Soumission

Towards Improving Work and Family Balance – A challenge that calls for non-legislative and legislative considerations by the Federal Labour Standards Review Commission

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND/CONTEXT

FOCUS OF THIS BRIEF

The need for more citizen and stakeholder engagement, research, critical discourse, and diffusion of innovation in this area.

Recommendations regarding a non-legislative agenda on balancing work and family.

Considerations relative to the Canada Labour Code (Section Three), which we recommend for discussion with provinces and territories.

APPENDIX A: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, BALANCING WORK AND FAMILY PUBLIC TASK FORCE AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE WITH WORK-FAMILY PROGRAMMING: 1997-2005, WORK AND FAMILY UNIT, SASKATCHEWAN LABOUR.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Executive Summary

Towards Improving Work and Family Balance – A challenge that calls for non-legislative and legislative considerations by the Federal Labour Standards Review Commission.

This submission to The Federal Labour Standards Review Commission is presented by The Work and Family Unit, Saskatchewan Labour. The submission conceptualizes potential Commission recommendations regarding work-family balance issues within a Federal-Provincial-Territorial framework.

A brief overview of work-family balance issues is followed by the focus of our submission, which is on the need for Federal leadership and support in the area of non-legislative programming. This analysis is based on having had a non-legislative program on work-family issues within Saskatchewan Labour since 1997.

The topics covered within the submission are:

• The need for more citizen and stakeholder engagement, research, critical discourse, and diffusion of innovation in this area.
• Recommendations regarding a non-legislative agenda on balancing work and family.
• Considerations relative to the Canada Labour Code (Section Three), which we recommend for discussion with provinces and territories.

Appendix B brings together some aspects of what we have learned about non-legislative programming on work-family issues.

Introduction

"Women are going to work and they deserve to do so. Yet we keep the old male work rules, nine to five, forty hours a week, and if there's overtime you do it or you don't keep your job. Neither men nor women can combine working and parenting under those rules. We need new ways of working." (Urie Bronfenbrenner).¹

"No longer do the majority of workers have full-time support at home. Today's workers are required to manage both their paid-work and child-care responsibilities. Therefore, many employees provide care or assistance to an aged relative, and some have both child-care and eldercare responsibilities. The difficulties and stresses associated with increased responsibilities both inside and outside the organization can take their toll on employees. This can be manifested in the workplace through increased absenteeism, increased turnover and lower employee morale." (Judith L. MacBride-King, Conference Board of Canada).²

Canada and other industrialized societies in which mothers of young children participate widely in the paid labour force, are now dealing with the issue of how to manage, balance, or integrate the often-competing demands of the home and the workplace. The issue of work-family/life balance has become an area of academic study, a media issue, a key concern for employees and their families, a priority human resource issue, as well as a recruitment and retention issue with employers and managers. Recently, for example, an entire issue of Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society was titled: "Symposium: The Effect of Work-Family Policies on Employees and Employers." Also recently, the first all-jurisdiction review of work-family balance provisions and promotional programs offered by Departments of Labour within Canadian provinces, territories, and at the Federal level was undertaken by the Canadian Association of Administrators of Labour Legislation (CAALL)³. This review was co-chaired by the Federal government and the government of Saskatchewan.

As theorists in this area point out, work-family balance issues resist superficial solutions and continue to mount, largely because this issue challenges the extent to which existing institutional frameworks, and cultural adaptation mechanisms, are capable of supporting employees (women and men; mothers and fathers) to wholeheartedly participate in a productive economy while caring for those they love⁴. What we hear directly from employees is that many feel fatigued and highly stressed by simply doing the two things that are most dear to their hearts – that is earning a living and caring for family. A glance at the following table, which summarizes a five-point rating of responses to questions by Saskatchewan employees (who had partners and at least one child five or less) is indicative of the feelings of many employees.

The evidence that can be marshalled in order to show the extent to which the "caring" functions of family, community and society as a whole are under stress, stands in stark contrast to the apparent success this country has had in improving the material conditions of many of our citizens (a comparison of the square footage of average homes in 1955 with those of today is instructive in this regard). Even stout defenders of the status-quo are puzzled and worried these days when they confront the painful irony that in Canada one can have a 3000 square foot home, a swimming pool, and little energy or time to play with a 2 year old or visit and do small chores for an ageing mother. Many employees live highly scheduled lives which show cracks when friends or parents visit or when a child turns out to need more attention than was expected. In many such instances, the still-intact, "old" institutional expectations take over and employed wives or mothers end up filling the "caring gap."⁶

It is, however, not only the "caring" functions of this society that are under stress. In the next few years, due to a number of factors including anticipated labour force shortages, the matter of whether this economy will meet productivity expectations in line with our standard of living is likely to also be an issue. Considerable research points to the difficulties many employers will face in recruiting and retaining skilled employees who, given work options, may pick those which are responsive to their desire for work-family/life balance.⁷

Given the above comments, we want to note that this would seem to be an auspicious time for this Commission, especially with regard to work-family balance issues. To begin, the negative outcomes which are associated with poor integration between the demands of work/career and the care needs of family are now becoming a public issue⁸. Secondly, problems for employers in this realm are projected to increase⁹. The confluence of these two conditions suggests that we may be coming into a time when there will be an appetite for innovation and experimentation aimed at reducing work-family conflict. This would seem to be an excellent time for the Commission to propose government leadership which would encourage all sectors – business, labour, communities, and government – to act collaboratively and separately to adapt public policy as well as workplace policy, practice, and culture to better accommodate employees with family responsibilities.

Some may argue that the narrow mandate and application (10% of the labour force) of Section Three of the Canada Labour Code provides limited opportunity for dealing with the lack of work-family balance because this problem exists in all provinces and territories and stems from multiple historical and socio-economic factors. We believe this need not be the case, given the Commission's mandate to consider non-legislative as well as legislative mechanisms. In its report, the Commission could take the view, for example, that the Federal government has a responsibility to offer leadership and resources to those jurisdictions who are prepared to develop promotional and capacity-building programs on work-family balance issues.

On a lighter but serious note, we are hopeful that your work will play a part in the following cartoons taking on an "out of date" status!

