THE THRIVE INDEX:

Company policies to promote the success of low-wage women workers

Center for Poverty Research and Graduate School of Management, University of California, Davis⁴⁸

What is the Thrive Index? It is a list of questions developed exclusively for The Shriver Report by researchers at UC Davis, based on a review of the extensive social science and management literature on the challenges faced by low-wage working women. Its purpose is to identify company policies and best practices that promote the success of these workers, creating a thriving workplace for employee and employer alike.

Our review covered quantitative, survey-based studies of workers; qualitative case studies of specific firms and industries; and many variations in between. Unlike many previous lists of family- or woman-friendly companies, this index is based on the specific challenges faced by women workers at the bottom of the economic ladder—workers who stay out of poverty only when factors in their own lives, their families, and their workplaces come together in a positive way.

For the identified challenges these women face, we developed questions corresponding to company policies that can most directly affect workers’ likelihood of successfully navigating these difficulties, continuing as productive members of the workforce, and enhancing outcomes for themselves, their families, and their employers. Whether you’re a manager or an HR director, a CEO or a small business owner, the goal is to answer “yes” to as many of the following questions as possible.

Adequate wages and benefits

Are part-time workers paid the same (per hour, including benefits) as full-time workers performing the same or similar tasks?

Are most part-time workers guaranteed a minimum number of hours per week? If not, are there ways they could be?

Are workers who remain on the job for a specified period of time eligible for a pay increase?

Are workers who remain on the job for a specified period of time eligible for paid sick leave for themselves or to care for a family member?

When job-skill demands or responsibilities increase, are wages adjusted upward?

Are workers paid for their entire scheduled shift, even if business is slow?

Are hourly wages higher for nonstandard shifts, such as nights or weekends?

Opportunities for learning and upward mobility

Do low-wage workers have opportunities for on-the-job or cross-task training or outside educational opportunities that can lead to upward mobility?

Can schedules accommodate workers’ pursuit of educational opportunities?

When skill demands or job responsibilities increase, is training provided for newly assigned tasks?

Can workers cross-train in different areas to increase their flexibility and value to the company (recognizing that outsourcing of some functional areas or other factors may prohibit this)?

Are there opportunities for upward mobility within the company that do not require geographic relocation?

Support for personal and family needs

Can worker breaks be scheduled to accommodate the need for phone calls at pre-specified times for working caregivers?

Are occasional calls for urgent matters allowable? Can children or caregivers call an employee at work when necessary?

Are workers who remain on the job for a specified period of time eligible during their regular work hours to care for their health or a family member’s without losing pay (e.g., able to leave for an hour or two for a trip to the doctor)?

Can personal time be taken in small increments of an hour or two (for doctor’s appointments, parent-teacher conferences, educational opportunities, etc.)?

Do you offer paid or unpaid maternity or paternity leave for workers? Is the length of this leave negotiable?

Work scheduling, predictability, and flexibility

Is there a systematic way for workers to communicate their preferences for hours and schedules? If not, could some such system be implemented?

Does the shift/hours scheduling system take account of workers’ constraints and preferences?

Are work schedules announced more than a day or two in advance? Can workers trade shifts with colleagues when time conflicts develop (allow “shift-swapping”)?

If workers are asked to stay beyond the end of scheduled shifts to finish assignments or for administrative procedures, are they given advance notice of when this may be required?

Does the measured workload take into account the quality or difficulty of tasks along with simpler measures of the number of customers, clients, or patients?

Autonomy, respect, and trust

Are workers protected from “no-fault” absence or tardiness policies (ones that lead to disciplinary actions or dismissal, even for excused absences)?

Are workers allowed or encouraged to contribute ideas to better organize or improve their work teams or work areas?

Can workers occasionally make personal phone calls?

CONCLUSION: A CALL TO BUSINESS TO ADAPT TO MODERN WORKERS’ CIRCUMSTANCES AND HELP THEM TO THRIVE

We know low-income women are the backbone of our economy and of their families. We also know the challenges these women face are often quite different from those facing middle- and higher-income workers. These women on the brink are more likely to be younger, less well educated, without a partner, and raising kids.

What they need—and what our economy needs—are supportive, flexible, Effective Workplaces, which benefit the employee, the employer, and our nation as a whole.

It is more than an individual journey for these women. Our country faces a turning point, as we acknowledge the changes that must take place to ensure the American Dream is possible for all Americans. From fundamental changes to our educational system that promote skills as well as content knowledge to jobs that provide equitable pay, from two-generational approaches to affordable child care, we must find ways to support the low-wage women who support our economy.

And to do that, we must have Effective Workplaces.

The benefits of implementing the characteristics of an Effective Workplace are numerous for both employees and employers. Employees are more likely to be satisfied with and engaged in their jobs, which increases productivity and benefits employers. They are more likely to stay with their company or organization, which is clearly a win for employers as well. And they are less likely to be burdened with family issues that can reduce their productivity at work. Finally, employees are more likely to be healthy, with fewer work problems that spill over into their home lives. Providing an Effective Workplace makes good business sense.

