About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

124 Monthly Lab. Rev. 50 (2001)
Flexible Work Schedules: What Are We Trading Off to Get Them

handle is hein.journals/month124 and id is 270 raw text is: Flexible work schedules: what are we trading off to get them? Flexible work schedules are spreading, but workers sometimes must be willing to increase their hours markedly, work evening shifts, or switch to part-time status, self-employment, or certain occupations to get flexibility in their schedules; this may entail a sacrifice of leisure time, compensation, or a predictable workweek he 1990s economic expansion not only whisked away decades-long stubborn labor market problems such as unemploy- ment and stagnant wage rates, but also hosted the spread of flexible work schedules. By 1997, in the May Current Population Survey (cps), more than 27 percent of full-time wage and sal- ary workers reported that they had some ability to vary either the starting or ending time of their typical workday, more than double the rate ob- served in 1985.1 Workers tend to regard flexible work-scheduling practices as a valuable tool for easing the chronic pressures and conflicts im- posed by attempting to execute both work and nonwork responsibilities. The growing value of such daily flexibility to workers may reflect in- creases in labor force participation rates of par- ents, dual-income households, family annual work hours, weekly overtime hours, the premium for additional hours of work, college enrollment rates, and the aging of the workforce.2 More- over, employers are likely to be turning to flex- ible scheduling as an instrument for recruiting and retaining employees (particularly those fac- ing a labor shortage climate) and for boosting job satisfaction and labor productivity.' Yet, the demand for such flexible work schedules on the part of workers appears still to exceed the sup- ply provided by employers.4 This article examines the association between workers' access to flexibility in their work sched- ules, on the one hand, and their various work and job characteristics, on the other. In particu- lar, it focuses on the levels of work hours and the types of jobs that either enhance or dimin- ish a worker's chances of attaining a flexible work schedule. While the direction and magnitude of the trend in average work hours has been a source of much controversy, it is clear that paid work hours are growing for many segments of the workforce.' The trend toward greater flexibility in hours may be inextricably linked with a polar- ization of work hours that has become evident among workers in which one segment of the workforce may be working longer than standard hours and another segment shorter or nonstand- ard hours or jobs, in part to gain access to the daily flexibility needed to better balance the com- peting demands on their time. Research analyses of data from previous May cps supplements have detected a gradual trend toward a nonstandard workday and workweek in the United States. Work is increasingly being spread out, performed on the fringes of the typi- cal workday, extending earlier in the morning or later into the evening.6 Consequently, in 1997, only 54.4 percent of employed nonagricultural workers over age 18 worked a traditional 5-day workweek on a fixed daytime schedule.7 The pro- portion working a 35- to 40-hour standard work- week was 29.1 percent in 1997, compared with 31.5 percent in 1991 and is considerably lower for men (decreasing from 29.5 percent to 26.5 per- cent over the years cited). In 1991, nonstandard schedules were adopted by workers much more for involuntary (for example, as ajob requirement) than for voluntary (for example, to care for one's family) reasons, by an almost 2-to- I margin. Work- ing in the evening hours is much more common among part-time than full-time workers. Neither 50 Monthly Labor Review March 2001 Lonnie Golden Lonnie Golden is associate professor of economics, Economics and Business Division, Commonwealth College, the Pennsylva- nia State University, Delaware County, Media, Pennsylvania.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most