Background/Context

The Work and Family Unit, which is presenting this brief on behalf of Saskatchewan Labour, has the following mandate:

The Work and Family Unit co-ordinates the Government of Saskatchewan's activities aimed at lessening the negative personal and corporate consequences arising from employees' inability to balance their work and family responsibilities.

The overall objective of this unit is capacity building. This approach involves providing support, motivation, knowledge, and skill development to key stakeholders within the province: business, labour, community, and government, so that they can foster family-responsive workplaces.

This senior-level program within Saskatchewan Labour was established in April 2000 as a response to The Balancing Work and Family Initiative, which the government of Saskatchewan undertook in 1997-1998. The Balancing Work and Family Initiative included primary research on over 5,000 Saskatchewan employees¹⁰, a Public Task Force on Balancing Work and Family chaired by the Dean of Commerce V. Lynne Pearson¹¹ and a community development and public engagement process.¹²

This Initiative was a pioneering effort in Canada. It gave "voice" and public recognition to the stress and fatigue many employees experience as they earn a living and respond to family responsibilities. Employers also had a lot to say. They expressed concern about what they are seeing in their workplaces: growing stress, retention problems, the rising cost of Employee Family Assistance Programs, and increased absenteeism.

Focus of this brief

We have given significant thought to identifying outcomes from the work of the Federal Labour Standards Commission which, based on our experience in dealing with work and family balance issues in Saskatchewan, could assist Canada to move towards better integration of "earning" and "caring".

Given our program on work and family, we are aware of the "explosion" of scholarly research, popular publications, and popular discourse on work-family/life balance issues. Further, given that the Commission has access to this literature and will itself soon release a series of "expert" papers on issues that are germane to its mandate, we anticipate that the critical theoretical and empirical research regarding the lack of work-family balance will be readily available for review by the Commission. Our goal therefore in this submission, is to contribute some ideas we have acquired by having a work and family program within the Department of Labour for a number of years. Appendix B provides a summary of our experience within this program, which includes research, awareness and engagement strategies, formal and informal workplace culture change projects, a multi-year small business initiative, the development of workplace change tools, and an all-sector based Work and Family Balance Awards Program.

The text that follows will cover the following themes:

• The need for more citizen and stakeholder engagement, research, critical discourse, and diffusion of innovation in this area.
• Recommendations regarding a non-legislative agenda on balancing work and family.
• Considerations relative to the Canada Labour Code (Section Three), which we recommend for discussion with provinces and territories.

The need for more citizen and stakeholder engagement, research, critical discourse, and diffusion of innovation in this area.

Although, as suggested in the preceding pages, there is significant discourse and research on the issue of the lack of work-family balance, when it comes to considering the mix of public policy options and well as workplace-driven culture, policy, and practice which would facilitate sustained improvement in work and family balance, there are many outstanding questions. Some of these are:

• Does Canada have an overall approach to work-family issues? If so, what is it? Can there be a pan-Canadian approach to resolving work-family balance issues given that key policy levers in this area such as labour standards and child care policy fall within provincial and territorial jurisdiction? Other policy areas that are central to this debate such as maternity, paternity, and parental benefits, as well as the formulation of payroll taxes are under Federal jurisdiction. Have we decided what assumptions, values, and beliefs (about the place and value of "work" and the place and value of "caring") will shape our way of resolving work-family issues? Have we decided whether equality for mothers is key to such a framework? Research suggests we have an approach to this issue that is somewhere between that of the United States and that of Western Europe¹³. If so, how did we develop this so-called "middle of the road" approach? Are we somewhat at the place Economist Jonathon Gershuny suggested Britain was at when he spoke on this issue at one of the six Challenge of the New Millennium Lectures Tony Blair hosted at 10 Downing Street in 1999? At this time, Gershuny said:
  My talk is about a crucial choice that Britain has to make, over the next few years, between two different styles of time use, two different "time use regimes" -- and hence two different sorts of society. One of these, which we might think of as "the Wild West" is the outcome of an untrammelled market mechanism, in which the state refuses to take regulatory and other action to influence the work leisure/balance. The other, which we might think of as the Nice North, is the outcome of North European and particularly Nordic-style policy, towards the family and towards working hours. I'll try to spell out the linkages between working hours regulations and other aspects of family policy. And I'll suggest that the policy choices we make now will move Britain either towards the Nice North or towards the Wild West, through the course of the 21st century¹⁴.
  While in our work in this field since 1997, we have seen a significant amount of interest and activity on this issue on the part of employers, employees and community organizations, we have not seen a consensus as to how to "fix" this issue. In this regard, there are a variety of voices: "these problems can be solved with support for the traditional families roles"; "we need less rules"; "we need more rules – more legislation"; "we need to have help to create family-friendly workplaces"; "we need better wages so families only need one breadwinner"; "families need 1.5 jobs"; "we need programs to help people cope – yoga at noon"; "we need to bargain family-friendly language", etc, etc.
  Further, despite access to research on this topic, we still get a good number of requests from employers and employees who want us to take a "fix the individual" approach to improving work-family balance. Such solutions involve offering motivational talks, stress management, and time management techniques (our program does not do this type of work).
• Have Canadians as citizens, as well as key stakeholders, had ample opportunity to be informed about work-family issues and to be engaged in sharing their views of how these issues should be resolved?
• Has there been enough stakeholder and public venues where "experts" in this field can join with business leaders, union leaders and critical citizen voices – that which represent some of the enduring divides in Canada – on gender, class, and race to debate this issue? … to explore the kinds of structural change that may be necessary to resolve this issue in a fair and equitable fashion?
• Work-family specialists refer to the need for culture-change at the level of the workplace, however, how much do we know about why and how such change occurs? Have we experimented enough with change processes within different sized workplaces from various sectors to be able to offer any real support to employers and employees? Further, do we know enough about the linkages between workplace culture (micro) and the culture (or cultures) of the larger society at the macro level? How far can one go in creating work environments that are family-friendly if the larger society is not especially family-friendly? On a structural level what kind of change is needed if this society is to become more family-friendly?
• Do we need a clearer understanding of the limitations of what the workplace can do in respect to work-family issues? As an example, we know from research on Saskatchewan employees that the number of mother-employees who report very high work-family overload is linked to the evidence that even when mothers are employed full-time there is limited sharing of childcare, children's activities and household chores within partnered families¹⁵. Further, given that some researchers have shown a linkage between equal earning power for mothers and fathers as a predicator of sharing of domestic work – should work-family issues be linked to issues of pay equity and employment equity for women?
• How do we draw over-worked managers into thinking about work-family balance? … into resisting the long-hours work culture? …into offering "balance" options for their staff? What mechanisms, partnerships and pilot endeavours do we need to set up in order to develop a sense of "shared concerns" between managers and employees? How does "flexibility" and support for family needs fit into "cultures of entitlement" that do exist in some workplaces? How does collective bargaining for family-friendly provisions fit in with culture-change?
• How do we draw non-standard employees into the work-family discourse, since many are isolated?
• Has there been enough work done with small business to clearly understand their view on work-family issues? In this province, that sector in itself includes significant variation.
• Those who are focused on researching work-family issues or in promoting family-friendly workplaces understand the linkages between the lack of balance and key public concerns, such as the cost of health care, the cost of not meeting the needs of children, youth, and elders, but do policy makers in finance departments, CEO's of Worker Compensation Boards and Health Authorities appreciate these linkages? If the work-family discourse is marginalized, how do we make these linkages which are essential if "real" change is to occur on this issue?¹⁶
• Why is there so little research and work-family discourse on how this issue affects low-income Canadians? new Canadians? lone-parents? Aboriginal employees? Could it be that these gaps are related to the lack of an explicit framework on this issue?
• Do some of the current approaches to supporting work-family balance taken by employers and employees lead to greater inequities within Canada – e.g. a professional lone-parent can make "the business case" for why she needs enough flexibility to allow her to attend school concerts, school camping out activities and such, while the lone-parent who works in a secretary/support position may not be in a position to make the "business case" – so one child has attention and the other does not. Have Canadians looked at how some approaches to work-family issues can in fact make work-family stress worse for some employees ("mom, all the other parents were there")?

