What’s the signal?
In her comment on my post on part-time work, Jennifer wrote:
"So that makes me think that an employer who can figure out how to employ people (of course mainly mothers) part time in an effective way that makes use of their real skill sets will, be able to get some real leverage out of the talent differential they are able to exploit."
I think that’s right — but precisely because so many employers are unwilling to consider part-timers, those that do can often get away with paying them less. One of my first posts on this blog pointed out a newspaper article in which a publisher referred to stay-at-home moms as "a cheap and highly skilled workforce."
I’m still surprised that employers aren’t more willing to hire parents returning to full-time work after a few years out of the workforce. Setting aside those few careers where the technology does fundamentally change every 2 or 3 years, it’s hard to make an economic argument for why they shouldn’t be more open.
The only explanation that makes any sense to me is what economists call "signalling." In this context, a signal is a something that isn’t bad in itself, but is believed to correlate with unobservable characteristics that are undesirable. For example, young adults with GEDs do much worse in the labor market than their peers with regular high school diplomas, even though they’ve proved themselves by taking the test to have similar levels of knowledge. Economists suggest that a GED is a signal to employers that the person might have a low tolerance for routine and discipline. Similarly, I’m afraid that employers see taking any extended period out of the workforce as signaling that the person might lack full commitment to a job.
I recently read a blog posting where Mandy at Fosterfest pointed out that Justice O’Connor spent a significant period of her life as a stay-at-home mom. She argued that at the time there really weren’t very many experienced female judges, so given that Reagan wanted to nominated a woman, he had to accept one with fewer credentials than the average nominee. Today, there are so many women with highly successful linear legal careers, it’s unlikely that another woman with an extended period out of the legal profession could ever be nominated.
I’m not arguing that people who take 5 years out of the workforce should expect to return at the same level as their peers who worked continuously during that period. But, far too often, they aren’t able to return at even the same level that they were at when they left. And that just seems crazy.
August 16th, 2005 at 10:15 pm
I agree, it does seem crazy. I was talking to a co-worker of mine a few days ago, and she told me that she was quitting her job, because she’s getting a divorce, and she can’t put in the hours that she does now as a single mom. She told me she’s thinking about getting a secretarial job. This is a woman who right now is working as a senior staffer for a large organization, and can’t see any other kind of future for herself.
I love my kids, but why does that mean I have to give up any kind of ambition for my career? Or rather, why should I be the only one in the relationship to do it? It’s just not right.
August 17th, 2005 at 7:34 am
This is not insurmountable–my employer has something called “Care and Nurturing Leave.” Any person can take up to five years of unpaid leave for the care and nurturing of children, and return to their previous job. It doesn’t have to be continuous, either, so it could be three months this year for summer vacation, a year next year if a child gets sick, and so on. And your job is waiting for when you come back.
This is one of the advantages to having a union in a professional work environment.
August 17th, 2005 at 4:23 pm
You are right re: the fear of taking time off and being able to get back into it. One of the reasons I work part-time is that I fear I may not be able to get back into it when I want to.
I am extremely lucky in that I work part-time in a job that is actually a career advance, not a back-track from where I was before. It wasn’t even intentional, but somehow I fell into it. It works out well for me, and for my employer, who can’t afford to hire someone full-time and still get my level of expertise. Perhaps that’s the angle to explore- part-timers are a great way for small employers to have access to senior staff because it will cost them less than hiring someone with similar credentials full-time?
August 17th, 2005 at 8:08 pm
I wonder if part of the problem is the idealized career pattern of climbing the ladder. Generally speaking, both employers and employees prefer and expect to see responsibilities and compensation increasing over time. If someone gets off the ladder for a few years, they’ve demonstrated they’re not committed to the expected way of doing things.
I wonder if the question itself–why can’t parents who take time off from the workforce come back in at the same level at which they left–rests on the same assumption that we’re all on a ladder and want to be on a ladder, always moving up and never staying at the same place or moving sideways or moving downwards.
Certainly some women and men who take time off to stay home want to come back where they started. But I’m sure many, like me, don’t want anything like what they had before they left. And, if they still have major responsibility for domestic responsibilities, they aren’t likely going to be able to jump right in where they were when they had one or zero kids.
One of the privileges women enjoy more than men is the ability to take sideways or downwards steps or get off the ladder. Men can do it, but it’s much less accepted. I know my husband gets anxious if he ever contemplates taking a breather from his career climb. I didn’t have that same feeling, partly because of temperament but I’m sure partly because I’m a woman.
So for me the question is not how can I get back up on the ladder at the place where I climbed off? But rather: how can I find a meandering career path that’s financially, emotionally, mentally, and socially rewarding and still lets me live my domestic life the way I want to?
August 18th, 2005 at 8:58 am
I agree with your explanation – “signalling” is the economists word for the answer. The trouble is that “signalling” is often a polite way of saying “pander to your prejudices”. Twenty years ago, when I was trying to get a corporate scholarship through university, half the companies I applied to had a clear preference for men (judging by the academic results of the people they did give scholarships to). By being a woman, I was “signalling” that I was going to give up my career very shortly after my degree and go away and have children and never work again.
I think what I was trying to say in my original comment is that the current labour market treatment of part-timers, and by extension, people trying to get back into the workforce, is a clear case of market failure. Anyone who figures out how to exploit it is going to make good money out of it for a while.