work

Pushing Back on Prison Labor

Isabel Arriagada on September 26, 2018
San Quentin State Prison, California. Photo by telmo32, Flickr CC

This past August, the Incarcerated Workers Organizing Committee, a labor union for prisoners, began a nationwide strike to protest against inhumane conditions, the use of solitary confinement, and precarious work in U.S prisons. Fighting prison conditions and labor precarity has been a long-standing struggle for prisoners in the United States and around the world, and social science research explains the dynamics underlying this struggle.

As ‘total institutions” prisons provide poor substitutes of basic needs, or limited access to basic items, services, and comforts like hygiene items, clean clothing, nutritious food, education, and health care services.  Consequently, prisons end up depriving inmates of their wellbeing, autonomy, sense of self-worth, and control over their fates. In the United States, the indignities of prison conditions range from major maltreatments, such as the abuse of long-term solitary confinement, to minor cruelties, such as restricting the use of showers and toilet paper (imagine being limited to just one roll per month), in overcrowded facilities.
The specific conditions of prison labor reflect long-standing contradictions. On the one hand, social science evidence suggests that providing jobs to inmates has a positive effect and can reduce their involvement in future crime activities. On the other hand, prison labor has also led to abuse and exploitation. Correctional facilities use prison labor to serve private industries, to perform cleaning and maintenance functions within facilities, or even to repair public water tanks and fight wildfires. Prison labor has also served as an instrument of economic policy in the labor market. In the 1990s, for example, rates of unemployment declined when a massive number of able-bodied working age men went to U.S. prisons.

Imprisonment often has devastating consequences for inmates, their families, communities, and society at large. Even though certain policies like prison labor may involve potential benefits, their positive effects only occur when there is a genuine effort to achieve inmates’ social inclusion. Inmates’ struggles to achieve effective changes in their living conditions therefore require sustained and special attention from the public and policy makers.

Why Physical Space Matters for Universities

Isabel Arriagada on April 13, 2018
Photo by andrewarchy, Flickr CC

As online education gains more traction, educators wonder about the benefits of actual physical interaction in academic environments. Social science research helps us understand the importance of universities as physical spaces — buildings, classrooms, offices, labs, and libraries — and the relationship between space design and the development of creative ideas and fruitful academic experiences. It turns out that the way a space is organized matters greatly for the type of experience individuals have at universities and other organizations.  

The design and organization of college campuses have long played a crucial role in the practical, emotional, and intellectual life of students and professors. As built environments, universities aim to impact daily activities in ways that promote knowledge and creativity. Universities also frequently renovate buildings in order to make improvements, but sometimes these designs can backfire. For example, a study interviewed faculty and graduate students after transitioning from an old to a new building. The new design reinforced a sense of isolation and academic alienation among faculty and students, where the academic hierarchy (senior faculty, junior faculty, and graduate students) determined space, the rigid placement of furniture such as desks and cabinets inhibited social interaction, and offices served more as spaces for administrative tasks than creative activities. This new design led to faculty closing their office doors and graduate students avoiding the building as a place of study.
Structuring spaces in buildings also reorders the relationships between people. Studies on workplaces and built environments suggest that elements like natural construction materials, the placement of the building, and offices’ distribution define the sense of community among members of an organization. Workplaces that promote circulation and visual interaction create better opportunities for collaboration. An architectural study found that buildings that promoted the use of stairs and contact with nature encouraged movement and improved collaborative work. Educational institutions can create learning spaces — like lecture halls, libraries, laboratories — that map onto educational needs. By managing the places that people inhabit, universities can create a proper environment for developing social relationships and favoring learning.

In short, physical space matters. And the way a building or organizational space is designed can make or break its effectiveness.

