I was reading a blog by Judith Warner on the New York Times the other day ("The Other Home Equity Crisis") that talked about women in the economy.  It highlights a report put out by Congress that details the reason for women leaving the workforce in recent years.  And it's not because they are getting more flexible workplaces to allow them to spend more time with their kids!  No, it's because women are hit disproportionately hard during recessions.  Prior to this report, it was believed that women were leaving in order to spend more time with their kids, not because they were being forced out.

What is so sad about this is that it's not necessary.  Read the rest of this entry »

Terry appeared on FOX's American Newsroom on Monday, July 28th, at 8:30 CDT.  Listen to her discuss the University of Minnesota study that showed eating meals together lowers teenage girls' liklihood to use alcohol or drugs.  Terry explains that this demonstrates the importance of a flexible workplace so that parents are able to be home in order to eat meals with their families. 

Terry Neese's five family-friendly policies received national attention this week.  Jim Blasingame invited her onto "Small Business Advocate" to discuss the benefits of her five suggested policies.  Listen to the interview here!

Terry will be appearing on CNN's "Issue #1" at noon, EDT, on July 15th.  Tune in and see what she has to say about important issues facing our women, families, and small businesses!     

 On July 10^th, the Oklahoman covered a hearing held by Rep. Mike Shelton, where he suggested a more flexible work-week to cut down on commuting costs (Read the article here).  Making a flexible work week optional does a lot more than decreasing workers' gas costs though.  As such, the National Center for Policy Analysis has advocated for more flexibility in the workplace through congressional caucus briefings, publications and research, and most notably our president and CEO Dr. John Goodman's book, Leaving Women Behind, co-authored by Kimberly Strassel and Celeste Colgan.  Read the rest of this entry »

 Yesterday, Associated Press reported on a study that showed that 4 out of 5 workers are not saving enough for retirement and that women are at a significant disadvantage in this area. (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/25480689/).  The study, done by Hewitt Associates, showed that while both men and women contribute to retirement plans, women have an 8% greater shortfall in savings.  Why are women at such a disadvantage?  The study answers this question with the wage differences of men and women, as well as a longer lifespan.  However, the study stands out in its acknowledgement of a lesser-realized reason for the retirement savings difference:  “women tend to be in and out of the work force more frequently for family reasons, leading to breaks in savings.”

But the real reason that women are at a disadvantage for saving for retirement is because our tax and labor laws make it that way.  Women work part-time at a much higher rate than men because of care-giving responsibilities for children or elderly family members.  Working part-time gives them more flexibility to raise children and care for their families’ needs.  However, part-time workers are less likely to qualify for employer-provided insurance.  When this happens, they are forced to purchase their own health insurance outside the workplace, which our tax laws discourage through much higher tax burdens.  Women are also more likely to switch jobs than men because of care-giving responsibilities, which lead to either a complete loss of benefits or, at the least, a significant decrease of benefits. 

Kim Strassel, editorial writer for the Wall Street Journal and co-author of NCPA’s book Leaving Women Behind, points out that “our major economic institutions - including tax law, labor law, and employee benefits law, as well as Social Security, and retirement policies - were designed for families with a full-time worker and a stay-at-home spouse.  By comparison, they punish every other arrangement."            

The National Center for Policy Analysis has long recognized this need of the modern workforce.  Are there solutions to fix this problem so that women can save for retirement, just as easily as men?  Absolutely!  We need to update tax and labor laws so that they are applicable to today’s working people.  We need to, at the minimum:

• Allow part-time workers to accept lower wages in exchange for health care benefits;
• Create a level playing field under the tax law so that people that purchase health insurance on their own obtain just as much tax relief as people who get health insurance through their employer; and
•  Create portable health and retirement benefits, so that people are not penalized when they switch jobs. 

Why can’t we allow these women to have portability, security, and flexibility now?!  You tell me!

by Terry Neese

Our founding fathers believed in the American Dream, where all were given the opportunity to succeed through hard work.  Benjamin Franklin said that "energy and persistence conquer all things" Unfortunately, for many, our laws, that were originally crafted to protect the family and the work ethic, now prevent that principle being true today. 

Today, despite the evident and abundant blessings of liberty, America's labor laws aren't working well — for men or women. They simply don't reflect the needs of today's workers.

Beth Shulman, in her 2005 book, The Betrayal of Work, had some harsh words about today's reality: "For generations, Americans shared a tacit understanding that if you worked hard, a livable income and basic securities were to be yours. That promise has been broken and as a nation, we are living a lie."

