and background in photo- graphy. . .but outside of going back in computers for my own personal standpoint, I don't really see taking courses and seeking employment in the computer field. At 35, I don't know if that would be something I'd want to do or not. I'm really kind of indecisive about it right now.“ Ted (039) had been enrolled at a nearby college, but because he lost the tuition assistance benefit by taking the inverse layoff (something he hadn't realized would happen when he volunteered for it), he dropped out for the period of the layoff. “The benefits of the courses did not outweigh the costs of tuition.“ But he also had a small tax preparation business that he wanted to try to build up during the layoff. If he could make a go of it, he thought he'd opt for self-employment instead of returning to General Motors. "I (will) be off during tax season and have a chance to really search 252 out to see if this would be a better profession for me. I've never really enJoyed working for GM. . .I'll be able to really research the thing and experience whether or not I would like to do that, (with the) option of going back to work. And if there was another cutback or layoff or something, I might consider selling my seniority and establishing my own business. . .I don't think GM is that dependable today. . .It's like bureaucracies in any area. . . the guy at the bottom, he's the one that always pays the prices. I'd like to be in a position where I don't have to live with that. . . I'm not married today. My kids are ‘ grown and married. I don't have the financial dependency on me. All I got's me. My child support's all paid up. I don't have any bills other than my house. Why shouldn't I consider it?“ Ted was the only autoworker with a realistic option of self—employment, but he was not alone among my informants in his dream of autonomy through self-employment. Mark (028), the gardener, did consulting work during the off-season. He showed me the layout of a flower bed he was designing for a local business. “It's a house with a bed that surrounds the house completely. . . there's a great big bed that sticks out to the east which is about 40' by 20', so I had to go out and measure the whole thing and plan the whole thing and find out where to get the stuff and then plan a watering system. I'm also doing (landscape renovation plans for several people). There's a lot of people out there who like and really want that connection with the grounds but they don't know quite enough about how to do it, so that's where I step in and either act as sort 253 of a consultant or a facilitator maybe. At this point I'm not set up to actually do the work. I'm not sure I'd want to. But I do like the planning end of it, so far.“ Mark expressed a strong need for balance between manual and mental labor. “Sometimes at the end of the winter when I've done this (design) for a while, the amount of detail, the sheer amount of detail, makes me want to go out and work. Then after I do that for a while I want to come in and do the detail. The only Job I've ever had that met both of those sets of requirements was the Job I had in Spokane at the arboretum. When I felt like going out and working, I went out and worked. And I felt like going out, looking at trees, I went out and looked at the trees. And when I felt like studying, I studied. I seem to be the kind of person who needs a rough 50/50 mix between intellectual and physical stuff. And I don't know of any Job that would allow me that. There's Just no such thing. It's either one or the other. Either you're beating your brains out physically or else you're beating your brains out with this stuff (planning). I get confused sometimes, you know. I tend to forget things. My head gets very noisy. When I'm out there, I get bored. I feel like I'm not being creative." While self-employment could provide a better balance of mental and manual labor, Mark was fearful that it could limit his temporal autonomy. I asked him if he thought going into business for himself would give him an opportunity to blend the two. 254 “I don't know any other way to do it. I Just don't. Around here. Although, it's frightening because, you know, at that point in your, I don't want to get sucked into getting married to a business. I'm hoping there's Just a process of experimentation that I can go through to find things that are, several things that are relatively mindless to do that are physical and find some other things that are stimulating to do that are mental. Neither of which will take so much time and be under the level at which I can sustain body and soul. But that I think is going to take some time to figure out exactly, you know, what those things are. I know one guy who goes around rototilling in the spring. He makes the equivalent of about 20 dollars an hour. His investment is about four thousand dollars for the truck and then a good tiller. That's a good example of the kind of thing I might choose to do as a supplemental part of a whole long thing. Now I'd be happy as a clam running around in the spring for six or eight weeks tilling people's gardens. . .But, and then I would switch at some point, if I was self-employed. I'd like to have a couple of (consultations) a year, a couple, maybe two or three. I'd like to have some pruning work to do in the winter and maybe some snow removal. So I think, hopefully, I would end up working maybe half time in the winter and Just go like hell from April to October. Which is what I tend to do anyway. And I think I would do that no matter what because I cannot resist going and planting flowers. I mean I would rather do that than be not tired. So, I think I would Just probably do that one way or the other.“ Diane (030) also thought about self—employment. She imagined running her own tailoring business out of her home. She wanted to set up a shop in her yard with a commercial 255 sewing machine and press rather than the home sewing machine and ironing board she ordinarily used for alterations. She also wanted a dressing room in the shop so customers wouldn't have to change clothes in the bathroom in her home. But the investment she would have to make in equipment and construction of the shop was prohibitive. Diane and her husband Just couldn't afford it, although she had not inquired about small business loans. The advantages to self-employment for Diane were that she could work her own hours and she wouldn't have to pay someone to care for her children. Working one's own hours certainly sounds attractive. Bill (024), however, wanted to terminate his self-owned accounting business because his work schedule was irregular, unbounded, and only provided him small blocks of free time which were inadequate to do some of the things he enJoyed, such as refinishing antiques. He complained that he had to schedule appointments with clients far enough apart to ensure adequate time to meet individual client's needs, but client business didn't always require all the time he allotted to the appointment. For example, Bill might schedule a client for a two-hour appointment and then find they could complete the transaction in one hour. Bill would then have an hour to wait until his next appointment--an hour in which he could do little but wait. Bill had come to prefer his free time in B-hour blocks so he could use the time more productively. 256 Bill continued to see some clients in his time off from his two-day-a-week Job-share position. But if that position became full time, which he hoped, he planned to discontinue his accounting business. This brief foray into my informants' dreams and experiences of self-employment may lead one to conclude that the grass is always greener on the other side. However, I think what it reveals is that people often dream that self- employment is the road to autonomy but that may not be the case. In today's competitive environment, where small businesses have a high mortality rate, it is often difficult to make a secure living operating a business. One may need to actively recruit clients and make oneself available to them on demand. One's own financial security requires that as do the debts incurred in getting the business off the ground. Such dependency on client needs can wreak havoc on the service provider's time and create a situation in which one becomes married to a business, as Mark put it. While on the face of it, one is autonomous because one doesn't have to adhere to the rules and regulations of an employer, there is little autonomy in being at the beck and call of clients on whom one must depend for financial security. How does reduced work relate to this? In Mark's and Ted's cases, it provided the opportunity to experiment. In the off-season Mark received unemployment benefits as did Ted during the layoff. Each had some degree of financial security that they didn't have to find a second Job per se. 25? They also had the security of returning to their regular Job. In the interim, Mark could “toy“ with self-employment and Ted could consider risking commitment to self- employment. For others in my sample who had alternative employment, whether it was a second Job in the formal economy or. activity in the informal economy, alternative employment was an effort to improve one's financial situation. This was especially true of temporaries and part-time workers. Harold (015) did “odd Jobs“ for people, particularly former landlords. He cleaned, repaired, and painted dwellings vacated by tenants before new tenants moved in. Vicki (023) babysat in addition to and between temporary placements while she waited to find steady employment commensurate with her training in data entry. Laura (022) worked at two Jobs, one temporary and one part-time, because she couldn't support herself and pay her school expenses on the income from 009 J0b-1 And Diane (030) continued to do some alterations at home in addition to her part-time tailoring Job to try to increase her income so she could pay for childcare in particular. 