Professionalization in the Working World

Jean Marie DeOrnellas on March 28, 2018
Photo by Pedro Haas, Flickr CC

Washington, D.C. is a bit more chaotic than usual, as high-level officials enter and leave the White House at an unprecedented pace. While elected officials and political appointees are certainly part of the modern working world, their positions are different from other spheres of work. Unlike most other elite jobs, they generally do not require a specific set of credentials or training. Instead, elected officials and political appointees are often professionals from other fields of work who enter government for a relatively short period of time. Sociologists utilize the concept of professionalization — or the idea that individuals within a particular occupational area can claim expert knowledge — to explain why certain occupations are considered more legitimate or held in higher esteem than others. 

Professionalization occurs when certain jobs or occupational groups become “professions” — groups that can claim jurisdiction over the knowledge within their area. Lawyers and doctors are classic examples. Both of these groups require extensive training, have formal barriers to entry, and can claim to perform work that those outside of the profession cannot. Andrew Abbott called the organization of expert labor “the system of professions,” claiming that occupational groups establish themselves by creating, enforcing, and fighting over jurisdictional boundaries.
Professionalization also exists outside of credentialed fields like law and medicine. Even broad social movements, like those for civil rights, create opportunities for professionalized work when they hire paid leaders. Often these leaders push to formalize organizations — the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), the National Organization for Women (NOW), and the NAACP-Legal Defense Fund — that rely on paid workers that have training and expertise in the area, as well as outside donations instead of solely relying on volunteers. Social movement theorists recognize that increasing professionalization can increase the stability of movements and open up opportunities to work with other groups, but professional organizations themselves do not create movements.
Political scientists often examine professionalization as it relates to term limits for elected officials. Proponents of term limits argue that elected officials should not become so entrenched in their jobs that they become oblivious to the problems of their constituents, while opponents of term limits argue that professional knowledge is valuable, the amount of money for professional or paid staff has declined precipitously, and it takes time to learn the norms of the Byzantine world of Capitol Hill and become an effective legislator. For these individuals, the benefits of professionalization outweigh the costs of increased distance between officials and their constituents.

How Grown-Up Careers are Like Middle School Dances

Sarah Catherine Billups on October 25, 2017
Photo by stephalicious, Flickr CC

From sexual harassment to salary gaps, stories about gender inequality at work are all over the news. How does this happen? Social science research finds that people often place into different jobs by gender, race, and class, and this sorting has consequences for inequality in earnings and career prestige. Just like a middle school dance where students congregate on opposite sides of the floor because of both self-sorting and social norms, gendered occupational segregation comes from a combination of choice and implicit discrimination based on workplace “fit.” Women often choose less prestigious occupations based on how they perceive their personalities and competence, and employers and colleagues tend to favor people like themselves when hiring, promoting, and collaborating.

When people choose their jobs, they often think about careers to match their personalities. Gender socialization and stereotypes about competence, personality traits, and innate abilities influence how women and men consider which  jobs are right for them. Many women learn to perceive themselves as emotional, systematic, or people-oriented. They also tend to think they possess the right traits to work in female-dominated jobs like teaching and nursing. Women are more likely to think they will perform poorly at careers in science, technology, math, and engineering (STEM) because they have learned to think they are not “naturally” as good at these subjects as men are.
Outright gender-based discrimination in hiring and workplace practice is illegal, but it still occurs through implicit biases to the detriment of women. Employers often look for people who will blend well with their workplace’s culture, and this results in hiring candidates similar to themselves, in terms of both gender and social class. Once hired, colleagues tend to collaborate and share resources with those they think are like them as well, often isolating women in male-dominated workplaces. As a result, many women leave highly-paid, highly-skilled positions in favor of less prestigious jobs with more women and friendlier environments.

Anita Hill, Clarence Thomas, and Sexual Harassment in Law Professions

Caty Taborda and Sarah Catherine Billups on April 28, 2016
Actress Kerry Washington portrays Anita Hill in an ad for "Confirmation."
Actress Kerry Washington portrays Anita Hill in an ad for “Confirmation.”

In April, HBO premiered “Confirmation,” the story of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s 1991 confirmation hearings. In those hearings, a former colleague, lawyer Anita Hill, testified about the ongoing sexual harassment she endured while working for Thomas. HBO’s film, some 25 years after the hearings that Thomas famously called a “high-tech lynching,” reminds us of the murky waters women must drudge through when facing and reporting sexual harassment—as well as how complicated the intersections of race, gender, law, and work can be.

