The Religious Center Blog

My Huffington Post blog on the workplace and fatherhood

David Gray — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:52:00 -0400

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-gray/national-work-family-mont_b_305009.html

I'm a contributing blogger for Huffington Post now and have a submission on the workplace and fatherhood

Why Aren't Republicans Offering a Job Training Alternative to the Ideas of President Obama?

David Gray — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 17:33:00 -0400

On July 15, President Obama announced a major new federal investment in job training and community colleges. He appropriately made the announcement in Michigan, a state with 14% unemployment, the highest in the nation, and a major political battleground state.

Obama's plan consists of a $12 billion investment in community colleges. Part of the funds will help build and renovate buildings, part will expand on line courses and part will provide challenge grants for programs to expand "student success."

This plan may or may not be the best one to help retrain workers. However, it is a credible plan. Wages for better-educated workers grow much faster than their lesser-educated counterparts. The Educational Testing Service reported earlier this year that in 1979 the average college graduate could expect to earn 56% more than his or her counterparts without a college education. Today, college graduates expect to earn 96% more. President Bush significantly increased spending on community colleges, though not as much as Obama has proposed.

As more and more workers lose jobs, job training has never been more important. Yet the Republican response to Obama's plan, articulated by Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee (the one with jurisdiction over the relevant Workforce Investment Act) member Lamar Alexander, was that the funds that would be used to pay for Obama's worker retraining program should go to reduce the deficit instead of worker retraining.

Deficit reduction is important but at this point in America's economic story, investments such as worker retraining as vital.

They make good politics too. As the GOP nominee last year, candidate McCain privately and publically called for new job retraining policies, yet failed to develop an innovative plan. Republicans should not cede this issue to the President. There are too many Americans out of work, particularly in Midwest battleground states.

The Workforce Investment Act, the bill that allocates most federal job training dollars, is up

for reauthorization. The GOP could demonstrate its "compassionate" side by showing more care and solutions for those Americans afraid of losing their jobs. Many Republicans would not want to add large spending programs, yet President Bush already demonstrated that Republicans can spend on social programs, like education and health, and win election.

Federal training and employment expenditures peaked a generation ago and have fallen to point that government spending on job training is now lower as a percentage of GDP (0.04% in 2000) than in most industrialized countries. Part of reason for that decline is concern in Congress about the quality of government employment and training programs. Yet, lack of quality was the very reason candidate Bush got involved in education reform in 2000.

If Republicans believe that workers need skills to succeed in a global economy and that workers are anxious and want skills, then their figuring out how to improve the programs that provide the skills will allow them to reap the rewards.

If President Bush can expand the federal role in education, where Washington traditionally spent less than 7% of total national education funding, then expanding the federal role in job training, where the federal share is already more than 9%, is perhaps more consistent with what the public sees as an appropriate federal role.

A worker retraining plan to empower states, increase funding and have dollars follow the worker is consistent with both the last Bush Administration's job training and education plans and could make a difference if GOP leaders would focus on and market such ideas. They could propose greater tax incentives for businesses to provide training and for employees who upgrade their skills, engage in lifelong learning and purchase technology to help them improve their capacities.

Rather than give up this furtile policy and political ground, Republican leaders should get to work on developing their own plan.

California Workplace Flexibility Anniversary

David Gray — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 20:27:00 -0400

Five years ago this month, California became the first state in the
nation to provide wage replacement to workers who take time for family
and caregiving responsibilities. This important anniversary deserves
attention and we hope that light can be shined on the importance of
creative public policy to help workers balance their lives.

Work life balance is a significant issue for most Americans. Polls show
that more than 80% of Americans experience conflicts between their work
and family lives. The impact on families is significant. Today's
parents multitask to the point that children sight "uninterrupted time
with parents" as their primary need. Older workers want and, in this
economy, need to keep working but want to do so in a different way than
in the past. Women have traditionally faced work/life balance
challenges, as with men losing three-quarters of the jobs in this
recession, women are now driving the economy. America can't afford to
lose any more workers (women or men) due to caregiving conflicts.
However, far from being just a "woman's issue," more men (59%) than
women (45%) in dual-income households report serious conflicts.

In 2004, California sought to meet these needs by using its disability
insurance program to help fund wage replacement for workers who take
time off to have a baby or care for a relative. Five years later, there
are still many questions about the effectiveness of the California
program. We don't know if more workers took leave as a result of paid
family leave. There are real questions of how other states or the
federal government can afford wage replacement for time off in a great
recession. We do know that very few workers took advantage of the
program and that low-income workers were least likely to know about the
program.

Yet what is undeniable is that work family conflicts are real and
growing. There is a mismatch between the needs of families and the
structure of work. Furthermore, there is a growing consensus in
Washington that workplace flexibility of some kind is needed and that
creative public policy is part of the solution. Flexible work
arrangements, telework, job sharing and other policies that the private
and public sectors are already employing matter. Yet more action is
needed and needed now.