1 An interesting footnote to this case, especially for those concerned with the future of higher education. Laura had been a full-time student working toward a degree. She cut back to part time concerned with taking classes specific to her interest in dance. There were courses she was required to take in her degree program that did not interest her at all. She couldn't Justify paying for such courses when her income was so limited and difficult to come by. I wonder how many other students who must work their way through school have made or will make similar choices. And who will suffer in the long run, the student or the university or both? 258 What may be concluded from this discussion of education and alternative employment in relationship to reduced work? First, reduced work did provide the temporal autonomy for my informants who wanted to go to school to actually do so. Where there were limits, they were limits imposed not by time per se but by other responsibilities, such as childcare, or finances. To the extent that the financial limits were bound up with the low level of pay associated with certain types of reduced work, i.e. temporary and part- time, then reduced work did limit my informants' ability to pursue their educational goals. Regarding alternative employment, again reduced work provided the time but in some cases it created the need for more income. Some types of reduced work, particularly part-time and temporary, were inadequate for those supporting a family or supporting themselves without other financial assistance, whether that assistance came from parents, a second earner, or the state. 259 CHAPTER 12 Conclusion I began this study by examining four different types of reduced work: Job sharing, temporary employment, part-time employment, and work sharing (in this case, inverse seniority layoff). I explored my informants' reasons for working less than full time and their use of time off the Job. What this study suggests is that there are different time regimes associated with reduced work, and these time regimes coupled with a variety of intervening factors influenced my informants' selection of off-the-Job activities. In this concluding chapter, I will review these interrelationships to suggest that there are different types of autonomy associated with reduced work. Table 21 provides a summary of the important components in my argument. There were four identifiable time regimes associated with reduced work. Most of the Job sharers and some of the part-time workers had stable work schedules and substantial control over the determination of those schedules. A few Job sharers, some part-time workers, and some temporaries also had stable schedules but minimal control over them. Other part-time workers and temporaries had irregular schedules and minimal control over them such that working time became unpredictable. Finally, the work sharers on 260 ucemcwucoo vouwemon pouceaweum muewoofiea «Hanna Nmoc0u34 mo momma ucthOHoae wesuo cowueocvm euwuw>wuoe Hecowueaem eewuw>wuoe muwcsaaou cowueewuem anon oaoceesom eewuw>wuoe oeueaeu neaeno can camouflage mueue>euu< noauonuaeuo no see: muuoodsm Hewuom eeucowewewm Hecoeuem xmxooap Haaam\owuasv son on“ use «as» no cowueewcewwo huwawnewecas> \huwusuom Hewocecwh Ahoceocedeo mo eouweov cewoawnu oncogenes mo euceene \eocemuum euouuem wcwce>weucw .xueaasm .HN edema cu ocmuue cu eassonum xuoB oz Homecou oasoenum Heaacwa .easoocom weacweuwH Howucoo eacpesom Heaacwa .easoenue magnum Howucou easpesum Hewuceuense .oacvosoe oHAeum «maimem mafia Annexes muwwowcoe eewe>cav wcwwese xuoz oceahoaoae eawuluwmm oceahoamae auewonaea wcawesm non awe: toasted mo mocha 261 inverse seniority layoff had no work schedule to attend to for the period of the layoff and maximal control of their ‘time. One of the work sharers, Paul (037) summarized well the influence of work schedules on time off the Job. “. . .the whole idea of it is not so much how much time you put in there but how much you have to dedicate yourself to put the time in. Whenever you get out, instead of going home and saying, 'I'm done for another day,' I know that I would say, 'I have to plan for tomorrow'. . .And even though you're not in the plant, you're still having to regulate yourself to it, to the fact that you're gonna have to get up and go in again. It's really amazing. My Job was a very easy Job. I could finish up in four hours eight hours' production. . .But even then, you Just, you still have to regulate yourself. And even when your time was your own, you're still regulating your mind to the fact that you have to go in the next day.“ The necessity to attend to a work schedule has a psychological effect, as described by Paul, such that the work schedule is at the center of one's temporal life. But work schedules also have a concrete effect on time off the Job. To the extent that schedules are stable and of one's own making, work schedules can be made to accommodate off- the-Job activities and perhaps lose some of their power in the process. Stable schedules, whether determined by the worker or not, create stable time off the Job such that one can plan off-the-Job activities. When work schedules are irregular and not subJect to the worker's control, they limit selection of off-the-Job activities and are a 262 hindrance to regular, planned activities. Thus, the activities selected tend to be those that can be taken up rather spontaneously and without commitment for relatively long periods of time. The quantity and organization of time off the Job also influenced my informants' selection of off-the-Job activities. Large blocks of time, for example, provided the temporal opportunity to pursuetime-consuming proJects that would not be an option if only small blocks of time were available. The organization of time off the Job was one of several important intervening factors in my informants' selection of off~the-Job activities. The presence (or absence) and relative ages of dependent children were maJor influences on off-the-Job activities, although their influence differed for men and women. Women talked almost exclusively about children's need for care and time, while men often equated children and financial responsibility. Thus, to the extent that children were viewed as inhibitors of autonomy off the Job, they placed limits on women's time and men's money. However, children enhanced autonomy off the Job to the extent that their presence provided options for self- development through child-related community and recreational activities. My sample exhibited considerable gender asymmetry with regard to childcare. With few exceptions, women were the primary caretakers of children. If Chodorow's theory is correct, we continue to reproduce 263 mothering such that feminine personality is defined in terms of relation and connection and masculine personality negates that which is feminine. Reduced work as it is organized currently buttresses asymmetrical gender relations more than it challenges them. Informants' financial status influenced their selection of off-the-Job activities. Some activities simply are not options if one doesn't have the money to pursue them. This is especially true of expensive commodities like education and travel. Those who were most limited financially were informants who worked few hours at low-paying Jobs, many of whom worked irregularly as temporaries or part time, the latter particularly in retail trade. Financial insecurity in these cases led some informants to consider using their time off the Job to work at a second Job. For some of my informants, autonomy off the Job was enhanced by the presence of a second earner in the home. This created a degree of financial security that the informant otherwise may not have had. All informants, though, even those who reported earning as much as $40,000 a year, were concerned about financial limitations. In a market economy such as ours, money is the ticket to paradise. And in a society that values consumption as much as we do, for many there's Just never enough money. Finally, the selection of off-the-Job activities was influenced by intervening factors such as personal preferences and the presence (or absence) of social 264 supports. Both of these, however, were gender-loaded. Personal preferences varied for men and women. In areas related to childcare, household work, and recreation, social definitions of gender-appropriateness influenced their preferences. The presence of social supports, for example in the form of substitute childcare, the availability of friends or family with whom to pursue various activities, and the existence of social institutions such as a weekend graduate degree program, also shaped my informants' off-the- Job options. The varied time regimes associated with reduced work coupled with the influence of an array of intervening factors produced several different types of autonomy off the Job. Thus, it is inaccurate to argue that reduced work does or does not foster autonomy off the Job. Instead, autonomy off the Job is problematic and the relationship between reduced work and autonomy is complex. I have identified five different types of autonomy associated with reduced work. These are ideal types constructed on the basis of data provided by my informants. I treat them here as distinct categories, however, in reality they may intersect one another and may be further influenced by the sorts of intervening factors I discussed above. The identification of these theoretical categories is an indication of the success of grounded theory as a method of qualitative research. Their identification provides 265 insight into the varied off-the-Job experiences of those who work less than full time, but they should be understood as a first step in the theoretical understanding of reduced work and autonomy, not the final product. Grounded theory is open-ended and responsive to insights gained from data. In its ideal form, grounded theoretical research is an ongoing process in which core variables are identified and shift as the researcher gains more insight into his/her problem. The present study should be understood within the limitations of dissertation research, research bounded by categories and variables specified in the research proposal and bounded by time. A dissertation rooted in the tradition of grounded theory must be understood as a report on research in progress. For example, if this study were carried forward the researcher's focus might shift from the four types of reduced work with which I began to the different time regimes I identified. The researcher might also seek to broaden the study to include less—than-full-time employment in more diverse settings as well as full-time work and individuals without wage-paying Jobs. The researcher might also want to shift his/her