Hill testified that Thomas sexually harassed her as her supervisor at the Department of Education and the EEOC. Various studies find that at least 40% of all women report experiencing sexual harassment at work during some point of their lives. Women of color experience higher rates of both sexual and ethnic workplace harassment.
Hill testified that she continued working for Thomas despite the ongoing harassment because she had no other job alternatives. This is unsurprising given that women in law professions encounter a glass ceiling that limits upward mobility, often pushing women to pursue a limited track of jobs when seeking promotions. Further, women in law professions report hearing sexist jokes, having their authority questioned, and being complimented on looks rather than achievements—all at higher rates than their male colleagues.
Even women in power are subject to sexual harassment. One study finds that sexual harassment can actually increase when some women occupy supervisory positions. Sexual harassment has much more to do with power than simple workplace hierarchies.

Spring Cleaning

Sarah Catherine Billups on April 18, 2016
Vintage postcard via Blue Mountains Library, Flickr CC.
Vintage postcard via Blue Mountains Library, Flickr CC.

This is the time of year that many people throw open their windows and begin their yearly spring cleaning. Long ago, springtime cleaning had religious significance and coincided with holidays such as Passover and Easter. By the 19th century, spring cleaning had become more about practicality than piety. Particularly in places that suffered cold, wet winters, March and April were a perfect time for dusting because it was warm enough to open windows, but still too chilly for bugs to fly in the house. Ideally, the wind would help blow the dust out of the home instead of swirling it around the rooms.

The blame for a dusty shelf tends to fall on women’s shoulders because the home has traditionally been “her place” in society. Although the 1950s vision of June Cleaver has shifted and more women now participate in the labor force, women still tend to take on the bulk of the housework. Women employed outside the home have a “second shift” of cooking, cleaning, and childcare when they come home from work.
Women who work in more masculinized jobs tend to do more cooking and cleaning, and men with feminized professions engage in more “manly” tasks like yard work and auto repair to neutralize their gender-atypical occupations. Even in couples that are not comprised of a cis-man and a cis-woman, the gendered division of household labor persists. In couples consisting of trans*-men and cis-women, the women end up taking on the “Cinderella roles,” which they often link to personal preference rather than socialization or gender roles.
And what of the sociological significance of dust? A dusty book can show a lack of interest in the material, and the old adage “cleanliness is next to godliness” speaks to the moral implications of a dust-free, spotless home. Dust and dirt are out of place in the well-tended home, and their presence highlights a lack of control over the environment. Additionally, a lack of cleanliness has long served as a social indicator of moral disorder in Western Culture, acting as rallying point of social solidarity over what is socially acceptable.

Volunteer Work: Getting the Gift to Keep on Giving

Jacqui Frost on November 30, 2014

Volunteering_SVG

As the holiday season draws near, Americans are gearing up for one of their favorite holiday traditions – volunteering. A time when one is supposed to “spread good cheer,” the season consistently brings a spike in volunteer activity. News outlets all over the country are urging us to “show your gratefulness this holiday in a truly meaningful way” and “take stock of those in need of a hot meal or a warm coat” before we turn to our own celebrations. While it’s not surprising to see such spikes around this time, as American culture encourages such behavior and you can’t swing a turkey without hitting a flyer or advertisement seeking volunteers, what about the rest of the year? What motivates volunteers when spreading good cheer gives way to a busy new year full of work deadlines, weight loss goals, and taxes?

Psychologists point to individual-level motivations such as a desire to express one’s humanitarian values and gain a better understanding of an issue or a community as strong motivators for volunteerism. However, these motivations don’t lead people to volunteer for just any cause. Persuasive messages and feedback from leaders of volunteer groups, as well as how well the group and its goals fit with the volunteer’s goals, are also major factors.
Sociologists show how social factors such as the racial heterogeneity of a region and the availability of organizations to volunteer for are also important when considering why people volunteer. They find that people who don’t volunteer in one place may be more likely to volunteer when they move somewhere else, pointing to factors like the amount of racial segregation, income inequality, and religious diversity in an area. These findings show how simply valuing volunteering as an individual is usually not enough, but that larger social and structural factors are at work.