But what about the cost of creating more Effective Workplaces? We know from our firsthand work with employers, and from the many examples we’ve studied and provided in this chapter, that the benefits of providing a more Effective Workplace outweigh the costs, most of which are negligible.

Effective management is what’s required. This may be a challenge for some employers, but there are solutions. In Families and Work Institute’s “2014 Guide to Bold New Ideas for Making Work Work,” co-published with the Society for Human Resource Management, we identified organizations in all sectors of the economy that have succeeded in creating good jobs for those at lower levels in the employment pyramid. These employers have created jobs that result in more positive outcomes for their organizations and for their employees. The jobs develop human capital, promote quality of life, and contribute to bottom-line performance.

These are the kind of jobs our economy and our society need as we continue to adjust to a new era of global competition. We need to move away from talking about low-income women simply getting a job, to talking about good jobs, in Effective Workplaces. This is an important first step in addressing our evolving economy’s needs.

Low-wage women and their employers stand to benefit as much or perhaps even more than others from these efforts. We hope that those who employ and manage low-income workers will view this chapter as a call to action, complete with practical steps to improve workplace effectiveness and in turn both employee well-being and business outcomes.

Most of the characteristics of Effective Workplaces benefiting low-wage women simply require different ways of behaving, not financial outlays.

REFERENCES FOR THRIVE INDEX

Appelbaum, Eileen, P. Berg, A. Frost, and G. Preuss. 2002. “The Effects of Work Restructuring on Low-wage, Low-Skill Workers in U.S. Hospitals.” New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Batt, Rosemary, V. Doellgast, and H. Kwon. 2005. “U.S. Call Center Industry Report 2004 National Benchmarking Report Strategy, HR Practices & Performance.” Cornell University Working Paper.

Berg, Peter, and Ann C. Frost. “Dignity at work for low wage, low skill service workers.” Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations 60 (4) (2005): 657–682.

Bernhardt, Annette. 1999. “The Future of Low-Wage Jobs: Case Studies in the Retail Industry.” Columbia University Institute on Education and the Economy, Working Paper 10.

Bernhardt, Annette, L. Dresser, and E. Hatton. 2003. “The Coffee Pot Wars: Unions and Firm Restructuring in the Hotel Industry.” In E. Appelbaum, A. Bernhardt, and R. Murnane, eds., Low-Wage America: How employers are reshaping opportunity in the workplace. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Bond, J.T., and E. Galinsky. 2012. “What Difference do Job Characteristics Make to Low-income Employees?” New York: Families and Work Institute.

Bond, J.T., and E. Galinsky. 2012. “Low-Income Employees in the United States.” New York: Families and Work Institute.

Bond, J.T., E. Tahmincioglu, and E. Galinsky. 2012. “Not Just ‘Jobs’ … ‘Good Jobs’: The Low-Income Workforce Challenge.” New York: Families and Work Institute.

Bornstein, Stephanie. 2012. “Work, Family, and Discrimination at the Bottom of the Ladder.” Georgetown Journal on Poverty & Law Policy, Vol. 19.

Carre, Françoise, Chris Tilly, and Diana Denham. 2010. “Explaining Variation in the quality of US retail jobs.” New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Gautié, Jérôme, and John Schmitt, eds. 2010. Low-wage Work in the Wealthy World. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Gornick, Janet C., and Marcia Meyers. 2005. Families That Work: Policies For Reconciling Parenthood And Employment. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Heymann, J., and others. 2002. “Work-Family Issues and Low-Income Families.” New York: Ford Foundation.

Lambert, Susan J., Anna Haley-Lock, and Julia R. Henly. 2012. “Schedule Flexibility in Hourly Jobs: Unanticipated Consequences and Promising Directions.” Community, Work & Family 15 (3): 293–315.

Presser, Harriet B. 1995. “Job, Family, and Gender: Determinants of Nonstandard Work Schedules Among Employed Americans in 1991.” Demography 32 (4): 577–598. JSTOR. Web. May 19, 2013.

Ton, Zeynep. 2012. “Why ‘Good Jobs’ are Good for Retailers.” Harvard Business Review 90 (1-2): 124–131, 154.

Ton, Zeynep. 2009. “The Effect of Labor on Profitability: The Role of Quality.” Harvard Business School Working Paper.

Williams, Joan C. 2006. “One Sick Child Away from Being Fired: When ‘Opting Out’ is Not an Option.” University of California, Hastings: The Center for WorkLife Law.

Williams, Joan C., and Penelope Huang. 2011. “Improving Work-Life Fit in Hourly Jobs: An underutilized cost-cutting strategy in a globalized world.” University of California, Hastings: The Center for WorkLife Law.