As California marks the important anniversary of its policy, may all
those who care about improving work life balance in America take this
opportunity to reflect creatively on policies that can enhance the
flexibility of workplaces for the benefit of all.

Great workplace event

David Gray — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 20:42:00 -0400

http://www.newamerica.net/events/2009/flexible_work_arrangements

Fifth anniversary of California Paid Leave

David Gray — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 12:53:00 -0400

On July 1, California celebrates the fifth anniversary of its landmark paid leave legislation. Five years ago this week, California became the first state in the nation to provide wage replacement to workers who take time for family and caregiving responsibilities. Whatever one thinks of paid leave, as Washington considers its own versions, this important anniversary deserves attention and I hope that light can be shined on the importance of creative public policy to help workers balance their lives. Five years later, there are still many questions to be answered about the overall effectiveness of the paid leave program. However, it is undeniable that work family conflicts are real and growing. There is a mismatch between the needs of families and the structure of work. Workplace flexibility is needed and creative public policy is part of the solution to benefit workers, their families and employers.

Flexibility for Fathers

David Gray — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 22:14:00 -0400

Flexibility for Fathers

On Father’s Day, dads across the nation will be struggling to succeed both at work and as husbands and parents. It used to be that work life balance issues were considered primarily challenges for women. Not any more. In 2008 National Study of the Changing Workforce, Ellen Galinsky, Kerstin Aumann and James T. Bond revealed that almost 59% of fathers in dual earner couples report experiencing “some or a lot of conflict today,” compared to only 45% of women in dual earner couples. Far from being just a women’s issue, work life balance is a fathers issue as well.

While the needs of families has changed, but the structure of work has not. What fathers need now is workplace flexibility, flexibility in the way the work so that they can be successful in meeting both their work and family obligations.

The spring, the group Workplace Flexibility 2010 (WF2010) launched a series of recommendations to help Americans better balance their work and lives. WF2010 pulled together top experts and advocates from the business, labor and academic communities from both sides of the aisle and they agreed that flexible work arrangements (FWA) were important to helping fathers, and all Americans, balance their lives. FWAs include “changes in the time and/or place of work in a way that is manageable for both employers and employees.” Changes such as the scheduling, hours and place of work through telework, phased retirement, part-time or flexible work or compressed work weeks. This would help fathers.

Many companies, like IKEA, and many government entities, such as the city of Houston, are providing FWAs, but WF2010 and its advisory group found that there is a role for thoughtful public policy to help strengthen workplace flexibility in America. Some of the many important points include:

The Fair Labor Standards Act could be changed to allow workers to work up to 50 hours in a current week (up to 80 hours in a two week period). Some hourly working might prefer to work 50 hours one week and only 30 the next in order to spend more time with their family.

The federal Department of Labor should help clarify that creative examples of workplace flexibility are already available under current law. Some employers are reluctant to offer flexible work arrangements because they have misperceptions of the law - such as believing that “hourly workers cannot work compressed workweeks of 10 hour days without incurring an overtime liability for the employer.”

Telework, where employees are able to use technology to replace much of their daily commute and gain flexibility in the place and hours of work, should be expanded. Telework can cut commute times, decrease pollution, reduce demand for gas, aid people with disabilities and help support businesses in case of a natural disaster or terrorist attack. However, as WF2010 notes, only around 15% of employees telework every one day a week. Congress is reauthorizing the national transportation bill that pays for reconstructing roads and should mandate that when a road is ripped up and repaired that fiber optic cable be added. The cost of adding fiber optic cable is small when compared to the cost of reconstructing the cement and would help create universal broadband access to support telework. Funding from the stimulus package should be used to create new telework centers. Tax incentives should be available for companies and employees who purchase equipment needed for telework. There are some states in which double taxation exists for teleworkers. The federal government could clarify and possibly preempt state law by requiring that income be eligible for taxation by only one jurisdiction.

Many older workers who have seen their retirement savings slashed by the recent economic crisis, have a desire to continue to work but want to do so in a more flexible way. Today, federal law requires that many workers cannot “receive distributions from their defined benefit plans until they have completely severed any work relationship with their employer.” This should be changed so that older workers can continue to work part time or reduced hours while beginning to draw down some of their retirement savings.

WF2010’s policy platform provides many other insightful recommendations that government and business should pursue to help fathers and all Americans better balance their work and families lives. Ultimately, fathers will have to make decisions that prioritize balance for themselves and their families. Yet, thoughtful and creative public policies have a role. Those who care about fathers and their families should pay attention.

