Meanwhile, the men are not cutting back hours at work, totaling an average 48.8 hours per week. Women work 41.7 hours per week. Are we supposed to blame the companies for asking parents to work? According to an earlier study in 1991, out of 188 companies, most companies have family-friendly policies. This means that parents could work part-time, share a job with another worker, work some hours at home, take parental leave, or even use "flex time." The same study illustrates that the majority of the work force does not take advantage of these policies: fewer than five percent take advantage of part-time shifts and fewer than three percent take advantage of "flew time" or work at home options. The Bureau of Labor Statistics then conducted a survey asking whether parents would prefer a longer or shorter work week to their current work week. stunningly enough, 62 percent of workers preferred the current work week, 28 percent preferred longer hours, and less than ten percent preferred a cut in hours. As the survey revealed, some parents do try to shorten hours at work to be more at home with the family: Twenty-one percent of our Nation's women and seven percent of men voluntarily work part time. With a family at home and so many family-friendly policies, why would so many parents want to work so many hours? Our text offers four ideas that may answer our question: need for money, vulnerability to downsizing, unawareness of the programs, and emotional issues.
First, the best explanation for the lack of individuals using the family friendly programs is the cost of living is so high most parents cannot afford to lose the hours at work. In fact, it is often the best-paid workers least interested in the part-time work, shared jobs, or other family benefits. Ironically enough, one-third of the participants in a recent study expressed the pay as the best part of a job. With that under consideration, it is realized that money cannot be the only reason for not taking advantage of these polices: many workers are worried that using these policies would make them more prone to lay-offs during company cutbacks.