Has the American dream become a lie?  That's harsh, but working hard is no longer enough to provide for you and your family.  Even those who work hard are having a hard time gaining basic security while they labor in the fields of the modern economy. If enough policymakers remember the principles behind our great country, and more important, the people composing it, proposals pending in Congress might, just might, be able to restore Benjamin Franklin's American dream.

For Americans, the value of work is unchanging. The satisfaction that comes from working hard and seeing a tangible result is at the center of our identities as humans.  Dignity, achievement, mutual benefit from a fair exchange in a free economy — these  needs of the American people never change. Our ability to meet those needs in the face of an ever diverse workforce unfortunately has changed dramatically since most of our labor laws were written in the 1930s.  Between 1950 and 2000, the labor force participation rate of women between 25 and 55 years of age more than doubled.  Today, more than 75 percent of these women are in the labor market.  Fewer than 12 percent of mothers with children under six were in the labor force in 1950.  Today, more than 60 percent are working. 

Today, those rigid labor laws function in ways that can deny the opportunity to attend a child's soccer game or take a parent to the doctor one week and make up the hours the following week. Women and men need the ability to bend schedules in order to care for aging parents or, increasingly, even an aging spouse.

The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) has worked on such reforms for many years.  In "Leaving Women Behind," John Goodman, with Kimberley Strassel and  Celeste Colgan, acknowledged the needs of our changing workforce and began a push to reform labor laws. I continue to work with political leaders to promote the sensible reforms offered in the book. 

Our major economic institutions - including tax law, labor law, and employee benefits law, as well as Social Security, and retirement policies - reward families with a full-time worker and a stay-at-home spouse and punish every other arrangement. Today's employers and employees find it difficult to make any other arrangement, even though circumstances have changed.

In the Twenty-first Century economy, women and men need adaptable and flexible work schedules to allow the time and energy required to give adequate care to our children, and to support the quality of life our retired parents and loved ones need and deserve in the land of the free.  Our laws need to go back to when they allowed hard work to accomplish responsibilities both at work and at home.

One answer to the dilemma is compensatory time, better known to federal workers as "comp time." In 1995, a poll from the Employment Policy Foundation and Penn/Schoen Associates found that if they had the choice, three out of every four American workers would choose comp time instead of overtime wages. It's not surprising that support for the idea reaches 81 percent among working women, many of whom bear the primary responsibility for caregiving.

Many lawmakers have opposed making such changes in the private sector. But in 1978, Congress took an important and needed first step to change the rules to allow this flexibility for federal government workers. A recently proposed bill, H.R. 6025, would allow such flexibility and alternatives to the 40-hour work week for parents with children and caregivers for the elderly. It could shift the private sector toward greater use of compensatory time for employees who choose to take advantage of it.

There have been some recent rule changes to the overtime laws that applied to supervisory personnel. While welcome, these changes still exclude the private sector workers who most need the benefits comp time arrangements give to busy and stressed workers and their families.

America needs policies that work for people who work. American women - and all American workers — need flexibility, portability, and security in labor law and the provision of benefits.

Such reforms would be worth celebrating, in the grand tradition of our foremothers and forefathers. For a more perfect union, it's past time for comp time. 

The rigid 40 hour work week, originally set forth by the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, was designed to protect employees…Yet it is now hurting both employees and employers.  Primary caregivers, of children or elderly family, often are unable to work the required 40 hours during the 8-5 slot allowed each week.  If unable to work full-time (according to these standards), one is often required to purchase his/her own benefits with after-tax dollars.  If attempting a full-time schedule, productivity and personal satisfaction (both at work and at home) go out the window along w/ their sanity as they attempt to balance work and family responsibilities.

But not only do we need these changes to take place, they have proven profitable for the businesses that have undertaken them on their own!

A recent study by the Families and Work Institute (see http://www.familiesandwork.org/site/sloanbizresults.html) shows that giving employees more flexibility in their workplace increases employee satisfaction, translating into high retention, lower turn over, higher levels of engagement while at the office, and even fewer days skipping out of the office!  Moreover, it boosts productivity, reduces business costs, and even increases profits.  Want the numbers?

According to the study, the Houston accounting firm PFK Texas gives employees choice in work hours, workspace, and even future work plans.  The result?  Their turnover has decreased to a startling low 12%!  The firm has doubled in the meantime and experienced a revenue growth of 8% per year since making the changes. 

The Washington D.C. office of Capital One takes advantage of home offices, wireless laptops, Blackberrys…etc.  Their employees often choose flexible arrangements that work for their own personal situation.  The company spends less money on office costs while simultaneously getting more productivity out of their employees! 

The bottom line simply is this: giving employees flexibility in the workplace means better results for all involved. 

Why can't we?  You tell me…