For a great piece on who volunteers after environmental disasters, see this Reading List post.

Gender Pay Gaps: The Silicon Ceiling?

Anne Kaduk on October 24, 2014

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella has been harshly criticized for his remarks that women should trust in the system to give them the right raises as they go along, rather than asking for raises they feel they deserve.  While he later “clarified” his statement on Twitter saying that he meant to say that the tech industry must close the gender pay gap so asking for a raise is not needed, research shows why sociologists are skeptical of his arguments.

The gender pay gap is well documented, and it exists even when controlling for a variety of factors related to wages, such as occupation, work hours, and educational attainment.
Occupations with lots of female employees also tend to be paid less favorably than those requiring similar skills but largely done by men.
Mothers tend to be particularly disadvantaged in terms of salary compared to childless women or to men.
Women can also face penalties for asking for a raise, even if they deserve it, if they don’t frame their request in a way that still conforms to gender norms.

For more on women in the workforce, check out these previous TROT posts and briefs from SSN.

Women at Work: When Self Help Isn’t Help Enough

Penny Edgell on May 8, 2014

There have been a spate of new books lately advising women how to turn inward, change their behavior, and remake themselves to be more successful and ‘leap over’ gender barriers in the workplace. If a woman is not paid what she is worth, passed over for promotion, or even harassed, the solution, it seems, is to lean in – because eventually (soon, in fact) everyone will realize that women really should rule the world. The latest is a book by Katty Kay and Claire Shipman, The Confidence Code, in which the authors argue that the primary barrier to women’s success is not sexism but rather women’s own lack of confidence. And in one way, they are right. Confidence is gendered. Women are less confident than men (and men tend to be over- confident relative to their abilities). Of course confidence matters. But trying to solve a problem of structural sexism with a good night’s sleep, a self-help book, and a smile is a losing proposition.

In their focus on the therapeutic and their emphasis on self-help, these books foster the kind of high-cost, alienating emotional labor sociologists have been writing about since the early 1980s.
These books either completely ignore or actively downplay the structural causes of the confidence gap, including the way that primary schools teach girls that their opinions aren’t as valuable as boys’ opinions.
They also turn a blind eye to the fact that rational actors engage in behavior that is rewarded. Women who show the kind of confidence that men show, and who “negotiate like a man,” are often punished, not rewarded, in America’s workplaces.
Thus, authors like Kay and Schipman are encouraging women to fight with the weapons of the weak instead of helping us all to tackle the more difficult task of breaking down the structural barriers to women’s real and durable success.

Penny Edgell is a Professor in the Sociology department at the University of Minnesota. She studies culture, religion, gender, family, symbolic boundaries, and inequality. 

Affordable Healthcare: Job Loss or Job Lock?

Evan Stewart on February 26, 2014

Controversy continues to rage over the alleged “job-killing” effects of the Affordable Care Act and potential increases in the federal minimum wage. Kathleen Sebelius recently weighed in on the Congressional Budget Office’s report about the ACA, reminding us that the CBO’s “2 million jobs lost by 2017” figure comes from Americans cutting their work hours, not employers cutting their jobs to cover healthcare costs. With a new poll showing Americans think the job market is the number-one problem today, however, why would we see these trends? The ACA and a higher minimum wage may not be a job-killers—instead they remind us that employees can demand better working conditions.

We shouldn’t necessarily think of coverage programs in terms of “jobs lost.” Instead, giving employees affordable health coverage may actually free them from “job lock.” Economic research shows that benefit programs can give low-income workers the security and potential mobility to seek out better jobs.
While benefits can give employees the opportunity to quit, organizational characteristics like group job satisfaction and flexibility in the workplace also affect the likelihood that employees will want to quit.

Picture 2