focus to the household to articulate a better understanding of the spheres of necessity and autonomy there. The five types of autonomy associated with reduced work are: stable, temporary, fragmented, deferred, and contingent. Stable autonomy is associated with stable work schedules and lends itself to regular and planned off-the— 266 Job activities. When that stable schedule is a less-than- full-time schedule and subJect to the worker's determination, it maximizes the worker's opportunities for off-the-Job activities over long periods of time. This is an important contrast with temporary autonomy. Temporary autonomy is associated with the experiences of the laid-off autoworkers in my study. On the surface they appear maximally autonomous because they have no work schedules to attend to, but that autonomy will contract as soon as they must return to work. And their ordinarily rigid full-time work schedules will limit their autonomy off the Job. Fragmented autonomy is associated with unpredictable and irregular work schedules. Such time regimes create sometimes large, sometimes small, but difficult to anticipate amounts of time off the Job. The fragmented and unpredictable nature of time off the Job in this case limits the selection of off-the-Job activities to those that can be taken up spontaneously and molded to the available time. Deferred autonomy characterizes the experiences of those who, because the needs of young children take priority and/or because of financial limitations, must put off until tomorrow something they would like to do today. If this were a question only of self-determined priorities, I would not see it as a problem. But to the extent that deferred autonomy is the product of socially determined ideas and relations of gender, it is a problem. It is also a problem when that which is deferred is sacrificed as an option for 267 self-fulfillment. Granted, no one can have it all in this life, but to the extent that social structures curb options unnecessarily, those social constraints should be removed. Finally, there is the type of autonomy that I call contingent autonomy. This type of autonomy accurately characterizes the experiences of those informants in my study whose autonomy off the Job was fostered by financial security provided by a second earner or the discretionary approval of supervisors. It is a type of autonomy that could too easily be lost if the supports that permit it were suddenly removed. Because those whose autonomy is contingent must be concerned with the approval of others, their autonomy isn't really autonomy at all. What should one conclude from this definition of different types of autonomy associated with reduced work? Of the five, stable autonomy is probably the most desirable, and stable autonomy free of the gender and hierarchical relations that give rise to deferred and contingent autonomy. Such autonomy can be fostered by the more equitable distribution of childcare responsibilities, household work, and money income between men and women; more equitable power relations on the Job (in this case, especially regarding the determination of work schedules), and more secure employment and pay for those currently employed as contingent or marginal workers. What does this discussion of types of autonomy imply for our understanding of Gorz's vision of the dual society 268 and particularly his conceptualization of the sphere of autonomy? He understands autonomy in a formal sense suggesting that control of time and use of time for creative expression and self-development only begin to be possible outside the sphere of heteronomous work. The types of autonomy discussed above suggest that the so~called sphere of autonomy is actually a sphere of greater and lesser degrees of substantive autonomy influenced by factors like the nature of one's work schedule and the extent to which one determines that schedule, organization of time off the Job, the presence of dependent children, finances, and the availability of social supports. To the extent that these intersect with the sex/gender system and segmented labor markets, these macrostructural social relations affect autonomy off the Job. Gorz recognizes that a cultural infrastructure must exist to foster creative use of time, which might include the availability of libraries; places for artistic expression; and open spaces for communication, circulation, and exchange. While an infrastructure of the sort he describes would certainly enhance the opportunities for creative expression, he underemphasizes elements of the cultural infrastructure that could inhibit individuals' ability to use the facilities and social space he wants to provide. My research shows clear evidence that some time regimes associated with reduced work permitted more enriching time off the Job than others. Irregular and unpredictable schedules detracted from autonomy off the Job 269 by fragmenting free time and, therefore, circumscribing its use. The types of reduced work most associated with irregular and unpredictable schedules were precisely those that are increasing most rapidly today, part-time employment, particularly in retail trade, and temporary employment. Unless individuals control their work schedules, one's Job will continue to dominate time off the Job even if the amount of working time is substantially less than the amount of time off the Job.1 The existence of deferred and contingent autonomy also reflects weaknesses in the cultural infrastructure that curb autonomy despite reduced working time. In my sample, these types of autonomy were associated largely although not exclusively with the experiences of women. Some women with dependent children deferred recreational and educational pursuits while their children were young and their care required considerable time. Other women, desperate to blend wage work and family life, experimented with Job sharing even if this introduced an element of vulnerability to their security as workers and added to their supervisor's power. And their ability to trade-off income for time was fostered 1 In all fairness to Gorz, he does address this issue when he cites the authors of La Revolgtion d3 Temps Chgisi ° stating that it is necessary to abolish compulsory working hours 'so that each individual has real freedom to choose when he or she wants to work.‘ "We need to 'get away from the universal productivist inJunction', 'the system of prefabricated timetables'. 'Every wage earner must be given the possibility of reducing his or her own worktime (and pay); the employers should have the right to reJect this only in a limited number of specifically defined and controlled circumstances'" (Gorz 1982, p. 139). 270 by the presence of a second earner in the home. If it is the case that women shoulder disproportionately the burdens of deferral and contingency, then a cultural infrastructure must be created to redistribute that burden. Gorz advocates the development of neighborhood services as an alternative to currently institutionalized services that he believes destroy the fabric of interpersonal relations, and such neighborhood services could be the source of substitute dependent care which could free women's time for educational, recreational, and artistic pursuits. While this might begin to interrupt patriarchal gender relations, it doesn't go far enough if all of the neighborhood caregivers are women. As Chodorow's theory implies, as long as caregiving remains women's responsibility, the cultural infrastructure will discourage men from developing capacities for nurturance and gender asymmetries will persist. In addition, without some redistribution of power between supervisors and workers and redistribution of income between men and women, women's autonomy will be inauthentic. Gorz sees women as the vanguard of the post—industrial revolution, reJecting the productivist ethic for time spent in nurturing relations with others. My female Job sharers and some part-time workers certainly made this choice, but are they pioneers forging the way to a new society or are they trapped by contradictions in the present? As much as I would like to believe the former, it is difficult not to be cynical. With prevailing definitions of gender giving 271 primary responsibility for childcare to women, are women who choose to work less than full time at a wage-paying Job actively reJecting a productivist ethic or are they simply doing what they are supposed to do as women? Feminist values have certainly gained a foothold in the society, but they remain politically contested and they are far from hegemonic. Given this political culture, are women who work less than full time a revolutionary vanguard or misfits in a culture that values full-time wage work? As some of the Job sharers in my sample noted, they had to struggle to obtain their Job-share arrangements but may be stigmatized or demoted for winning this privilege. This doesn't strike me as a group around which others are likely to rally. Their relative powerlessness and lack of organization render them ineffectual as leaders despite the apparent progressivism of their Job-sharing experiments. But the Job sharers, despite areas of vulnerability, are protected somewhat from supervisory caprice by civil service employment regulations and labor union representation. This accords them relatively more power than many of the part-time and temporary workers in my sample. The part-time workers and temporaries remain most vulnerable to the vicissitudes of the market and without union protection have little power to guard their positions as workers. The laid-off autoworkers in my sample are perhaps the most powerful of the four groups studied here. Despite the vulnerability of those at mid-career who may 272 face Job loss in the not-too-distant future, for now their Jobs are protected as are their incomes and benefits. True, the UAW has lost membership and strength coincident with the auto companies' efforts to reorganize, but the UAW remains one of the most powerful unions in the nation and rests on a foundation of hard-won rights for workers. There is a safety net in place for the autoworkers that simply does not exist for most part-time and temporary workers. Perhaps the autoworkers are the vanguard for they have refused socialized labor--at least for the period of time they volunteered to be laid off--and they represent a legacy of union