Clearly, a variety of theoretical literature, empirical research, and experience can be brought to bear on these questions. Some may even suggest the responses to questions of this type are straightforward. Our motive in putting such questions forth is not to weigh out the evidence on each. Our intention is to argue that, even if specialists in the work-family area could debate these points in detail, there is need for more analysis, more research, more experimentation, and more informed popular and public discussion of these types of questions.

It is not only Canada that appears to be confused and sometimes in contradictory stances about how to better harmonize the demands of work with employees' family responsibilities. Jane Jense¹⁷ pointed out recently that while there is a policy consensus in Europe on the priority of meeting "care needs of children and dependent elderly while supporting careers and employment" there is a major outstanding policy question as to how to distribute responsibilities including costs for doing so between the market, community, state, and family sectors. While at the same conference at which Jenson spoke, Mark Pearson, Head of the OECD Social Policy Division identified integrating career and family life as an issue all OECD countries agree on as a key issue but one on which policy direction is confused and confusing: "It is unclear where policy initiatives are leading or what their effectiveness may be."¹⁸ Pearson also pointed out that in addition, while OECD countries agree that stressful work environments are a key problem, few know what to do about this issue.

It would seem that gaps in current knowledge about key work-family issues and more importantly the paucity of citizen and stakeholder dialogue on the types and mixes of approaches which can be taken to resolving work-family issues (and their concomitant impacts in terms of productivity, cost to taxpayers, and gender and socio-economic equality) points to the value of the Commission taking up the matter of citizen engagement, research, pilot projects, public education and such when they consider a non-legislative agenda the Federal government could take leadership on in consultation with provinces and territories.

Recommendations regarding a non-legislative agenda on balancing work and family.

We believe that the Federal government has a critical role to play in assisting Canadians to resolve work-family issues despite Ottawa's limited, constitutionally-defined role in respect to labour policies and programs in this country. As is clear to all, the jurisdiction of the Federal government in this area is limited to employees within federally regulated workplaces. However, in our view, there is a strong need, as well as ample precedent¹⁹ for Ottawa to employ its leadership capacity and fiscal powers to develop (in consultation with the provinces and territories), non-legislative programming aimed at facilitating public and stakeholder dialogue, workplace policy, practice, and culture change. In fact, Ottawa has undertaken and or supported non-legislative activities on the work-family balance file for some time²⁰. However, in the eyes of our department this activity has been lacking in strategic direction. Further, it has offered support primarily to select individuals and or programs within select jurisdictions. Such programming has to date emerged from a variety of federal departments – Health Canada, HRSDC, Labour Canada.

A non-legislative agenda on work-family issues is important in our view for three reasons. One such reason is the significant gap in knowledge and dialogue we identified earlier (beginning on page 8). These gaps suggest Canada is not ready to go forward with a coherent approach to work-family balance issues. Secondly, non-legislative programming is called for in this area simply because of the need to go beyond "rules and laws" in order to deal with workplace values, attitudes, and beliefs (culture). Workplace culture-change and the increase in the number of supervisors/direct managers who support work-family balance play a vital role in reducing work-family stress. Research shows that supportive supervisors and appropriate workplace culture can reduce employee work-family tension, and improve the retention, recruitment, and productivity of employees with family responsibilities²¹. Further, research and experience indicates that stand alone policy change at the public or/and at the workplace level does not, in itself, lead to change in workplace culture or in the capacities of supervisors. A critical analysis of workplaces in Sweden shows that, despite excellent public policy and collective agreements regarding support for employees with family responsibilities, progress in this area has been limited by Sweden's failure to implement workplace culture change relative to the long-hours work culture and embedded definitions of career success.²²

Finally, our experience indicates that a pan-Canadian, non-legislative, work-family balance strategy would be of practical support to employers and employees. In some of our work, local employers interested in workplace culture-change activities have reported that when they contacted their out-of-province head managers, some had no awareness of work-family issues. Inter-provincial /territorial mobility in Canada likewise supports the need for a pan-Canadian strategy.

