Local Labour Markets, Organizations and the Distribution of Family-responsive Benefits the USA

Gender, Work and Organization

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 438-454

  Ruppanner, Leah ^a   Huffman, Matt L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Family responsive policies; Local labour markets; Women's power

Indexed keywords

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT; GENDER ROLE; LABOR MARKET; OCCUPATION; ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK; WOMENS EMPLOYMENT; WOMENS STATUS;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 84862691656     PISSN: 09686673     EISSN: 14680432     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0432.2010.00519.x     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Agresti, A. (2007) An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis. 2nd edn. New York: Wiley & Sons.
2. Arthur, M.M. (2003) Share price reactions to work-family initiatives: an institutional perspective. The Academy of Management Journal, 46, 4, 497-505.
3. Arthur, M.M. and Cook, A. (2004) Taking stock of work-family initiatives: how announcements of 'family-friendly' human resource decisions affect share-holder value. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 57, 4, 599-613.
4. Beggs, J.J. (1995) The institutional environment: implications for race and gender inequality the U.S. labour market. American Sociological Review, 60, 4, 612-33.
5. Blair-Loy, M. and Wharton A.S. (2002) Employees' use of work-family policies and the workplace social context. Social Forces, 80, 3, 813-45.
6. Blum, T., Fields, D. and Goodman, J. (1994) Organizational-level determinants of women management. The Academy of Management Journal, 37, 2, 241-68.
7. Casper, W.J., Martin, J.A., Buffardi, J.C. and Erdwins, C.J. (2002) Work-family conflict, perceived organizational support, and organizational commitment among employed mothers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 2, 99-108.
8. Clifton, T.J. and Shepard, E. (2004) Work and family programs and productivity: estimates applying a production function model. International Journal of Manpower, 25, 8, 714-28.
9. Cohen, P.N. and Huffman, M.L. (2003) Occupational segregation and the devaluation of women's work across U.S. labor markets. Social Forces, 81, 3, 881-908.
10. Cohen, P.N. and Huffman, M.L. (2007) Working for the woman? Female managers and the gender wage gap. American Sociological Review, 72, 5, 681-704.
11. Cotter, D.A., DeFiore, J., Hermsen, J.M., Kowalewski, B.M. and Vanneman, R. (1997) All women benefit: the macro-level effect of occupational integration on gender earnings inequality. American Sociological Review, 62, 5, 714-34.
12. Cotter, D.A., DeFiore, J., Hermsen, J.M., Kowalewski, B.M. and Vanneman, R. (1998) The demand for female labor. American Journal of Sociology, 103, 6, 1673-712.
13. Cotter, D., Hermsen, J.M. and Vanneman, R. (1999) Systems of gender, race, and class inequality: multilevel analyses. Social Forces, 78, 2, 433-60.
14. Cotter, D., Hermsen, J.M. and Vanneman, R. (2004) Gender Inequality at Work. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
15. Davis, A.E. and Kalleberg, A.L. (2006) Family-friendly organizations? Work and family programs the 1990s. Work and Occupations, 33, 2, 191-223.
16. Deitch, C. and Huffman, M.L. (2001) Family-responsive benefits and the two-tiered labor market. Hertz, R. and Marshall, N. (eds) Working Families: The Transformation of the American Home, pp. 103-30 Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
17. Duncan, O.D. and Duncan, B. (1955) A methodological analysis of segregation indexes. American Sociological Review, 20, 2, 210-17.
18. Felmlee, D.H. (1995) Causes and consequences of women's employment discontinuity, 1967-1973. Work and Occupations, 22, 2, 167-87.
19. Galinsky, E. (1994) Families and work: the importance of the quality of the work environment. Kagan, S. and and B. Weissbound, (eds) Putting Families First, pp. 112-36. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
20. Glass, J. and Estes, S.B. (1997) The family responsive workplace. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 289-313.
21. Glass, J. and Fujimoto, T. (1995) Employer characteristics and the provision of family responsive policies. Work and Occupations, 22, 4, 380-411.