struggle that has gained benefits approximating a social income of the sort Gorz envisions. Yet they are far from a feminist vanguard and, therefore, unlikely to lead us to Gorz's post-industrial future. Another important question for purposes of evaluating Gorz's theory is, does the non-class exist? My sample was not selected to assess the concept of the non-class per se, but it may provide an answer to the question Just the same. To reiterate, Gorz (1982, pp. 68-69) defines the non-class as encompassing those expelled from production by the abolition of work and those whose capacities are underemployed. It includes all those potentially and actually unemployed, permanently or temporarily, partially or completely. They lack Job security and a class identity, and this “neo-proletariat“ is generally overqualified for the Jobs it finds. While the issue of class identity is one 273 I cannot address because my data are inadequate for that purpose, Gorz's definition certainly pertains to most of the part-time and temporary workers in my sample. But the Job sharers and work sharers do not fit so neatly his definition. Their Job security is relatively greater than that of the part-time workers and temporaries for reasons of labor market segment and seniority rights. Gorz (1982, p. 72) asserts that the neo-proletariat defines its own subJectivity through the refusal of socialized labor and implies that this refusal is motivated by work-based alienation. He states (Gorz 1982, p. 71), “ . .neo-proletarians are basically non-workers temporarily doing something that means nothing to them.“ In turn, this post-industrial proletariat seeks to appropriate areas of autonomy outside and in opposition to the logic of society for purposes of individual development (Gorz 1982, p. 73). The work sharers in my sample expressed evidence of worker alienation and their volunteering for the inverse layoff was an act of refusal of socialized labor. While a few part-time workers and temporaries preferred reduced work because they valued their time off the Job, many wanted regular, steady, full-time employment because they needed the income. In those cases, reduced work did not represent a refusal of socialized labor so much as making do with what came one's way. And in cases where informants worked 40- hour weeks as part-time and temporary workers, their work schedules inhibited their ability to appropriate areas of 274 autonomy, even if they were so inclined. The female Job sharers' refusal of socialized labor was not the product of worker alienation but gender-related responsibilities rooted in their definition of the meaning of motherhood. Yet they valued their wage-paying Jobs. Employment was a source of identity because it gave them a public role in a society that values wage-paying work more than privatized unpaid work. My sample shows some evidence that a non-class exists, but its subJectivity is underdeveloped and what desires for autonomy exist stem from both work-related alienation and gender-related responsibilities. The most marginally employed among the part-time and temporary workers, even if they desired greater autonomy, could not afford it. Their employment was sufficiently insecure and their pay inadequate that they sought second Jobs and hoped to one day find secure, full-time employment. The differences in pay, benefits, and employment security experienced by my informants reflect differences in reduced work in various labor market segments. Those employed in manufacturing are the beneficiaries of what remains of the postwar capital-labor accord when increases in productivity were passed on to workers in the form of higher wages and benefits. Those employed in the public sector are the beneficiaries of wage determination practices that linked the public sector to wage levels in the unionized private sector. But part-time workers, 275 particularly those without union representation, and temporary employees make a precarious living at best. The state could certainly establish policy to minimize the effects of labor market segmentation by mandating an increase in the minimum wage and requiring employers to provide benefits to their part-time and temporary workers. The former is on the horizon, but the latter seems unlikely given that employers use part-time and temporary workers in part to avoid paying benefits. Such a public policy, however, would be consistent with Gorz's vision of the administrative state in the post-industrial future. Following Marx, Gorz (1982, pp. 114-115) sees the role of the state apparatus to ensure that everyone has the necessities of life and to define the amount of socially necessary labor required from each individual. Yet these coordinating activities of the state must be preserved at the same time that its powers of domination are abolished and it checks the power of classes or groups in society to dominate other groups. In executing its responsibility to define and allocate socially necessary labor time but doing so with restricted power, the state avoids imposing work- time reduction and more free time on individuals. Instead, people are empowered to take more free time if they want it (Gorz 1982, p. 137). But to ensure that gender asymmetries in free time do not persist, thereby checking the power of men to dominate women, Gorz's administrative state would have to incorporate nurturing work, like child and dependent 276 care, into its definition of socially necessary labor and monitor the distribution of this work across men and women. Today the state has not taken an active role in promoting the redistribution of wage work through work-time reduction, except with regard to short-time compensation. On both the federal and state levels there persists faith in the ability of the economy to grow and generate Jobs, although strategies for stimulating economic growth vary from state to state and between state and federal government. The track record of the 1980s, however, with considerable growth in part-time and temporary employment and unemployment rates that remain unacceptably high to all but those who are prepared to revise upward the rate of unemployment associated with full employment, suggests such thinking is naive. The last time the U.S. federal government wrestled with the issue of generalized work-time reduction was in the late 1970s after U.S. Representative John Conyers (D-Michigan) introduced legislation to amend the Fair Labor Standards A9t°2 Conyers' bill proposed (1) reduction of the standard 5"§:5;;a‘:5:5'735‘5n Jun. 25, 1933, by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, to become effective October 24, 1938, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) has been called the “cornerstone“ of federal labor legislation (McGaughey 1981, p. 252) and has been assessed as ”second only to the Social Security Act in significance“ (Elder and Miller 1979, p. 11). The FLSA established the minimum wage, maximum hours, and premium pay for overtime. For accounts of the'politics surrounding the formulation and passage of the act, see Orme Wheelock Phelps, The Legislative Background of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1939; Jonathan Grossman, "Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938: Maximum Struggle for a Minimum Wage,“ Monthly Labor Review, 101 (6) June, 1978: 22-30; and Ronnie Steinberg, Wages and 277 workweek to 37 1/2 hours, effective January 1, 1981, and 35 hours, effective January 1, 1983: (2) increase in premium pay for overtime from time-and-one-half to double-time; and (3) prohibition of mandatory overtime. Proponents argued that a generalized reduction of the workweek would decrease unemployment and offset the social costs of unemployment: combat technological unemployment: relieve stress on the Job, thereby improving morale and productivity: decrease absenteeism: and improve the quality of life off the Job. They believed it could also help conserve energy if work- time reduction decreased commuting and permitted buildings to be closed part of each week. By employing more people, income tax revenues would increase as would net consumption demand. Opponents, however, believed generalized work-time reduction would increase labor costs and bring about a decline in productivity if unqualified persons were employed. It would be inflationary because increased labor costs would lead to an increase in prices which, paradoxically, might exacerbate unemployment in the long run Hours: Labor Reform in Twentieth-Century America, New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1982. For discussions of the history of the FLSA, particularly its enforcement record and amendments, see Peyton K. Elder and Heidi D. Miller, “The Fair Labor Standards Act: Changes of Four Decades," Monthly Labor Review 102 (7) July, 1979: 10- 16; and William McGaughey, Jr., A Shorter Workweek in the 19805, White Bear Lake, Minn.: Thistlerose Publications, 1981, pp. 252-256. For a discussion of the effect of state maximum hours laws and the overtime provisions of the FLSA on women, see Ronnie Steinberg Ratner, “The Paradox of Protection: Maximum Hours Legislation in the United States," International Labogr Review 119 (2) March-April, 1980: 185-198. 278 if employers tried to offset higher labor costs with increased mechanization. Further, a reduction of the workweek would increase multiple Job holding. A legislated reduction, they believed, interferes with the operation of the collective bargaining system (U.S. Congress, House of Representatives 1979). Economists generally criticize efforts to reduce the workweek because such efforts assume the amount of:work in a society is fixed. They argue that the amount of work to be done can be increased if the economy expands (McGaughey 1981, p. 109). The political contest over reduction of the workweek reached a stalemate; the bill never progressed beyond committee hearings (McGaughey 1981, p. 256).3 The strategy to promote economic growth adopted by the Reagan administration has been to reduce taxes and economic regulation to stimulate investment. In Michigan such “supply-side“ efforts have been coupled with an increasingly acclaimed corporatist strategy. including development of a targeted industries program and creation of a public—private investment fund, to generate economic growth.4 Legislation 3 For further discussion of the pros and cons of work-time reduction see Rolande Cuvillier, The Reduction gf Working Time. Geneva: International Labour Office, 1984; Ronald G. Ehrenberg and Paul L. Schumann, Longer Hogrs or Mgre Jobs? An Investigatign 9f Amending Hours Legislation to Create Emgloyment. Ithaca, New York: New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University, 1982; and William McGaughey, Jr., A Shorter Workweek in the 1980s. White Bear Lake, Minn.: Thistlerose Publications, 1981. 