Recommendations:

1. We recommend that the Federal government develop a package of promotional and capacity-building programs that jurisdictions may utilize to assist employees, employers, and communities to experiment with a variety of responses to work-family issues. Such programs could include the following types of initiatives:
   • Research: a three to five year multi-faceted research fund be put in place for qualified researchers who have developed partnerships with key organizational actors in the work-family balance field (HR associations, business organizations, community agencies, trade unions, women's organizations, and specific groups who become engaged in the work-family discourse such as associations of aboriginal employees and employers associations).
   • Promotional /public education activities: leadership, expert consultation, and matched funding to be made available to a range of organizations that develop proposals to deliver promotional and educational material/events that are aimed at enhancing employee, employer and public understanding of work and family balance issues, public policies, and workplace policies, practices, and culture that will reduce the negatives that now arise because of the pressures between the demands of work and the responsibilities of family.
   • Employers Workplace Change Fund: Our experience is that in many cases, the type of change that needs to occur at the level of the workplace is workplace-specific. Further, even though we have had some success with providing government-based professional expertise to employers, we believe that the take-up by employers would be higher if they could access funds to select qualified culture-change experts of their own choosing. Britain has had success over the last number of years with such a fund (Challenge Fund) that allows employers to access funds to hire expert consultants to work with them to achieve workplace change²³. The state of Victoria in Australia has recently established such a fund for workplaces - The Better Work and Family Balance Grants Program, which "assists organizations to adopt practices that improve the work and family balance of their employees."²⁴
   • Work and Family Balance Intersectoral Partnership Group support: This program would support employers, employees and community agencies and organizations to become engaged in setting up partnership groups at the community level to undertake educational and promotional activities.
   • Pilot Projects for Workplace Change: This type of program would support workplace change pilot projects which have been designed in partnership by employers and employees.
   • Support for Workplace Incentive and Recognition Initiatives: This program would support jurisdictions to implement incentive and recognition programs as a way of acknowledging workplaces that are making progress in becoming more family-friendly. As an example, several countries and a number of states within countries have implemented Work and Family Balance Awards. This type of initiative on the part of jurisdictions was recommended by Ministers of Labour in response to the report, Work-Life Balance in Canada: A Report to Ministers Responsible for Labour in Canada, which was prepared by the Canadian Association of Administrators of Labour Legislation (CAALL)²⁵. Saskatchewan Labour in partnership with The Balancing Work and Family Alliance announced a biennial Work and Family Balance Award on September 15, 2005.
   • Support for pan-Canadian Work-Family networks, meetings, and specialized conferences. Employers, employees, their respective associations, researchers, theorists, and change-agents need capacity to meet to discuss work-family issues.
2. We recommend that the Federal government sponsor a high profile, pan-Canadian mechanism for engaging Canadians in looking at work-family balance issues. We would hope that such a mechanism is put in place after programming, such as described above in recommendation 1, has been in place for 2-3 years. Federal leadership on this issue, which is primarily a matter of provincial and territorial jurisdiction, would follow the precedent of, for example, Ottawa's sponsorship of the Task Force on Child Care (1984) and the Special Parliamentary Committee on Child Care (1987). Such leadership could build on the work done by the Advisory Group on Working Time and the Distribution of Work (1994) and as the Advisory Committee on the Changing Workplace (1996).

Considerations relative to the Canada Labour Code (Section Three), which we recommend for discussion with provinces and territories.

While this submission has thus far paid attention to the need for non-legislative initiatives at the Federal level to support the resolution of work-family balance problems, it is important to bear in mind that basic Labour Standards are critical to many employees in their struggle to juggle work and family responsibilities.

Given the decrease in Union density²⁶, the growth in low-wage non-unionized jobs²⁷, the growth in the numbers of dual income families²⁸, the growth in the number of lone-parent families²⁹, the growth in the number of lone-parents in the labour force³⁰, the trend towards less mobility out of low-waged jobs, especially by women³¹, and the trend towards the provision of health and necessary life supports for families via workplace benefit plans (such as insurance and pensions)³², there is a case to be made for enhanced Federal labour legislation regarding work-family issues. Growing numbers of employees and their families are dependent on such legislation to provide them with protections and benefits which are taken for granted by many employees in Canada.

We propose that the following items (on which there has been considerable public discussion, as well as precedent and practical innovation) be discussed with the provinces and territories with a view to implementing changes in Federal Labour Standards.

• The absence of Family Responsibility Leave within the Federal Labour Code is notable in consideration of the progress made in this respect by our jurisdiction and numerous other jurisdictions in Canada³³. Likewise, it can be said that Federal Labour Standards in this area are lacking in comparison to those of many Western industrial nations³⁴. In this regard it is useful to note that the Advisory Group on Working Time and the Distribution of Work, 1994 recommended family leave be implemented in all jurisdictions.³⁵
• The matter of how legislation can be used to provide employees with more flexibility in respect to when, where, and how many hours they work. The United Kingdom has introduced non-binding policy regarding employee rights to request more flexibility from their employers³⁶. Early reports on the impact of this policy show a substantial increase in availability of every flexible work arrangement as well as increased management understanding of employees' responsibilities outside work.
• Pro-rated benefits for part-time employees. Saskatchewan employees have rights in this regard³⁷. Given the evidence cited earlier, access to benefits is important to employees with family responsibilities because of the increased numbers of lone-parents in the labour force as well as the fact that increasingly, access to health, drug, dental and optical services are obtained through employer benefit plans. Surely, we need to be concerned that in many instances low-waged employees need to personally pay for prescription drugs while high-income employees (who have more disposable money) are covered by benefit plans. Low-income employees usually do not qualify for social benefits for such needs.
• Support for employees who are breastfeeding. Nutritional guidelines and baby well-being research point to the importance of breastfeeding. Growing numbers of Canadian mothers are now wanting to breastfeed. However whether an employee is able to combine employment with breastfeeding depends on the "luck of the draw" when it comes to having a workplace that supports employees who breastfeed.

