Giving Care and Perceiving Discrimination: The Social and Organizational Context of Family Responsibilities Discrimination
Work and Family in the New Economy
ISBN: 978-1-78441-630-0, eISBN: 978-1-78441-629-4
Publication date: 17 February 2015
Abstract
Purpose
Discrimination against workers because of their family responsibilities can violate federal law, yet scholars know little about the context surrounding perceived family responsibilities discrimination (FRD). This chapter investigates both the types of caregiving responsibilities that put workers at risk of FRD and the organizational contexts that give rise to perceived FRD.
Methodology/approach
We identify features of FRD which make detecting it particularly difficult and theorize the mechanisms by which caregiving responsibilities and organizational contexts lead to perceived FRD. We draw on data from the 2008 National Study of the Changing Workforce for our empirical analysis.
Findings
Caregivers who provide both child and eldercare are more likely to perceive FRD than caregivers who provide one type of care, as are people who experience high levels of family-to-work interference and who spend more daily time on childcare. Certain family-friendly and meritocratic organizational contexts are associated with lower perceived FRD.
Research limitations/implications
We measure perceptions, not actual discrimination on the basis of family care responsibilities. Our research cannot pinpoint the factors which intensify or lessen actual discrimination, just perceptions of it.
Originality/value
By pinpointing the characteristics of organizations in which perceived FRD occurs, this chapter shows how organizations can create workplaces in which perceived FRD is less likely.
Keywords
Citation
O’Connor, L.T., Kmec, J.A. and Harris, E.C. (2015), "Giving Care and Perceiving Discrimination: The Social and Organizational Context of Family Responsibilities Discrimination", Work and Family in the New Economy (Research in the Sociology of Work, Vol. 26), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 249-276. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0277-283320150000026016
Publisher
:Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2015 Emerald Group Publishing Limited