4 For overviews and evaluations of Michigan's economic development policy see Charles Bartsch, Reaching for Recovery, Washington, D.C.: Northeast-Midwest Institute, 1985, and Richard Child Hill and Cynthia Negrey, "The 279 introduced in 1983 to create a short-time compensation plan in Michigan, the only work-time reduction issue state legislators have dealt with recently, died in committee. What support for work-time reduction exists in Michigan or at the federal level encourages experimentation with flexible time options among public sector employees. Such policy seems particularly responsive to the needs of female employees, but it also has the consequence of marginalizing them. Clearly, government lacks any comprehensive time policy in its efforts to manage economic transition. But issues and conflicts around time will persist if not because of unemployment and slow economic growth then because women will continue to be active participants in the paid labor force. We as a society must face the fact that the 1950s “cult of domesticity“ no longer exists, and our social institutions must be altered to reflect that fact. Employers must become more responsive to the needs of “working parents.“ This might include a redefinition of the full-time workweek to 9:00 to 3:00 Monday through Friday to coincide with the hours children are in school.5 Flexible 56TifTE§"67'IEHJEEFTST'PSTi5§'ifi'fii657§557"’557'lT§=T§8'ifi' Industrigl Pgligy: Business and Politics in the United States and France, edited by Sharon Zukin. New York: Praeger, 1985. Favorable appraisals of Michigan's strategy appeared in Inc. Magazine in October, 1987, and March, 1988. 5 The power of capital to resist reductions in working time, however, is reflected in the trend today to extend the hours during which children are at school. I am referring especially to the growth of before- and after-school care provided by some school systems (at cost to parents) particularly in affluent areas. There has also been some discussion of extending the school year through the summer. 280 hours should be available to the parents of pre-school-age children and those who don't want to work full time. Work on weekends and at night should be optional. Employer- provided benefits might include on-site childcare and/or childcare allowances to pay part of the cost of childcare as well as paid parental leaves for parents of new infants and ill children. Dependent care coverage might be an option available to employees caring for aging and ailing parents. These benefits could be supplements to or substitutes for publicly provided child and dependent care. Such work schedules and benefits would recognize that the sphere of necessity extends beyond the place of employment to the household and that time off the Job includes obligated as well as unobligated time. While a feminist conception of full-time employment and employer-provided benefits doesn't address the problem of gender asymmetries in household work and caregiving, they may be a step in the right direction if they apply equally to women and men. The final theoretical issue that this study deals with is the relationship between reduced work and community. Could reduced work foster reconstruction and renewal of community? While my study provides an inconclusive answer to this question, I think it could. With a few exceptions, reduced work for my informants generally enhanced relational activities. They had more time to spend with partners, These trends suggest it is the public schools that will be the providers of substitute childcare for working parents. 281 other family members, and friends and, although not true across the board, believed relationships benefited from informants' ability to devote more time and energy to them. For those interested in community activities, reduced work facilitated that involvement when work schedules were stable and predictable. It inhibited such participation if it prevented informants from making commitments. Because voluntary associations can be spheres of democratic participation, reduced work should be organized to encourage such participation.5 Currently, two models of relation and community seem to be on the rise, neither of which fulfills the vision of communitarian autonomy suggested in chapter 2. The first, which I call the corporate model, places the corporation at the center of community and equates the corporation with community. The corporation is the community. This is advocated by writers such as Robert B. Reich (1983) who want to borrow Japanese corporate practices and apply them in the U.S. This includes making the corporation a social service deliverer. Reich promotes a dismantling of the welfare state and transfer of its responsibilities to corporations. This model extends the power and domination of capital even 6 Voluntary associations may be conservative forces in society, reinforcing the status quo, or they may be the organizational base from which grow movements for democratic social change. In either case, they can provide opportunities for autonomous citizen participation. Regarding voluntary associations as sources of democratic social change, see Sara M. Evans and Harry C. Boyte, Free Sgaces: The Sources gf,Demgcratig Chgflge in America. New York: Harper and Row, 1986. 282 further into the sphere of community, thus threatening community autonomy. Reich has an answer to this: workers control corporate welfare programs. But this is insufficient given that even worker-controlled corporate welfare programs would remain hostage to the vicissitudes of the profit motive and hierarchical corporate relations. Corporate control of workers could increase under this model if workers' social safety net is attached to their performance as workers. Another manifestation of the corporate model of community comes in the guise of corporate health and recreation programs for workers. This is exemplified by those companies that provide such perquisites as tennis courts and aerobics classes for their employees. Although I do not mean to dismiss any humanitarian motives on the part of companies in providing such programs, the primary rationale behind them is cost efficiency. Corporations today bear a maJor burden in health care costs for their insured employees and promoting healthy lifestyles might be a strategy to reduce the costs of health care for employees. I have no obJections to healthy living, but I do obJect to corporate-dominated models of community. As stated previously, employees who use these services remain subordinate to the interests of the corporation. Further, not all workers in the society are or will be attached to corporate employers and they would be excluded from the corporate community. Few small businesses can afford to 283 develop recreation programs of the sort Just described or provide social welfare programs to their employees. The second model of relation and community which is on the rise today is the therapeutic model. Therapy is part and parcel of the quest for relation and community in an increasingly individualistic society. The therapist may be a substitute for significant others missing in one's life or may (it is hoped) provide assistance in finding relation and community. Adelmann (1987) recently has documented the increase in the percentage of Americans who sought mental health care between 1957 and 1976, from 4 to 13 percent. Still a minority of the population, the rate of increase (more than 200 percent in a 20-year period) reflects, she argues, the greater availability of mental health services: changes in the way Americans think about their own well being; and cultural changes, especially greater'affluence, rootlessness and isolation from one's extended family, and the decline of church and community as social influences. Therapy, however, may not be an adequate substitute for significant social bonds. First, the relationship is contractual; and second, it is asymmetrical, focused on the client. Further, it is an unequal relationship circumscribed in time and space by the therapist. In the language of social psychologist Charles Horton Cooley, the therapeutic relationship is a secondary relationship--an inadequate substitute for the primary relationship for which the client may be searching. 284 The therapeutic model is also an extension of the value of bourgeois individualism in advanced capitalist society. As such, it tends to focus on individuals as the cause of their own problems and cannot entertain social solutions to personal problems. Indeed, therapy itself is a product of advanced capitalism, yet further extension of the market into profitable areas of service delivery.7 In Civilization and its Discontents, Freud argued that humans require a balance of work and love. Psychologists today continue to trumpet balanced lives for individual well being. Yet it takes time to pursue the varied activities that constitute a balanced life. When we spend most of our waking hours at work, even if it is a Job we enJoy, and the rest of our hours recovering and preparing for the next day, or catching up at a feverish pace on household activities, our lives are necessarily one-sided. The experiences of the informants in this study suggest that reduced work can provide the increased time necessary to build balanced lives. But reduced work doesn't do this by definition. Social practices and institutions must change to provide 7 For a critical discussion of therapy in modern American society, see Robert N. Bellah, Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven M. Tipton, Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Eife. New York: Perennial Library (Harper and Row), 1986. They argue that therapy takes for granted the institutions and organizations of advanced industrial society and “helps" individuals maneuver within those institutions. Despite its orientation to encouraging the development of autonomous persons, it is blind to the ways in which social institutions circumscribe autonomy. Because of this myopia, therapy rarely encourages individuals to Join together to change social institutions. 