As a final point, we want to draw your attention to an issue that comes up on a regular basis in this jurisdiction. The issue concerns the problems employees face given the political and administrative separation of leave provisions and benefit provisions with regard to pregnancy, maternity, adoptive, parental, and compassionate care leave. A critical element of workplace support for employees with family responsibilities involves the support they can access when they need/want to leave the workplace to have children and care for them. The mandate of this Commission does not include an examination of the kind of monetary support that is available to employees in this regard. A discussion, however, of leave provisions in this area without a consideration of monetary provisions is not very productive. In this regard, we would appreciate the Commission reflecting on this matter with a view to noting the value of policies and programs that offer an integrated approach to pregnancy, adoptive, maternity, parental, and compassionate care leave policies and monetary benefits.

Appendix A: Executive Summary, Balancing Work and Family Public Task Force and Recommendations.

Executive Summary, Balancing Work and Family Public Task Force

The Balancing Work and Family Public Task Force, which was appointed in 1998, visited ten Saskatchewan communities to hear what Saskatchewan people had to say about Balancing Work and Family.

Consideration of the many issues raised by Saskatchewan families, employees, and employers on work-family issues led the Task Force to identify four major work-family issues that are of importance in the province at this time. These issues are:

• the need for more family-friendly workplaces;
• the need for more access to appropriate dependent care services in the community;
• the struggle to integrate work, family and community; and,
• the need for continued leadership, public information and dialogue on work-family issues.

Conclusions and recommendations are presented for each of the above concerns. Consideration of these issues, in the context of general trends and research in this area, facilitated the Task Force developing a consensus.

The recommendations are practical and action-oriented. They stress the importance of all sectors – business, labour, community and government – working to make changes that will lead to a better balance of work and family.

The Task Force formulated the following key message, which it wants to share with Saskatchewan people:

Balancing Work and Family is an issue for many Saskatchewan people. There are practical steps, which make economic and business sense, that will help employers, families, and employees respond positively to this issue.

Recommendations*

1. That the business, labour, government, and community sectors in the province facilitate the creation of more family-friendly workplaces in Saskatchewan.
2. That the business, labour, government and community sectors work together to develop more options regarding dependent care services that are responsive to the work-family needs of Saskatchewan people.
3. That employers, labour organizations, government (including municipal governments) and a wide range of community organizations, including service clubs and churches, examine the issue of how work-family pressure affects volunteerism and community participation in Saskatchewan.
4. That the Government of Saskatchewan continue to provide leadership on work-family issues.
5. That the Government of Saskatchewan ensure:
   • wide-spread distribution of this Task Force report and the report on the Saskatchewan Work-Family Research;
   • Further analysis of the 1998 work-family research data to allow for a more in-depth understanding of this issue; and,
   • the provision of tools to business, labour and communities to help develop family-friendly workplaces.
6. That the business, labour and community sectors make it a priority to profile the many efforts they are now involved in which facilitate work and family balance and that they take further leadership in promoting public dialogue on this issue.
7. That the Government of Saskatchewan make it a priority to raise work-family issues at federal/provincial meetings.
8. That the Government of Saskatchewan review the issues identified by the Task Force as needing further consideration and analysis and follow up on those which are deemed critical to resolving work-family issues.

These recommendations are general in nature. Ideas on specific actions that could be taken on each recommendation are included in the section prior to the recommendation.

*The numbering of the recommendations reflects the order of appearance in the report and does not indicate importance or priority.

Appendix B: Summary of experience with work-family programming: 1997-2005, Work and Family Unit, Saskatchewan Labour.

Our experience with this program has led us to conclude that:

• There is employee, employer, and public interest in engaging in the work-family discourse and in seeking practical solutions for this problem if high-profile, accessible opportunities are made available;
• Primary, academically sound research which includes local, pan-Canadian, and international data can play a key role in creating awareness of the cost to employees, employers, and governments of failing to deal with work-family problems;
• Ongoing government programs which involve employees, employers, and public agencies in strategies aimed at assisting employers and employees to resolve work-family balance issues are supported by all sectors.

There is employee, employer, and public interest in engaging in the work-family discourse and in seeking practical solutions for this problem if high-profile, accessible opportunities are made available

• There is strong agreement that the 1997-1998 Balancing Work and Family Initiative was very successful.
  • The Public Task Force on Balancing Work and Family (1997-1998) had successful community meetings in ten communities in Saskatchewan. There was rural and urban interest. See Appendix A for the Executive Summary of the Task Force Report and a list of their eight recommendations.
  • The process of engagement, as well as the assumptions and premises that shaped the Initiative are believed to have been central in creating a positive "environment of discussion."
    "The assumptions or premises that shaped this work included the following: that all aspects of the process should actively involve the business, labour and community sectors; that the impact of work/family issues on employees, employers, families, and community life would be looked at; that the process should strengthen and enhance the capacity of local communities and the key actors (employers, labour groups and employees) to solve these issues; that while public involvement was essential, sectoral dialogue that allowed business and labour leaders to meet privately to discuss these issues was necessary; that the process should provide for independent research on Saskatchewan employees and employers; that it was not the intention of government to put forward legislative or policy based responses to this issue; that this is an employee issue, an employer issue, a family issue, and a community issue, not a "women's" issue. It was also agreed that this would be approached not as an "individual" issue but rather as a societal issue with emphasis on the culture and structure of the workplace.³⁸
  • Forty employers represented in a sample of employees (35% Private; 28% government; 19% Not For Profit and 18% from the crown sector) responded to a government request for their participation in a Work-Family Survey, which was conduced by Drs. Linda Duxbury and Chris Higgins. This was a higher number than the researchers anticipated, and employer participation had to be limited.
  • The 1998 Work and Family Conference, which concluded the Initiative had to turn people away, after 420, registered. The Government of Saskatchewan in association with the Conference Board of Canada sponsored the Conference. The Conference Board participation was key in the strong business response.
  • Only one complaint (from an organization representing small business) about the government's role in establishing the Initiative was received.
  • Significant involvement in work-family issues appears to have been facilitated by the combined effect of the Task Force, the community development process, and the primary research, which constituted The Balancing Work and Family Initiative. It appears that the Task Force and the community development process gave "legs" to the research findings.
  • As a response to this Initiative, the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour established a three-year Balancing Work and Family Initiative and a number of business associations sponsored presentations on this issue.
  • Three community-based, intersectoral, work-family groups: the Regina Work Life Balance Network, the Balancing Work and Family Alliance, and the Yorkton Balancing Work and Family Committee grew out of the Initiative.

