Search

Why are organizational work-life initiatives endorsed in some countries such as the US or the UK, while they generate little interest in France and other non-Anglo-Saxon environments? In a qualitative theory-building approach, this paper assesses the gap in workplace practices adoption among the US, the UK, and France and analyzes in-depth interviews with 44 human resources (HR) officers, employee representatives, unions, and work-life service providers in France. Five main factors explain the adoption of organizational work-life initiatives in France and potentially other countries: (1) employer versus State legitimacy in the nonwork sphere of life, (2) industrial relations and unions' stance toward work-life practices, (3) the complexity of the legal framework, (4) the awareness of work-life issues within HR departments, and (5) the framing of work-life as a business or a social issue. With reference to prior research, a model is built to account for the influence of the national context on employees' expectations and employers' leeway at the macrolevel, and for strategic choices made by employers at the mesolevel. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper addresses issues raised by ‘welfare reform’ in the USA by using the example of Sweden's women activists in constructing a 'woman friendly' welfare state. In the USA, feminist advocates see a tension between the argument that motherhood should be valued by the provision of care allowances, and the view that work should be reformed to meet the needs of parents. This reflects debates about gender difference/equality, the possibility of commonality, and the individual. The Swedish ‘woman friendly’ welfare .state was built on the recognition, through social policy, of the interrelationship among care, material resources, and public voice. The interrelationship was embodied in what I call the 'social individual', and articulated in public child care and other policies and collective services. The adequacy of those universal policies and services was frequently judged by the situation of lone mothers, who ceased, being ‘deviant’, and often became a model for understanding the interrelationship. Cross-class solidarity among women was a prerequisite for, and was built on, the social individual. This solidarity is now threatened by neoliberal economic and social policies that fragment care, resources, and voice, and therefore the social individual. It is possible to challenge the downsizing of welfare states by moving the terms of discussion away from the poor as deviant other, acknowledging that all women have much in common with the targets of current policy making. This involves the creation of concrete social policies that embody the relationship among care, resources, and voice, and recognize the inseparability of community, work and family. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]