The Evolution of God

David Gray — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:45:00 -0400

http://www.newamerica.net/events/2009/the_evolution_god

Work Life Balance a Men's Issue too

David Gray — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:43:00 -0400

As Father's Day approaches, we should be aware of one of the startling conclusions of a recent survey. In their 2008 National study of the Changing Workforce, Ellen Galinsky, Kerstin Aumann and James T. Bond found that men now feel more work life conflict than women do. Men’s self-reported work-life conflict has risen from 34% in 1977 to 45% in 2008, compared to now only 39% of women. The majority of fathers in dual earner couples, report experiencing “some or a lot of conflict today, up from 35% in 1977.” That compares now to only 45% of women in dual earner couples. Far from being just a women’s issue, work life balance is a father's issue as well. Over a generation when the percentage of women in the workplace has increased substantially so that dual earner families are now the norm, the needs of families has changed but the structure of work has not. Fathers need workplace flexibility this Father's Day.

The Pink House

David Gray — Fri, 08 May 2009 18:46:00 -0400

Last fall, my wife and I welcomed our second child, a son, into the world. It’s great having two boys, but it doesn't set me up well to occupy the modern White House.

With Barack Obama's inauguration, his daughters, Malia and Sasha, now live on Pennsylvania Avenue. On November 24, 2008, Lois Romano wrote in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/23/AR2008112302555.html) that Desiree Rogers, the new White House social secretary, is "committed to making the White House a fun place for the Obama daughters."

I'm wondering why it seems like Presidential children in the White House tend to be daughters. Obama has two daughters and no boys. So does George W. Bush. So did Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson. President Clinton had a daughter and no sons.

George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan had kids of both genders, but none who lived in the White House. President Carter also had sons but the child who lived in the White House during his term was his daughter, Amy. Susan Ford's high school prom was held at the White House. Harry Truman's only child, a daughter, sang in the White House as a college student. The one enduring image of a young Presidential son in recent memory is of Caroline Kennedy’s brother, John Kennedy, Jr. playing in the Oval Office.

There was a time earlier in the 20^th century when future Presidents had sons, but they didn’t often grow up in the White House. Dwight Eisenhower and Herbert Hoover each had two boys, but they didn’t grow up in the White House. Calvin Coolidge did have two sons who were young enough to grow up partly in the White House, though they attended high school in Pennsylvania during their father’s presidency rather than in Washington. Coolidge’s younger son, Calvin, Jr., died from an infected blister he received playing tennis at the White House. FDR had four boys who reached adulthood, but the youngest was seventeen when his father moved into the White House.

In centuries past, Presidents, like most Americans, had more children than people have had in recent years, so they had a better chance of having both boys and girls. Yet since World War II, the trend of Presidential occupants with children at home has been towards girls. This is somewhat surprising as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's "Trend Analysis of the Sex Ratio at Birth in the United States," found that between 1940 and 2002, 5.7 million more boys than girls were born inAmerica.

One important component is not just gender, but age. Many Presidents had sons, but mostly they were too old to live in the White House. There have been almost as many boys (16) born to men who would go on to become President after 1945 as there were girls (19). Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush all had more boys than girls. However, none of their boys spent any significant part of their childhood in the White House.

As one thinks about the 2012 race for who will take on President, and future "father of the bride," Obama, setting aside the kids’ ages, this trend of having girls does not bode well for Mitt Romney's (five boys) presidential aspirations. Look out for Newt Gingrich though (again two daughters).

Yet when it comes to children being residents of the White House, the image Americans have in recent years has moved away from that enduring image of John Kennedy, Jr. to the presidential daughters. The Obama girls continue that trend. It seems that the lesson of the past few generations teaches that the White House social secretaries won’t have to change the pink wallpaper any time soon.

Families and Workplace Flexibility

David Gray — Thu, 07 May 2009 18:29:00 -0400

Families and Workplace Flexibility

- David Gray

American families need Workplace Flexibility. There is a mismatch between the structure of work and the needs of families in America. Last fall, my wife and I welcomed our second child, a son, into the world. It is a joy, but puts pressure on any family. My mother in law moved in for a few weeks to help. As for many Americans, having extended family present made a difference for us.

President Obama is experiencing something similar as his mother in law has moved in to help care for the Obama daughters, Malia and Sasha. On November 24, 2008, Lois Romano wrote in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/23/AR2008112302555.html) that Desiree Rogers, the new White House social secretary, is "committed to making the White House a fun place for the Obama daughters."

Why does it seem like Presidential children in the White House tend to be daughters. Obama has two daughters and no boys. So does George W. Bush. So did Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson. President Clinton had a daughter and no sons.

The presence of the "First Mother in Law" demonstrates that work family balance issues have reached the highest level of American government. President Obama's experience should no doubt make him more sensitive to the work family balance needs of the American people.

Yet, not every family has "in laws" who can come and help. That is why workplace flexibility is so important. Americans need more control of the way and hours they work. Technology can make that possible. Creative public policy, incentives for business, creative financing for extended time off, and flexible work arrangements, can help parents care for their children and be productive members of the workforce.

Having children is a joy, but requires attention. Extended family is a blessing, but not every one has it. Public policy should help.

David Gray directs the Workforce and Family Program at the New America Foundation in Washington, DC.