22. Goodstein, J.D. (1994) Institutional pressures and strategic responsiveness: employer involvement work-family issues. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 2, 350-382.
23. Grzywacz, J.G. and Bass, B.L. (2003) Work, family, and mental health: testing different models of work-family fit. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 65, 1, 248-61.
24. Guthrie, D. and Roth, L.M. (1999) The state, courts, and maternity leave policies U.S. organizations: specifying institutional mechanisms. American Sociological Review, 64, 1, 41-63.
25. Ingram, P. and Simons, T. (1995) Institutional and resource dependence determinants of responsiveness to work-family issues. The Academy of Management Journal, 38, 5, 1466-82.
26. Kamerman, S.B. and Kahn, A.J. (1987) The Responsive Workplace: Employers and a Changing Labor Force. New York: Columbia University Press.
27. Kanter, R.M. (1977) Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books.
28. Kelly, E.L. and Dobbin, F. (1999) Civil rights laws at work: sex discrimination and the rise of maternity leave policies. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 2, 455-92.
29. Kelly, E.L., Kossek, E.E., Hammer, L.B., Durham, M., Bray, J., Chermack, K., Murphy, L.A., and Kaskubar, D. (2008) Getting there from here: research on the effects of work-family initiatives on work-family conflict and business outcomes. The Academy of Management Annals, 2, 1, 305-49.
30. Knoke, D. (1994) Cui bono? Employee benefit packages. American Behavioral Scientist, 37, 7, 963-78.
31. McCrate, E. (2005) Job flexibility, workplace authority, and compensating wage differentials. Feminist Economics, 11, 1, 11-39.
32. Meyer, J. and Rowan, B. (1977) Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 2, 340-363.
33. Nelson, R.L. and Bridges, W.P. (1999) Legalizing Gender Inequality: Courts, Markets and Unequal Pay for Women America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34. Osterman, P. (1995) Work-family programs and the employment relationship. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 4, 681-700.
35. Pfeffer, J. (1997) New Directions for Organizational Theory: Problems and Prospects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36. Powell, W. and DiMaggio, P. (1991) The New Institutionalism Organizational Analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
37. Raudenbush, S.W. and Bryk, A.S. (2002) Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods. 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38. Ross, C.E. and Mirowsky, J. (1988) Child care and emotional adjustment to wives' employment. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 29, 2, 127-38.
39. Rothbard, N., Philips, K. and Dumas, T. (2005) Multiple roles: work-family policies and individual's desires for segmentation. Organizational Science, 16, 3, 243-58.
40. Ryan, A.M. and Kossek, E. (2008) Work-life policy implementation: breaking down or creating barriers to inclusiveness? Human Resource Management, 47, 2, 295-58.
41. Sharpe, D., Hermsen, J. and Billings, J. (2002) Factors associated with having flextime: a focus on married workers. The Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 23, 1, 51-72.
42. Shenhav, Y. and Haberfeld, Y. (1992) Organizational demography and inequality. Social Forces, 71, 1, 123-43.
43. Smith, R.A. (2002) Race, gender, and authority the workplace: theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 509-42.
44. Smith, T.W., Kalleberg, A.L. and Marsden, P.V. (2002) National Organizations Survey, 2002 [Computer file]. ICPSR version. Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research Center (NORC) [producer], 2003. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2004.
45. Spilerman, S, and Schrank, H. (1991) Responses to the intrusion of family responsibilities the workplace. Research Social Stratification and Mobility, 10, 1, 27-61.
46. Waldfogel, J. (1998) Understanding the 'family gap' pay for women with children. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12, 1, 137-56.
47. Wright, E.O. and Baxter, J. (2000) The glass ceiling hypothesis: a comparative study of the United States, Sweden, and Australia. Gender and Society, 14, 2, 275-94.