{"title":"Accommodation Subverted: The Future of Work/family Initiatives in a \"Me, Inc.\" World","authors":"Rachel S. Arnow-Richman","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.440000","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article considers the viability of mandated employer accommodation of family caregiving in a work culture that prizes employee mobility and independence. Extant accommodation mandates, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Family Medical Leave Act, have been only moderately successful in deconstructing discriminatory work structures that operate to exclude underrepresented workers. Court decisions interpreting those laws frequently invoke equality principles to limit their reach and preserve employer discretion, while decisions favorable to disadvantaged plaintiffs have often occasioned popular backlash. These circumstances call into question the efficacy of accommodation as a vehicle for achieving results-based equality for caregivers. Such difficulties must be analyzed against the development of what I call a “Me, Inc.” work culture, an environment typified by worker assumption of responsibility for training and education, increased employer demand for “extra-role” behavior, significant worker mobility and a corresponding decline in long-term employment relationships. The emerging view of workers as autonomous companies is in direct tension with society’s historical designation of the employer as the party primarily responsible for accommodating the “life-cycle” needs of its workforce. On a practical level, changes in the nature and duration of work relationships mean that employers will have limited ability to absorb costs associated with accommodation, and, more significantly, that any judicial interpretation or popular conception of the employer’s duty to accommodate will be constrained by the expectation of employee self-reliance. The article therefore cautions that expansive efforts to mandate employer accommodation of caregiving risk internalizing the norms they reject and are unlikely to succeed on their own in establishing a wholly new work ethic more inclusive of family caregiving. It proposes instead a preliminary three-part approach to redressing caregiver disadvantage that corresponds to the three pre-existing channels of federal employment regulation: vigorous pursuit of class-based discrimination claims, reinvigoration of collective bargaining, and the creation of a government-administered system of wage replacement that incentivizes employer-initiated programs to assist caregivers.","PeriodicalId":344781,"journal":{"name":"Texas Journal of Women, Gender, and the Law","volume":"65 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Texas Journal of Women, Gender, and the Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.440000","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
Abstract
This article considers the viability of mandated employer accommodation of family caregiving in a work culture that prizes employee mobility and independence. Extant accommodation mandates, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Family Medical Leave Act, have been only moderately successful in deconstructing discriminatory work structures that operate to exclude underrepresented workers. Court decisions interpreting those laws frequently invoke equality principles to limit their reach and preserve employer discretion, while decisions favorable to disadvantaged plaintiffs have often occasioned popular backlash. These circumstances call into question the efficacy of accommodation as a vehicle for achieving results-based equality for caregivers. Such difficulties must be analyzed against the development of what I call a “Me, Inc.” work culture, an environment typified by worker assumption of responsibility for training and education, increased employer demand for “extra-role” behavior, significant worker mobility and a corresponding decline in long-term employment relationships. The emerging view of workers as autonomous companies is in direct tension with society’s historical designation of the employer as the party primarily responsible for accommodating the “life-cycle” needs of its workforce. On a practical level, changes in the nature and duration of work relationships mean that employers will have limited ability to absorb costs associated with accommodation, and, more significantly, that any judicial interpretation or popular conception of the employer’s duty to accommodate will be constrained by the expectation of employee self-reliance. The article therefore cautions that expansive efforts to mandate employer accommodation of caregiving risk internalizing the norms they reject and are unlikely to succeed on their own in establishing a wholly new work ethic more inclusive of family caregiving. It proposes instead a preliminary three-part approach to redressing caregiver disadvantage that corresponds to the three pre-existing channels of federal employment regulation: vigorous pursuit of class-based discrimination claims, reinvigoration of collective bargaining, and the creation of a government-administered system of wage replacement that incentivizes employer-initiated programs to assist caregivers.
本文考虑了强制性雇主在奖励员工流动性和独立性的工作文化中提供家庭照顾的可行性。现存的《美国残疾人法案》(Americans with Disabilities Act)和《家庭医疗休假法案》(Family Medical Leave Act)等住宿规定,在解构歧视性的工作结构方面只取得了适度的成功,这些工作结构的运作是为了排除代表性不足的工人。解释这些法律的法院判决经常援引平等原则来限制其影响范围,并保留雇主的自由裁量权,而有利于弱势原告的判决往往会引起公众的强烈反对。这些情况令人质疑住宿作为实现照顾者基于结果的平等的工具的效力。这些困难必须与我所说的“自我公司”工作文化的发展相对照来分析,这种环境的典型特征是工人承担培训和教育的责任,雇主对“角色外”行为的需求增加,工人流动性显著,长期雇佣关系相应下降。将工人视为自主企业的新兴观点,与社会历史上将雇主视为主要负责满足其劳动力“生命周期”需求的一方的做法存在直接矛盾。在实际层面上,工作关系性质和持续时间的变化意味着雇主承担与安置有关的费用的能力有限,更重要的是,任何关于雇主安置义务的司法解释或流行概念都将受到雇员自力更生的期望的限制。因此,文章警告说,广泛的努力强制雇主适应照顾的风险内化规范,他们拒绝,不太可能成功地建立一个全新的职业道德更包容家庭照顾。相反,它提出了一个初步的三部分方法来纠正照顾者的劣势,这与联邦就业监管的三个现有渠道相对应:积极追求基于阶级的歧视索赔,重振集体谈判,以及建立政府管理的工资替代系统,以激励雇主发起的项目来帮助照顾者。