Primary, academically sound research which includes local, pan-Canadian, and international data can play a key role in creating awareness of the current cost to employees, employers, and governments of failing to deal with work-family problems

In our view, research in this area ought to be developed through partnerships of researchers and stakeholders.

In 1997, Dr. Linda Duxbury and Dr. Chris Higgins³⁹ were contracted by Saskatchewan Labour to do research on Sask employees and employers in respect to work-family balance issues.

This research by Duxbury and Higgins has proven to be very useful in legitimating concern within the province about the lack of work-family balance. In brief, the research:

• Validated the feelings of many employees by putting "numbers on the table"3.
• Was practical in that it identified specific areas that employers could work on to make their workplaces more family-friendly.
• Identified productivity costs that were associated with high levels of work-family conflict.
• Identified a correlation between high work-family conflict and potential retention and recruitment issues.
• Identified family-friendly strengths in Saskatchewan workplaces that have helped strengthen family-friendly capacity in the province.

Ongoing government programs which involve employees, employers, and public agencies in strategies aimed at assisting employers and employees to resolve work-family balance issues are supported by all sectors.

The following itemizes points we want to make in regard to this kind of programming, given the establishment of The Work and Family Unit in 2000-2001 (we provide some detail as it may be of value to the Commission, given its interest in non-legislative mechanisms).

• Employers, employees, and their respective associations, by show of their utilization of our services, find government support for "work-family balance" useful. There has been no criticism of government for applying public resources to this activity – rather, the program has garnered positive feedback for government.
• The non-regulatory mandate of the Unit is conducive to achieving capacity-building relationships with all sectors.
• There is a strong demand for workplace training and education on this area.
• Initially, almost all of our education and training activities were of an "awareness creating" type.
• By 2003-2004, the from employers demand for practical change-orientated tools emerged but still has room to develop.
• Employers are interested in obtaining evidence-based information and research on work-family issues. This may be the case in part because of the plethora of information in the media.
• Since 2003-2004 numerous unions have asked the Unit for information regarding: a) benefits to employers of work-family balance, and b) examples of collective bargaining provisions which facilitates family-friendly workplaces.
• While some employers are interested in obtaining assistance from the Work and Family Unit, our work with employers is more productive if we can reference and/or enlist local or visiting employers who are engaged in workplace change. Employers and managers, who have "been there" and know the "real" costs of change, have more credibility than professionals, bureaucrats, researchers, and private consultants.
• Small business owners are the most difficult to engage in terms of workplace consultation, however, some attend "local" awareness events and assist with specific projects.
• Our programming has benefited from having a coherent conceptual framework that informs our work on this issue. This framework includes: a) positioning the lack of work-family balance clearly as a workplace issue; b) articulating the need for policy, practice, and cultural change at the workplace level in order for employees to achieve more work-family balance; c) acknowledging that the workplace "cannot do it all" and that work-family balance is also determined by "family" and "community" as social institutions; and d) recognizing that solutions to the lack of work-family balance is a benefit to employees and the larger society. Our language in this regard is significant: Creating more family/life friendly workplaces is a benefit to shareholders; taxpayers; employers; communities; families; children AND employees.
• Sustained, but not necessarily resource-rich effort, on the part of government is essential. Change in workplace culture, policies, and practices are "longer term" ventures
• The embedded assumption that the lack of work-family balance can be resolved at the level of the individual employee continues to be a barrier to more employers utilizing our programming.
• We have had some success in having employers and senior managers agree to sit on work-family committees, and advisory boards. However, their roles need to be crafted to allow for sustained tenure and very limited time commitments.
• The informal networking function of our programming is effective.
• Although our programming is workplace focused, over the last three or so years we have assisted community agencies and organizations who have put "the lack of time for family" on their agendas. Such requests are an opportunity to engage citizens in the need for a values shift on the macro-level. The long-hours work culture is a workplace phenomenon but it is also a part of the dominant, macro-level, culture in Canada. This is true, especially with regard to the work expectations of white-collar employees and managers and the combined work and family expectations of women.
• A key to gaining support for finding solutions to the lack of work-family balance is to link the lack of balance to other high-profile public issues – such as the cost of healthcare⁴⁰ and children's well being.⁴¹
• In terms of changing attitudes and values, a useful strategy is the development of "work-family intersectoral groups' at the local level.
• Since 2003-2004, there is a growing interest on the part of employers in learning about how becoming more family-friendly may assist with their retention and recruitment issues.
• The presence of The Work and Family Unit has led to work-family balance issues being included in three research projects at the University of Saskatchewan and/or the University of Regina
  • The Saskatchewan Population Health & Evaluation Research Unit (SPHERU) regarding a study on health and multiple roles (work-family) which includes aboriginal employees;
  • The University of Regina and the University of Saskatchewan: Promoting high quality health care workplaces: Learning from Saskatchewan;
  • The University of Saskatchewan: Community-University Institute for Social Research (CUISR) regarding quality of life in the core area of Saskatoon (e.g. research questions regarding what happens when your children are sick and you are supposed to be at work).
• Government programming as well as government policy and practice as "employer" can benefit from having work-family expertise on-site.
  • Labour Standards policy regarding exemptions from "hours of work" provisions now include a caveat regarding the disruption of dependent care arrangement of employees.
  • The Unit has provided research, training services, and consultation to the Saskatchewan Public Service Commission. The Saskatchewan Public Service 2003 Employee Survey identified employee satisfaction with work-family balance to be significantly higher than national and international norms.⁴²

As a closing comment on what we have learned about non-legislative programming relative to work-family balance problems, we want to underscore the fact that our jurisdiction has a small population, a history of innovative approaches to public issues, and viable community networks that bring together individuals from all sectors. In brief, it is likely that the social capital mechanisms we draw upon in regard to our programming is significantly different from that which exists in larger urban areas.