285 greater financial security to those who don't have it and greater personal autonomy to those whose autonomy is limited by social convention. I have strayed a long way from the central question of this study, the relationship between reduced work and autonomy. I have argued that their relationship is complex, that the varied time regimes associated with reduced work and a number of intervening factors influence autonomy off the Job. I have also suggested that greater autonomy off the Job may be a vehicle for the reconstruction of community. Reconstructing community at the local level and building community at the international level may be our most urgent enterprise today. In the nuclear age, our survival as a species depends on it. 286 REFERENCES REFERENCES Scholarly Books and Articles Abel, Emily. 1977. “The Professional Proletariat: Teachers in California Colleges.“ Radical Teacher (July): 1-13. Adler, Paul. 1986. “Technology and Us.” Socialist Review (January-February): 67-96. Appelbaum, Eileen. 1987. “Restructuring Work: Temporary, Part-Time, and At-Home Employment.“ Pp. 268-310 in Comguter Chigs and Pager Cligs: Technology and Women's Emgloyment, edited by Heidi I. Hartmann. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Arkin, William and Lynne Dobrofsky. 1978. “Job Sharing." Pp. 122-137 in Working Cougles, edited by Rhona Ne Rapoport and Robert Rapoport. New York: Harper and Row/Rutledge. Beer, William. 1983. Househusbands. South Hadley, Mass.: Bergin and Garvey. Bell, Daniel. 1973. The Coming of ngt-Ingggtrigl Sgciety. New York: Basic Books. Bellah, Robert N., Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven M. Tipton. 1985. Habits of the Hggrt: Indiviggalism egg Commitment in American Life. New York: Perennial Library (Harper and Row). Bennett, Roy and Frank Riessman. 1984. ”Is It Time for the Four-Day Work Week?“ Social Pglicy 15 (Summer): inside cover. Bergmann, FrithJof. "The Future of Work." Praxis International. (personal copy) Berk, Richard and Sarah Fenstermaker Berk. 1979. Labor and Leisure at Home: antent and Orggnizatign of the Household Dgy. Beverly Hills: Sage. Berk, Sarah Fenstermaker, editor. 1980. Women and Household Labor. Beverly Hills: Sage. 287 Berk, Sarah Fenstermaker. 1985. The Gender Factory: The Aggortionment of Work in American Households. New York: Plenum. Best, Fred. 1978. “Recycling People: Work-sharing Through Flexible Life Scheduling.“ Futurist 12 (February): 4-17. Best, Fred. .1980. Flexible Life Scheduling: Breaking the Education-Work-Retirement Locksteg. New York: Praeger. Best, Fred. 1981. Work Sharing: Issues. Policy Ogtions, and Prosgects. Kalamazoo, Mich.: W.E. UpJohn Institute for Employment Research. Block, Fred. 1984. “The Myth of Reindustrialization.“ Socialist Review (January-February): 59-76. Braverman, Harry. 1974. Labor and Monogoly Cagital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. NewLYork: Monthly Review Press. Brazer, Harvey E. and Deborah 5. Laren. 1982. Michigan's Fiscal and Economic Structure. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press. .Cassimatis, Emmanuel. 1979. “Mental Health Viewed as an Ideal.“ Psychiatry 42 (August): 241-254. Chodorow, Nancy. 1978. The Regroduction of Mothering. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press. Cleaver, Harry. 1979. Reading Cagital Politically. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press. Cohen, Mitchell. 1983. “Farewell to the Working Class (Book Review).“ New Pglitical Science 12 (Summer): 107- 115. Cohen, Stephen S. and John Zysman. 1987. Manufacturing Matters: The Myth 9f Post-Industrialism. New York: Basic Books. Cooley, Charles Horton. 1962. Social Organization. New York: Schocken. Cowan, Ruth Schwartz. 1983. More Work fgr Mgthgg. New York: Basic Books. Crowley, R.W. and E. Huth. 1983. "An International Comparison of Work Sharing Programs.“ Relations Industriellgg/Industrigl Relgtions 38 (3): 636-647. 288 Cuvillier, Rolande. 1984. The Reduction of Working Time. Geneva: International Labour Office. ' Deem, Rosemary. 1986. All Work and No Plgy? A Study of Women and Leisure. Milton Keynes, England and Philadelphia, Pa.: Open University Press. DiFazio, William. 1985. Longshoremen: Community and Resistance on the Brooklyn Waterfront. South Hadley, Mass.: Bergin and Garvey Publishers, Inc. Eberhardt, B.J. and A.B. Shani. 1984. “The Effects of , Full-Time Versus Part-Time Employment Status on Attitudes Toward Specific Organizational Characteristics and Overall Job Satisfaction.“ Academy of Management Journal 27 (4): 893-900. Edsforth, Ronald. 1987. Class ngfligt and Cultural Consensus: The Making of a Mass Consumer Society in Flint, Michigan. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press. Edwards, Richard. 1979. Contested Terrgin: Thg Transformation of the Workglace in the Twentieth Century. New York: Basic Books. Ehrenberg, Ronald G. and Paul L. Schumann. 1982. Longer Hours or More Jobs? An Investigation of Amending Hours Legislation to Create Emgloyment. Ithaca, N.Y.: ILR Press. Evans, Sara M. and Harry C. Boyte. 1986. Free Sgaces: The Sources of Democratic Change in America. New York: Harper and Row. Faunce, William A. and Robert Dubin. 1975. “Individual Investment in Working and Living.“ Pp. 299-316 in Ihg Qgglity 9f Working Life, edited by Louis E. Davis and Albert B. Cherns. New York: Free Press. Fay, Brian. 1987. Critiggl Social Science. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Fine, Sidney. 1969. Sit Down: ThgiGeneral Motors Strike of 1936-37. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press. Forester, Tom, ed. 1985. The Information Technology Revolution. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Fox, Mary Frank and Sharlene Hesse-Biber. 1984. Women At Work. Palo Alto, Calif.: Mayfield Publishing Co. 289 Freud, Sigmund. 1961. Civilization and its Discontents. New York: W.W. Norton and Co., Inc. Gannon, Martin J. 1975. “Management of Peripheral Employees.“ Personnel Journal 54 (September): 482-486. Gans, Herbert. 1985. “Toward the 32-hour Workweek.“ Social Policy 15 (Winter): 58-61. Gardiner, Jean. 1979. “Women's Domestic Labor.“ Pp. 173- 189 in Cagitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Socialist Feminism, edited by Zillah R. Eisenstein. New York: Monthly Review Press. Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In A Different Voice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Gilligan, Carol. 1987. “Moral Orientation and Moral Development.“ Pp. 19-33 in Women and Moral Theory, edited by Eva Feder Kittay and Diana T. Meyers. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Littlefield. Glaser, Barney G. and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago, Ill.: Aldine. Gordon, David M., Richard Edwards, and Michael Reich. 1982. Se mented Work Divided Workers:‘ The Historical ILEQELQngtignggf Labor in the U.S. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gorz, Andre. 1980. Ecology as Politics. Boston: South End Press. Gorz, Andre. 1982. Farewell to the Working Class. Boston: South End Press. Gorz, Andre. 1985. Paths to Paradise: 0n the Liberation fggm_flg£k. Boston: South End Press. Gronseth, Eric. 1975. “Work Sharing Families: Adaptations of Pioneering Families with Husband and Wife in Part-Time Employment.“ Acta Sociologica 18 (2-3): 202-221. Hartmann, Heidi I. 1981. “The Family as the Locus of Gender, Class, and Political Struggle: The Example of Housework.“ Signs 6 (3): 366-394. Haworth, Lawrence. 1986. Autonomy: An Essay in Philosophigal ngcholggy and Ethics. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. 290 Helson, Ravenna, Valory Mitchell, and Barbara Hart. 1985. “Lives of Women Who Became Autonomous.“ Journal of Personality 53 (2): 257-285. Hewlett, Sylvia Ann. 1986. A Lesser Life: The Myth of Women's Liberation in America., New York: William Morrow and Co., Inc. Hill, Richard Child and Cynthia Negrey. 1985. “The Politics of Industrial Policy in Michigan.“ Pp. 119-138 in Industrial Policy: Business and Politics in the United States and France, edited by Sharon Zukin. New York: Praeger. Hill, Thomas E., Jr. 1987. “The Importance of Autonomy.“ Pp. 129-138 in Women and Moral Theory, edited by Eva Feder Kittay and Diana T. Meyers. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Littlefield. Jones, Barry. 1982. SleepersI Wake! Technology and the Future of Work. Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press. Jones, Bryan D. and Lynn W. Bachelor with Carter Wilson. 1986.. The Sustaining Hand: Community Leadership and Corporate Power. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas. Kahne, Hilda. 1985. Reconceiving Part-Time Work: New Perspectivgs fgr Olggr Wgrkers and Women. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Allanheld. Kant, Immanuel. 1964. Groundwork pf the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated and analysed by H.J. Paton. New York: Harper Torchbooks. Keeran, Roger. 1980. The Communist Party and the Auto Workers Union. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press. Keller, Catherine. 1986. From A Broken Web: Separation, Sexism, and Self. Boston: Beacon Press. Kittay, Eva Feder and Diana T. Meyers, eds. 1987. Women and Moral Theory. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Littlefield. Koestler, Arthur. 1967. The Ghost in the Mpghine. London: Basil Blackwell. Kohlberg, Lawrence. 1981. The Philosophy 9f Moral Development. San Francisco: Harper and Row. 291 Kraus, Henry. 1947. The Many and the Few: A Chronicle of the Dynamic Auto Workers. Los Angeles: The Plantin Press. Kuttner, Bob. 1984. “Jobs.“ Dissent (Winter): 30-41. Lammers, John C. 19894. “Managing Unemployment: The Role of Union Business Agents and the Use of Work Sharing.“ Social Problems 32 (December): 133-143. Leontief, Wassily W. 1982. “The Distribution of Work and Income.“ Scientific American 247 (September): 188-204. Levitan, Sar. A. and Richard S. Belous. 1977. Shorter Hours, Shorter Weeks. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins .University Press. Levitan, Sar A. and Clifford M. Johnson. 1982. Second Thoughts on Work. Kalamazoo, Mich.: W.E. UpJohn Intitute for Employment Research. Loevinger, Jane. 1966. “The Meaning and Measurement of Ego Development.