In her much-acclaimed, The Second Shift (1989), Hochschild examined the tensions that arose in dual-earner households when working women carry most of the the burden for housework and child care. She found that tensions were lessened when men were inclined to share the burdens of domestic labor. But it was also true that the couples she studied perceived a dwindling amount of time to devote to family life.
In this context, Hochschild was invited to study a large Fortune-500 company (which she called "Amerco"), situated in an idyllic, rural community in the Midwest. Amerco was aware of research (reviewed in ch. 3) suggesting that instituting "family-friendly" policies helped recruit talented workers, reduced turnover, and increased profits. By 1991 Amerco's commitment to a "work-family" balance was embraced at all levels of the company, and it had been named one of the ten most "family-friendly" companies on the annual list compiled by Working Mother magazine.
When Hochschild began to study Amerco's employees, she found that workers at all levels of the company overwhelmingly desired policies to reduce their hours. In response, Amerco altered its rules to provide an environment in which people could cut back, but no one did. Hochschild considered several explanations for this paradox: 1) people were too insecure about their jobs to cut back on work hours; 2) workers could not afford to cut back on their work efforts; 3) people were ill-informed about the new policies; and, 4) middle-managers publicly supported "family-friendly" policies, but denied requests for leaves. Hochschild's statistical analysis of survey results and company personnel files led her to reject these explanations.
Hochschild's answer is found in chapter 4, in which she argues that the rewards of work and family have been reversed. At work is a circle of friends and acquaintances with whom one can laugh, socialize, tell stories, and find a network of support. Moreover, companies promote growth on the job by "empowering" and "reskilling" their workers which provides an opportunity for recognition. Not so at home. Despite long hours on the job, people preferred to spend time at work to avoid spouses who would not share in maintaining a family, children who protested their devotion to work, and the "speed up" of family life that was a byproduct of long hours at work. Hochschild found that when people were at home, they felt they had to make up for their absence by using the little available time as efficiently as possible. Thus, family life was increasingly sliced into small pockets of time with much rushing from task to task in order to meet the family's needs. At home, people always had "their engine running," and there was little opportunity to receive recognition from other family members who were resentful of their absences due to work. Since women carry most of the burden for family life, they were more likely to feel the effects of the "time bind" than men.
Hochschild argues that this situation can only be changed by a "time movement," whose aim is to lower the standard for full-time work. She reviews the history of the labor movement in the U.S. to show that an eight-hour work day was won after much struggle. She argues that the time is ripe for such a movement now, and the experiences of other countries and other firms in the U.S. show that a reduced work week can be achieved without a decline in profits or market share. In addition, Hochschild argues that a successful resolution of the time bind depends on men's willingness to increase their commitment to family life beyond what they currently give. Unless these changes are made, our children will continue to pay the price for evading the "time bind."
Reviewer: David J. Maume, Jr.
posted October 1, 1997
return to the book reviews
return to the Kunz Center Home Page