Bibliography:

Advisory Group on Working Time and the Distribution of Work, 1994. Report of the Advisory Group on Working Time and the Distribution of Work (Arthur Donner, Chairperson). Ottawa: Human Resources Development Canada.

Canadian Association of Administrators of Labour Legislation (CAALL), 2002. Work-Life Balance: A report to Ministers responsible for Labour in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Association of Administrators of Labour Legislation.

Canadian Labour and Business Centre, 2002. Skills and Skills Shortage Handbook. Ottawa: Canadian Labour and Business Centre.

Duxbury, Linda, and Higgins, Christopher, 1998. Work/Life Balance in Sask: Realities and Challenges. Regina: Saskatchewan Labour.

"Flexible Working, The right to request, and the duty to consider, A guide for employers and employees," 2003. Department of Trade and Industry, United Kingdom.

Gerson, Kathleen, and Jacobs, Jerry, 2001. "Changing the Structure and the Culture of Work." Working Families: the Transformation of the American Home. Rosanna Hertz and Nancy Marshall (eds.). Berkeley: University of California Press: 229.

Gershuny, Jonathan, 1999. "The Work/Leisure Balance and The New Political Economy of Time." Paper presented at the Lectures on Challenge of the New Millennium hosted by Tony Blair, January 27, 1999.

Globe and Mail, 2000, "Firms use flexibility to woo women." July 3:B7

Globe and Mail, 2002, "Work Winning Out Over Family in the Struggle for Balance." February 13: B1

Globe and Mail, 2005, "Professional demanding a work-life balance – and backing it up." March 17: B1.

Government of Saskatchewan, 1994. Breaking New Ground in Child Care. Regina, Saskatchewan, p15.

Haas, Linda and Hwang, Philip, 1995. "Company Culture and Men's Usage of Family Leave Benefits in Sweden." Journal of Family Relations. 45 (January): 28-36.

Heymann, Jody. 2000. The Widening Gap: Why America's Working Families are in Jeopardy and What Can be Done About It. Basic Books, New York, NY.

Janz, T. 2004. "Low-paid Employment and Moving Up: A Closer Look at Full-time, Full-year Workers 1996-2001." Income Research Paper Series, Statistics Canada.

Jenson, Jane. Presentation: "Forging Social Futures", Canadian Social Welfare Policy Conference 2005. Fredericton, New Brunswick, June 16, 2005.

"Jurisdictional Comparison of "Family Leave" Provisions," 2005. Work and Family Unit, Saskatchewan Labour, Government of Saskatchewan

Labour Standards Act, 1995. Department of Labour, Government of Saskatchewan. Chapter L-1 REG 5, Part VII: 23(1).

Canadian Labour Congress, 2005. "Labour Standards for the 21st Century." Ottawa: Canadian Labour Congress.

Lavis, John 2002. "Ideas At The Margin Or Marginalized Ideas? Nonmedical Determinants Of Health In Canada". Health Affairs. March-April 2002, p107-112.

Lowe, Graham, 2001. "Quality of Work – Quality of Life." A Keynote Presentation at the Work/Life Balance and Employee Wellness Strategies Conference, Edmonton, Alberta, May 14, 2001.

Martin, J., 2000. "Bringing a Critical Gender Lens to Work-Family Balance Issues in the Workplace." Saskatchewan Law Review. University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, 226.

Martin, Judith, 2001. "A Canadian province highlights work/family issues: the Saskatchewan Balancing Work and Family Initiative – process, outcomes, limitations." Community, Work, and Family. 4(1):109-120.

O'Hara, Kathy, 1998. Comparative Family Policy: Eight Countries' Stories. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Network (CPRN).

Pearson, Mark. Presentation: "An Optimist's View of the State of Social Policy in Developed Countries. Fredericton, New Brunswick, June 17, 2005.

Public policy from a number of countries regarding working conditions which are beneficial to balancing work and family: Material gathered in a non-exhaustive scan undertaken by the Work and Family Unit, 2005. Work and Family Unit, Saskatchewan Labour. Government of Saskatchewan.

Collective Reflection on the Changing Workplace: Report of the Advisory Committee on the Changing Workplace, 1997. Ottawa: Public Works and Government Services Canada.

Saskatchewan Labour, 1998. Towards More Work-Family Balance in Saskatchewan: The Report of the Public Task Force on Balancing Work and Family. Regina: Government of Saskatchewan.

Saskatchewan Public Service 2003 Employee Survey. Saskatchewan Public Service Commission.

Saunders, Ron, 2004. Low Wage Work: Issues and Policy Options. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Network.

Statistics Canada, 2002. Profile of the Canadian Population by Age and Sex: Canada Ages. Ottawa: Ministry of Industry, Science and Technology.

Towards More Work-Family Balance in Saskatchewan: The Report of the Public Task Force on Balancing Work and Family, August, 1998. Regina: Saskatchewan Labour.

Vanier Institute of the Family, 2004. Profiling Families III. Ottawa: Vanier Institute of the Family.

2002 National Co-ordinating Group on Health Care Reform and Women. "Women and Home Care: Why does home care matter to women." Ottawa

Endnotes

¹ Government of Saskatchewan, 1994. Breaking New Ground in Child Care. Regina, Saskatchewan, p15.

² Ibid.

³ Canadian Association of Administrators of Labour Legislation (CAALL), 2002. Work-Life Balance: A report to Ministers responsible for Labour in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Association of Administrators of Labour Legislation.

⁴ See for example Gerson, Kathleen, and Jacobs, Jerry, 2001. "Changing the Structure and the Culture of Work." Working Families: the Transformation of the American Home. Rosanna Hertz and Nancy Marshall (eds.). Berkeley: University of California Press: 229.

⁵ Analysis by J. Martin of responses to 5-Point Likert score (N=1420, 52% male, 48% female). From the Saskatchewan Labour Work-Family Survey, 1998, conducted by L. Duxbury and C. Higgins.

⁶ Women do 80% of unpaid personal care (elders, disabled, family illness). "Women and Home Care: Why does home care matter to women." National Co-ordinating Group on Health Care Reform and Women (2002).

