Employers, Communities and Family-friendly Employment Policies
By Sue Yeandle, Andrea Wigfield, Louise Ritchie, Rosemary Crompton and Jane Dennett
Increasingly, both men and women in employment also have caring responsibilities. In 1999, over 10 million employees lived with their dependent children, and 13 per cent of adults provided care for a sick, disabled or older person, two-thirds of them alongside employment.
Since 1997, a variety of policy changes affecting employees with care responsibilities have been introduced. These cover part-time working, working time, employees’ rights to time off to deal with caring situations, and changes to entitlements to parental leave. National strategies for carers and for childcare have also been introduced.
This new research investigates how carers with all kinds of responsibilities manage their employment and family lives. The study was carried out in three types of organisation: retail banking, supermarkets and local government. It compares experience in each organisation in the two contrasting localities of Sheffield and Canterbury.
Employees with caring responsibilities
The extent of caring responsibilities varied within the organisations, and reflected differences in both the age structure and length of service of the workforce in the two localities studied.
Overall, one in five of employees cared for a dependent adult and one in three cared for children.
Employers: help with caring and awareness of policies
All six organisations had a wide range of family-friendly employment policies. In addition to statutory rights to leave, the options offered by one or more of the organisations included: compassionate leave, carers’ leave, flexi-time, voluntary reduced hours, ‘responsibility breaks’, emergency leave, and ‘shift-swap’. In special situations, some of these options were available without loss of normal earnings. However, the available leave options and reduced hours were in most cases unpaid, or time had to be made up by the employee. In follow-up interviews and focus groups, the financial implications of taking special leave were often cited as a barrier to take-up.
Managerial awareness of these policies varied: the supermarket managers were particularly well-informed, while awareness among Sheffield local government managers was lower than expected. Employee awareness and use of the policies was similarly low, even among those with care responsibilities. Most people did not express an opinion about their employer’s help with care responsibilities, although overall, 22 per cent said they were ‘dissatisfied’.
Employed carers in different contexts
In comparison with Canterbury, Sheffield has a higher level of unemployment and a more geographically stable population. This stability was reflected in the much longer length of service of respondents in all three employment sectors in Sheffield. Thus, although in both localities relatives were the main source of help with caring, employees in Sheffield drew more on family resources, while in Canterbury, carers of children made greater use of private services. There was limited use of other commercial, voluntary or public household services in either locality.
The study was designed to explore, in the supermarket and the bank, whether local implementation of family-friendly policies differed from organisational intentions at the national level. The data show that although formal organisational policies provided the framework, policy implementation occurred on an informal, flexible basis, and reflected reciprocity between managers and employees. Carers reported that managerial discretion was central to achieving work-family balance and that managers who had care responsibilities themselves were more sympathetic to staff needs. Arising from this, some carers felt there were inequities in the treatment of individuals, even within the same organisation or work team. Managers felt obliged to balance family-friendly policies with service provision and delivery, and some expressed concerns about the potential for abuse. However, few examples of policy abuse were cited.
Managers believed there was a business case for offering family-friendly policies, but felt there was a lack of training, guidance, consultation and communication about this policy area. Both managers and employed carers felt that service delivery targets were becoming increasingly demanding, increasing pressures within their jobs. This posed some difficulty in responding positively and flexibly to carers’ circumstances.
“We try and be as obliging as possible but it’s very difficult because we need staff to serve customers, and for things like unpaid leave we don’t have enough counter staff, so it’s very difficult. I think we are understaffed anyway and so to let staff have more time off makes it even more difficult.” (Bank: manager)
“Due to cuts we are short-staffed. … if it’s leave for emergency care then we just have to cope somehow, but it does increase the stress on other staff.” (Local authority: manager)
Carers mainly used the options which gave them time flexibility. Carers of children stressed the lack of fit between working hours and the school timetable.
“You have this problem at the end of the day – a couple of hours’ gap between the time that the school finishes and the time that you would normally finish work.” (Local authority: employee)
“From hearing what everyone is saying, it does sound as if school holidays would be a time that perhaps employers could focus on because it is the one at which your heart sinks when you’re just approaching it.” (Local authority: employee)
Carers of older and disabled people, including disabled children, have particular needs. They were especially concerned about responding to unforeseen events.
“Now and again my mum in law [aged 87] is ill and I can’t give 3 weeks notice to see her, so I would like to say to [my managers in the supermarket], ‘I just have to go to help her. I’m her only child’.” (Supermarket: employee)
“[I’m] unable to take odd days off in an emergency. Holidays are booked nearly a year in advance, and if any days are saved for ’emergencies’ it is very difficult to obtain time off when needed.” (Bank: employee)
There was concern that increased workplace pressures were making caring difficult. But carers also stressed that they valued the experience of employment; some emphasised that their income was essential.
Types of support
Despite positive developments in national policy, the study found that there are still important regional and local variations in the services which can support employed carers. Only a minority of the carers made use of formal care services: most employees who used these were satisfied with their arrangements.
Employers were rarely involved in the formal care arrangements used by their staff. Despite their commitment to family-friendly practices, they had not established strong links with local service providers. From the review of local service provision, some examples of innovative practice emerged and some practitioners delivering services felt new policies held the potential to offer better support for employed carers.
The results from the study suggest:
- There is a need to increase awareness of employers’ policies.
- Unpaid leave helps some carers, and is welcomed by them, but its financial consequences are an important barrier to take-up.
- More training needs to be available for managers.
- This training needs to address differences in managers’ approaches to implementation, which can result in inequities between employees.
- There is scant evidence of opposition to family-friendly employment policies, among managers or employees.
- As family-friendly policies are susceptible to changes in business and organisational pressures, there is a continuing role for government.
- Policy development needs to recognise the differing needs of different categories of carer.
- Government support is needed to develop employer-community initiatives and to improve channels of communication between employers and care providers.
About the project
The research compared employers, employees and service providers in two localities and three employment sectors. It included: comparison of localities and of local care provision; a self-completion questionnaire returned by 945 employees; case studies of ‘family-friendly’ employment policies in each organisation; interviews with managers, trade unions and employee representatives; interviews with care providers; and focus groups and interviews with different categories of employed carers.
The research was carried out by Sue Yeandle and Andrea Wigfield at Sheffield Hallam University (with assistance from Louise Ritchie) and by Rosemary Crompton and Jane Dennett at City University. The fieldwork was conducted between June 2000 and March 2001.
How to get further information
The full report, Employed carers and family-friendly employment policies by Sue Yeandle, Rosemary Crompton, Andrea Wigfield and Jane Dennett, is published for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation by The Policy Press as part of the Family and Work series (ISBN 1 86134 480 5, price £11.95).