“ American Psychologist 22: 195-206. Loevinger, Jane. 1976. Ego Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. .Long, J.E. and E.B. Jones. 1980. "Part-Week Work by Married Women.“ Southern Economip Jpgrngl 46 (January): 716-725. Long, J.E. and 5.8. Jones. 1981. “Married Women in Part- Time Employment.“ Industrial and Labor Relations Review 34 (April): 413-425. MaCoy, Ramelle and Martin J. Morand. 1984. Short-Time Compensatign: A Fgrmula for Work Sharing. New York: Pergamon Press. Mandel, Ernest. 1971. The Fprmatipn 9f the Economic Thought of Karl Marx. New York: Monthly Review Press. Marx, Karl. 1971. The Grundrisse. New York: Harper Torchbooks. Marx, Karl. 1977. Capital. Volume 1. New York: Vintage Books. McCarthy, Maureen and Gail S. Rosenberg with Gary Lefkowitz. 1981. Work Sharing: Case Studies. Kalamazoo, Mich.: W.E. UpJohn Institute for Employment Research. 292 McGaughey, William, Jr. 1981. A Shorter Workweek in the 1980s. White Bear Lake, Minn.: Thistlerose Publications.' Meier, Gretl S. 1979. Job Sharing: A New Pattern for Quality of Work and Life. Kalamazoo, Mich.: W.E. UpJohn Institute for Employment Research. Meier, Gretl S. 1982. “Family and Life-Cycle Changes Due to Job Sharing.“ Pp. 152-158 in New Work Schedules in Practice: Managing Time in a Changing Society, edited by Stanley 0. Nollen. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company/Work in America Institute Series. Meissner, Martin. 1971. “The Long Arm of the Job: A Study of Work and Leisure.“ Industrial Relations 10: 239-260. Miller, H.E. and J.R. Terborg. 1979. “Job Attitudes of Part-Time and Full-Time Employees.“ Journal of Applied Psychology 64 (August): 380-386. Mills, C. Wright. 1959. The Sociological Impgingtigp. New York: Oxford University Press. Moore, Mack. 1963. “The Role of Temporary Help Services in the Clerical Labor Market.“ Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin- Madison, 1963. Morgenstern, R.D. and W. Hamovitch. 1976. ”Labor Supply of Married Women in Part-Time and Full-Time Occupations.“ Industrial and Labor Relations Revigg 30 (October): 59- 67. Olesen, Virginia L. and Frances Katsuranis. 1978. “Urban Nomads: Women in Temporary Clerical Services.“ Pp. 316- 338 in Women Wprking, edited by Ann H. Stromberg and Shirley Harkess. Palo Alto, Calif.: Mayfield Publishing Co. Ollman, Bertell. 1976. Alienation: Marx's Conception of Man in Capithist Society, 2nd edition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Olmsted, Barney. 1979. “Job Sharing: An Emerging Work- style.“ International Labogr Revigg 118 (May-June): 283- 297. Ostrach, T.R. 1981. ”Second Look at Temporaries." Personnel Journal 60 (June): 440. Owen, John D. 1979. Working Hours: An Economic Analysis. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books (D.C. Heath and Co.). 293 Papanek, Hanna. 1973. “Men, Women, and Work: Reflections on the Two-Person Career.“ American Journal of Sociology 78 (4): 852-872. Parsons, Talcott and Robert F. Bales, eds. 1955. FamilyI Socialization and Interaction Process. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press. Phelps, Orme Wheelock. 1939. The Legislative Background of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pleck, Joseph. 1979. “Men's Family Work: Three Perspectives and Some New Data.“ The Family Coordinator (October): 481-488. Rasmussen, David M. 1973. “Between Autonomy and Sociality.“ Cultural Hermeneutics 1 (April): 3-45. Ratner, Ronnie Steinberg. 1980. “The Paradox of Protection: Maximum Hours Legislation in the United States.“ International Labor Review 119 (March-April): 185-198. Reich, Robert B. 1983. The Next American Frontier. New York: Times Books. Ritzer, George and David Walczak. 1986. Working: Conflict and Change, 3rd edition. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Rotchford, N.L. and K.H. Roberts. 1982. “Part-Time Workers as Missing Persons in Organizational Research.“ Academy of Management Review 7 (April): 228-234. Rubin, Gayle. 1975. “The Traffic in Women: Notes on the Political Economy of Sex.“ Pp. 157-210 in Toward an Anthropology of Women, edited by Rayna R. Reiter. New York: Monthly Review Press. Runes, Dagobert D., editor. 1983. Dictionary of Philosophy. New York: Philosophical Library. Seccombe, Wally. 1973. “The Housewife and Her Labour Under Capitalism.“ New Left Review 83 (January-February): 3- 24. Sidel, Ruth. 1986. Women and Children Last: The Plight of Poor Women in Afflagnt America. New York: Viking. Sirianni, Carmen. 1987. “Economies of Time in Social Theory: Three Approaches Compared.“ Current Perspectives in Social Theory 8: 161-195. 294 72.1.13 *t‘ 7.1 ‘ Smith, Vicki. 1983. “The Circular Trap: Women and Part- Time Work.“ Berkeley Journal of Sociology 23: 1-17. Staines, Graham. 1980. “Spillover Versus Compensation: A Review of the Literature on the Relationship Between Work and Nonwork.“ Human Relations 33 (2): 111-129. Steinberg, Ronnie. 1982. Wage! and Hours: Labor and Reform in Twentieth Century America. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press. Thompson, E.P. 1967. “Time, Work Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism.“ Past and Present 38: 56-97. Van Arsdale, George. 1978. “Deprofessionalizing a Part- Time Teaching Faculty: How Many, Feeling Small, Seeming Few, Getting Less, Dream of More.“ The American Sociologist 13 (November): 195-201. Vanek, Joann. 1974. “Time Spent in Housework.“ Scientific American (November): 116-120. Vorse, Mary Heaton. 1938. Labor's New Millions. New York: Modern Age Books. Walker, Kathryn E. and Margaret E. Woods. 1976. Time Use: A Measure of Hoggehold Production of Family Goods and Services. American Home Economics Association. Weeks, Wendy. 1980. “Part-Time Work: The Business View on Second-Class Jobs for Housewives and Mothers.“ Atlantis 5 (Spring): 69-88. Wilensky, Harold L. 1960. "Work. Careers, and Social Integration.“ International Social Science Journal 12: 543-560. Winkler, Karen. 1979. “Two Who Share One Academic Job Say the Pros Outnumber the Cons.“ Chronicle of Higher Education (December 3): 3. Yeandle, S. 1982. “Variation and Flexibility: Key Characteristics of Female Labor." Sociology 16 (August): 422-430. Yeghissian, Patricia. 1980. “Emergence of the Red Berets.“ Michigan Occasional Papers in Women's Studies, Number X. Ann Arbor, Michigan. Zaretsky, Eli. 1976. Capitalism, The Family, and Personal Life. New York: Harper Colophon. 295 -1-.. L U.S. Government Publications Bednarzik, Robert W. 1980. “Worksharing in the U.S.: Its Prevalence and Duration.“ Monthly Labor Review 103 (July): 3-12. ‘ Best, Fred and James Mattesich. 1980. “Short-Time Compensation Systems in California and Europe.“ Monthly Labor Review 103 (July): 13-22. Carey, Max L. and Kim L. Hazelbaker. 1988. “Employment Growth in the Temporary Help Industry.“ Monthly Labor Review 109 (April): 37-44. Deutermann, William V., Jr. and Scott Campbell Brown. 1978. “Voluntary Part-Time Workers: A Growing Part of the Labor Force.“ Monthly Labor Review 101 (June): 3-10. Elder, 9.x. and H.D. Miller. 1979. “The Fair Labor Standards Act: Changes of Four Decades.“ Monthly Labor Review 102 (July): 10-16. Gannon, Martin. 1974. “A Profile of the Temporary Help Industry and its Workers.“ Monthly Labor Review 97 (May): 44-49. Gannon, Martin. 1984. “Preferences of Temporary Workers: Time, Variety, Flexibility.“ Monthly Labor Review 107 (August): 26-28. Grossman, Jonathan. 1978. “Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938: Maximum Struggle for a Minimum Wage.“ Monthly Labor vaiew 101 (June): 22-30. Hamel, Harvey R. 1985. “New Data Series on Involuntary Part-Time Work.“ Monthly Labor Review 108 (March): 42- 43. ' Hedges, Janice Neipert. 1980. “Working Less and Enjoying It More.“ Monthly Labor Review 103 (May): 59-60. Howe, Wayne J. 1986. “The Business Services Industry Sets Pace in Employment Growth.“ Monthly Labor Review 109 (April): 29-36. Kerachsky, Stuart, Walter Nicholson, Edward Cavin, and Alan Hershey. 1986. “Work Sharing Programs: An Evaluation of Their Use." Monthly Labor Review 109 (May): 31-33. Levitan, Sar A. and R.S. Belous. 1977. “Work-Sharing Initiatives at Home and Abroad.“ Monthly Labor Review 100 (September): 16-20. 296 Nardone, Thomas. 1986. “Part-Time Workers: Who Are They?“ Monthly Labor Review 109 (February): 13-19. Nemirow, Martin. 1984. “Work-Sharing Approaches: Past and Present.“ Monthly Labor Review 107 (September): 34-39. Owen, John D. 1978.“ “Why Part-Time Workers Tend to be in Low-Wage Jobs.“ Monthly Labor Review 101 (June): 11-14. Pleck, Joseph H., Graham L. Staines, and Linda Lang. 1980. “Conflicts Between Work and Family Life.“ Monthly Labor Review 103 (March): 29-32. Schiff, Frank. 1986. “Short-Time Compensation: Assessing the Issues.“ Monthly Labor Review 109 (May): 28-30. Terry, Sylvia Lazos. 1981. “Involuntary Part-Time Work: New Information from the CPS.“ Monthly Labor Review 104 (February): 70-74. U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. Committee on Education and Labor. 1979. To Revise the Overtimg Compensation Reguirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Labor Standards, 96th Congress, 1st Session, on H.R. 1784, October 23-25. U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. 1985. Automation of America's Offices. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. 1978. County Business Patterns. Michigan. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. 1980. Census of Populatign. Chapter D: Detailed Population Characteristics, U.S. and Michigan. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. 1985. County Business Pgtterng. Michigan. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1980. Supplement to Employment and Earning , States and AreasI Data fgr 1977-79. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1982. Employment and WagesI Annual Averages. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. 297 U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1983. Employment, Hours, and Earnings, States and Areas, 1939-82. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1985. Employment and Earnings 32 (June). U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1986.. Employment and Earnings 33 (January, May). U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1986. Employment and Wages, Annual Averages. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1987. Employment and Earnings 34 (November). U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. News. USDL 86-328, released August 7, 1986. Zalusky, John. 1986. “Short-Time Compensation: The AFL- CIO Perspective.