⁷ See for example, Lowe, Graham, 2001. "Quality of Work – Quality of Life." A Keynote Presentation at the Work/Life Balance and Employee Wellness Strategies Conference, Edmonton, Alberta, May 14, 2001.

⁸ See for example the Globe and Mail, 2000, "Firms use flexibility to woo women." July 3:B7; the Globe and Mail, 2002, "Work Winning Out Over Family in the Struggle for Balance." February 13: B1; the Globe and Mail, 2005, "Professional demanding a work-life balance – and backing it up." March 17: B1.

⁹ Canadian Labour and Business Centre, 2002. Skills and Skills Shortage Handbook. Ottawa: Canadian Labour and Business Centre; Statistics Canada, 2002. Profile of the Canadian Population by Age and Sex: Canada Ages. Ottawa: Ministry of Industry, Science and Technology.

¹⁰ Duxbury, Linda, and Higgins, Christopher, 1998. Work/Life Balance in Sask: Realities and Challenges. Regina: Saskatchewan Labour.

¹¹ Government of Saskatchewan, 1998. Towards More Work-Family Balance in Saskatchewan: The Report of the Public Task Force on Balancing Work and Family. Regina: Saskatchewan Labour.

¹² Martin, Judith, 2001. "A Canadian province highlights work/family issues: the Saskatchewan Balancing Work and Family Initiative – process, outcomes, limitations." Community, Work, and Family. 4(1):109-120.

¹³ O'Hara, Kathy, 1998. Comparative Family Policy: Eight Countries' Stories. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Network (CPRN).

¹⁴ Gershuny, Jonathan, 1999. "The Work/Leisure Balance and The New Political Economy of Time." Paper presented at the Lectures on Challenge of the New Millennium.

¹⁵ Martin, J., 2000. "Bringing a Critical Gender Lens to Work-Family Balance Issues in the Workplace." Saskatchewan Law Review. University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, 226.

¹⁶ Lavis, John, 2002. "Ideas At The Margin Or Marginalized Ideas? Nonmedical Determinants Of Health In Canada". Health Affairs. March-April 2002, p107-112.

¹⁷ Jenson, Jane. Presentation: "Forging Social Futures", Canadian Social Welfare Policy Conference 2005. Fredericton, New Brunswick, June 16, 2005.

¹⁸ Mark Pearson. Presentation: "An Optimist's View of the State of Social Policy in Developed Countries". Fredericton, New Brunswick, June 17, 2005.

¹⁹ For example, federally sponsored Health Promotion programs; Federal Tobacco Strategy; federally sponsored Child Care Research Fund; Child Care Human Resources Network.

²⁰ For example, Work-Life Balance: A report to Ministers responsible for Labour in Canada (2002); eport of the Advisory Group on Working Time and the Distribution of Work (1994); Report of the Advisory Committee on the Changing Workplace (1997); publications and sponsored research from Human Resources Development Canada and Health Canada.

²¹ Duxbury, Linda, and Higgins, Christopher, 1998. Work/Life Balance in Sask: Realities and Challenges. Regina: Saskatchewan Labour.

²² Haas, Linda and Hwang, Philip, 1995. "Company Culture and Men's Usage of Family Leave Benefits in Sweden." Journal of Family Relations. 45 (January): 28-36.

²³ Work-Life Balance Challenge Fund. Department of Trade and Industry, United Kingdom.

²⁴ Better Work and Family Balance Grants Program. Department of Industrial Relations. Victoria, Australia.

²⁵ Canadian Association of Administrators of Labour Legislation (CAALL), 2002. Work-Life Balance: A report to Ministers responsible for Labour in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Association of Administrators of Labour Legislation

²⁶ "Labour Standards for the 21st Century", 2005. Canadian Labour Congress Issues Paper. Ottawa: Canadian Labour Congress.

²⁷ Saunders, Ron, 2004. Low Wage Work: Issues and Policy Options. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Network.

²⁸ Vanier Institute of the Family, 2004. Profiling Families III. Ottawa: Vanier Institute of the Family.

²⁹ Ibid

³⁰ Ibid

³¹ Janz, T. 2004. "Low-paid Employment and Moving Up: A Closer Look at Full-time, Full-year Workers 1996-2001." Income Research Paper Series, Statistics Canada.

³² Saunders, Ron, 2004. Low Wage Work: Issues and Policy Options. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Network.

³³ Jurisdictional Comparison of "Family Leave" Provisions, 2005. Work and Family Unit, Saskatchewan Labour, Government of Saskatchewan

³⁴ "Public policy from a number of countries regarding working conditions which are beneficial to balancing work and family", 2005. Work and Family Unit, Saskatchewan Labour. Government of Saskatchewan.

³⁵ Advisory Group on Working Time and the Distribution of Work, 1994. Report of the Advisory Group on Working Time and the Distribution of Work (Arthur Donner, Chairperson). Ottawa: Human Resources Development Canada.

³⁶ "Flexible Working, The right to request, and the duty to consider, A guide for employers and employees," 2003. Department of Trade and Industry, United Kingdom.

³⁷ Labour Standards Act, 1995. Department of Labour, Government of Saskatchewan. Chapter L-1 REG 5, Part VII: 23(1).

³⁸ Martin, Judith, 2001. "A Canadian province highlights work/family issues: the Saskatchewan Balancing Work and Family Initiative – process, outcomes, limitations." Community, Work, and Family. 4(1):109-120.

³⁹ Duxbury, Linda, and Higgins, Christopher, 1998. Work/Life Balance in Sask: Realities and Challenges. Regina: Saskatchewan Labour.

⁴⁰ Duxbury, L., Higgins, C., and Johnson, K. (2004). Report Three: Exploring the Link Between Work-Life Conflict and Demands on Canada's Health Care System. Ottawa: Public Health Agency of Canada.

⁴¹ Heymann, Jody. 2000. The Widening Gap: Why America's Working Families are in Jeopardy and What Can be Done About It. Basic Books, New York, NY.

⁴² Saskatchewan Public Service 2003 Employee Survey. Saskatchewan Public Service Commission.