“ Monthly Labor Review 109 (May): 33-34. State Government Publications 1986. “Headcount Concept Affects Women Workers.“ 86 (Women in State Government) Wire 3 (March). 1986. Michigan Department of Social Services Internal Memo, March 14. Naftaly, Robert H. and John R. Hueni. 1985. Inter- departmental Memo to Department Directors, December 26. State of Michigan. Department of Civil Service. 1986. Classified Employees by Department on Active Payroll Status (Printout), July 26. Non-government Publications Bartsch, Charles. 1985. Reaching for Recovery. Washington, D.C.: Northeast-Midwest Institute. 298 Capital Area United Way. Long Range Planning Committee. 1986. Retrospect and Prospect: A Portrait of the Tri- County Area. Lansing, Mich.: Capital Area United Way. Manassah, Sallie M., David A. Thomas, and James F. Wellington. 1986. Lansing: Capital, Campus, and Cars. East Lansing, Mich.: Contemporary Image Adv., Ltd. 9 to 5, National Association of Working Women. 1986. Working at the Margins: Part-Time and Temporary Workers in the U.S. Cleveland, Ohio: 9 to 5, National Association of Working Women. Plewes, Thomas. 1984. “Profile of the Part-Time Worker.“ Pp. 1-20 in Part-Time Employment in America: Highlights of the First Nationpl anference on Pgrt-Time Employment, edited by the Association of Part-Time Professionals. McLean, Va.: Association of Part-Time Professionals. Zalusky, John. 1984. “Presentation by John Zalusky.“ Pp. 32-34 in Part-Time Employment in America: Highlights of the First National Conference on Part-Time Employment, edited by the Association of Part-Time Professionals. McLean, Va.: Association of Part-Time Professionals. 'Popular Press Adelmann, Pamela. 1987. “Freshening Freud For Us All.“ Detroit Free Press (September 13). Bluestone, Barry and Bennett Harrison. 1987. “The Grim Truth about the Job 'Miracle'.“ The New Yprk Times (February 1). Brown, Peter. 1984. “Fate of 1,700 Jobless in Hands of UAW Local.“ Detroit Free Press (January 15). Buss, Dale D. 1982. "Of All Places Hurt By The Slump, Flint, Mich., Seems Hurt The Most." Wall Street Journal (April 30). Cain, Charlie and Eric Freedman. 1987. “Autoworld Revived by $6-Million Deal.“ Detroit News (February 26). Cantor, George. 1986. “Flint: Its New Spark Will Surprise You.“ Michigan Living (AAA) (August). Crane, Maurice. 1984. “R.E. Olds Saw Car's Great Future." Lansing State Journal (May 20). 299 Erickson, Lori. 1986. “Working Out the Kinks in Flint.“ In These Times (August 6-19). Faust, Scott. 1987. “City Braces for Bleak Days Ahead.“ Detroit News (April 26). 1980. “Flint Reels With Jobless Rate That's Worst in the Nation.“ Detroit News (August 10). Fogel, Helen, Nunzio Lupo, and John Spelich. 1987. “How UAW Opened Path to GM Pact.“ Detroit Free Press (October 11). Grenier, Melinda. 1983. “Overtime Car Output Highest Since 1940s.“ Detroit News (December 18). Grenier, Melinda, John Broder, and Ann Cohen. 1983. “Flint to Lose 3,600 Jobs.“ Detroit News (January 20). Gribbin, August. 1983. “State Studies Work Sharing to Curb Layoffs.“ Detroit News (September 4). Higgins, James V. 1986. “GM Unveils All-New Engine: 'Quad-4' Called One Step Closer to Maintenance-Free Motor.“ Detroit News (February 18). Higgins, James V. 1987. “Layoffs Aid Workers with Low Seniority.“ Detroit News (May 30). Job, Ann M. 1984. “Flint GM Workers to Vote on Hours.“ Detroit News (January 10). Job, Ann M. and Robert E. Roach. 1984. “Flint UAW Votes No to 3rd Shift.“ Detroit News (January 18). Miller, Edward. 1986. “Auto Giant's Strategy Could Take Years to Pay Off.“ Detroit News (November 7). Moore, Michael. 1987. “In Flint, Tough Times Last.” The Nation (June 6). Nehman, John F. 1984. “GM Workers Say 'No' to Added Shift.“ thrgit New; (January 12). 1935. “Oldsmobile is Big Factor in Lansing's Rise.“ Oldsmobile News (July 17). Pollack, Susan R. 1984. "Flint Gets Set for 1984 with Smile of Hope.“ Detroit News (January 8). Risen, James. 1984. "The State of Recovery: A Slumping Flint Pulls Self Back Up.“ Detroit News (August 5). 300 Sedgwick, David and Scott Faust. 1986. “Shutdown Will Hurt Flint Area the Worst.“ Detroit News (November 7). Serrin, William. 1986a. “Growth in Jobs Since '80 is Sharp, But Pay and Quality are Debated.“ The New York Times (June 8). Serrin, William. 1986b. “Part-Time Work New Labor Trend.“ The New York Times (July 9). 1986. “Shorter Workweeks: An Alternative to Layoffs.“ Business Week (April 14). Sorge, MarJorie. 1986. “GM Closings Hit 29,000.“ Detroit News (November 7). 1985. “State's Use of Temporary Workers Soars.“ Detroit News (December 26). 1987. “Summer Jobs Shrink Unemployment.“ Lansing State Journal (September 2). 1980. “3 Million Surplus in City Budget.“ Detroit News (November 22). Vorse, Mary Heaton. 1937. “Wives of Flint's Strikers Form Emergency Brigade.“ The New York Times (January 21). 301 APPENDICES APPENDIX A Interview Topic Checklist Nature and location of Job Motivation to Job share (or work part-time, as temp, to volunteer for inverse seniority layoff) Hours, schedule (who decides?) Income, benefits Union membership Work history: ever worked full time? when? what kind of Job? Why no longer working full time? Return to full time? How spend most time off Job? Other off-Job activities? Things you would like to do with your time off the Job that you don't currently do? Why don't you do these things now? What would have to change so you could do these things? Difference between time off the Job now compared to when you worked full time? Personal and household data Concluding questions: anything else about Job, hours, schedule, time off? 302 APPENDIX 8 Personal and Household Data Sheet Race: White Black Hispanic Other (Specify) Sex: Female Male 1. What is your annual gross (before taxes) income from this Job? 0-4.999 40,000-44,999 5,000-9,999 45,000-49,999 10,000-14,999 50,000-59,999 15,000-19,999 60,000-69,999 20,000-24,999 70,000 or more 25,000-29.999 30,000-34,999 35,000-39,999 2. What employee benefits do you receive? Epympnt fpr Time Not Worked Sick Leave Yes No Paid Vacation Yes No Paid Holidays Yes No Other (Specify) Group Insurance Health Yes No Life Yes No Long Term Disability Yes No Other (Specify) ggtirement , Pension Plan Yes No Deferred Compensation Yes No Other (Specify) Other Benefits Specify: 303 Do you belong to a labor union? How old are you? What is your marital status? Married Not married If married, how long have you been married? If not married, were you ever married? What is the highest level of education you have completed? Less than eighth grade Eighth-eleventh grade High school (high school diploma or equivalent) One-three years of college Four years of college (Bachelor's degree) Some graduate training Master's degree Ph.D. degree Other (specify: e.g. vocational training) Household Characteristics 1. Are you the only earner in your household? Yes No (If your answer is no, go to question 2. If your answer is yes, skip to question 8.) How many other earners live in your household besides yourself? Where does each of the other earners work? What are the Job titles of each of the other earners? Can you describe the Jobs of each of the other earners? How many hours each week does each of the other earners work? (Get schedule, too.) 304 7. 9. 10. ll. 12. 13. How much education has each of the other earners completed? ' What is your estimate of your total household income? 0-4,999 40,000-44,999 5.000-9,999 . 45,000-49,999 10,000-14.999 50,000-59.999 15,000-19,999 60,000-69,999 20,000-24,999 70,000 or more 25,000-29,999 30,000-34,999 35,000-39,999 Does any of this household income come from sources other than Job(s) held by earner(s)? Yes No If yes, what are those sources? (For example, alimony, child support, rent, interest or dividends, etc.) Approximately what percentage of your total household income comes from your income? One-fourth One-third One-half Three-fourths All Other (Specify) How many children live in the household? What are the children's ages? 305 APPENDIX C ‘ Date Dear Job Sharer, I am a graduate student in the sociology department at Michigan State University. I am doing research on people who work less than full time--for example, part-time workers, temporaries, Job sharers, and work sharers. I am particularly interested in the number of hours individuals work, how those hours are scheduled, and how individuals use their time off the Job. Your name has been selected from among those state government employees who Job share. However, this research is not sponsored by the State of Michigan. As someone who works less than full time, would you be willing to participate in an interview about your employment and your use of time off the Job? The interview would take approximately one hour of your time. Your identity will remain anonymous, and anything you say will be kept in confidence. If you are willing to be interviewed, or if you would like more information about this research proJect, place a checkmark next to the appropriate response on the back of the enclosed postcard. Then fill in your name and phone number and return the card to me. The postage-paid postcard has been pre-addressed for your convenience. Thank you so much for your consideration. I hope to hear from you soon. Sincerely, Cynthia Negrey Department of Sociology Berkey Hall Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 306 APPENDIX D Date To: xxxx part-time employees From: Cynthia Negrey, Graduate Student, Department of SociolOQY. MSU Re: Interviews For my dissertation research, I need a few part-time workers to interview about their employment, work schedule, and use of time off the Job. Even if your Job at xxxx is your second Job, I want to talk to you. The interview takes approximately one hour. Volunteers' identities will remain anonymous, and anything said will be kept in confidence. While I have the approval of xxxx management to recruit volunteers, this research is in no way sponsored by xxxx. If you are willing to be interviewed or want more information about the study, please complete one of the postcards provided below and return it to me. I have a room on the MSU campus which can be used for the interview, but we can negotiate another location if that is preferred. Thank you and'I hope to hear from you soon. 307 "I7'llliflfliiflllll'lifllllfilfifllfll“