In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

5 Double Jeopardy The Misfit between Welfare-to-Work Requirements and Job Realities Susan Lambert and Julia Henly I f a work-based welfare state is to improve low-income families’ economic security, it must be based on a realistic appraisal of jobs in today’s labor market. In particular, it must be clear that the policies of workfare and welfare-to-work can ensure that low-income families can access needed supports and, in the longer term, avoid poverty. But policymakers may be expecting too much from jobs lodged at the lower end of the labor market. Although many individuals participating in welfare-to-work initiatives have moved off public assistance and into the workforce, the types of jobs available to them are of poor quality and recipients finding work often remain in or near poverty (Friedlander and Burtless 1995; Hendra et al. 2010; Scott et al. 2004). A synthesis of results from state welfare leaver studies conducted during the first five years following welfare reform in the United States indicates that the average wages of leavers were low ($7 to $8 an hour). Average family incomes continued to hover around the poverty line, and the majority did not receive employer-sponsored health insurance or other benefits (Acs and Loprest 2001). Although researchers and policymakers may differ in their interpretation of the various successes and failures of welfare reform, research amassed since welfare reform was enacted in 1996 leaves little doubt that most recipients leaving welfare for employment fare poorly in the labor market. However, there are surprisingly few studies of welfare-to-work initiatives that incorporate the workplace as a central object of study. As a result, limited attention has been paid to how firm policies and practices may contribute to the poor labor market outcomes of welfare-to-work participants or, importantly, whether the expectations built into welfare rules and eligibility requirements make sense 69 70 susan lambert and julia henly given the realities of work in low-level jobs. To deepen understanding of why leaving welfare for work is not always, or even often, a route to economic security , we focus on the work side of the welfare-to-work equation. Brodkin (2011b, i199) argues that ‘‘research that puts street-level organizations first aims at the opaque spaces between formal policies and outcomes, in part by making visible the organizational mechanisms that link (or de-link) them.’’ In this chapter we treat the firm as a street-level organization (SLO) of a sort, suggesting that firms operate as policy intermediaries. They are organizations that not only influence the relationship between policy intentions and policy outcomes but also produce additional outcomes of their own, both welcome and not. To make this case, we draw from studies of the low-wage workplace that elucidate everyday firm practices and show how they shape employment experiences for low-level workers. We pay particular attention to conditions of work that can render the work-hour requirements built into so many workfare-type policies unrealistic. A basic assumption undergirding work-hour requirements is that workers can decide how many hours they will work. Failing to meet work-hour requirements may be viewed as a matter of participants’ preference for limited hours or as an outcome of personal barriers to fuller employment. To address the first case, policies can include financial incentives for additional work effort, as is evidenced by work disregards in TANF or the EITC. To address the second case, work-support policies such as child care subsidies, job training, or mental health counseling are designed to reduce so-called barriers to employment. We contend that neither of these approaches recognizes a fundamental reality of today’s workplaces, both in the United States and elsewhere. Employment is becoming increasingly precarious, a global phenomenon driven by the declining power of labor, the globalization of markets, industrial shifts, and technological change (Kalleberg 2009, 2011). Even prior to the recent economic downturn, substantial proportions of US workers reported that they would prefer to work additional hours for additional income. In addition, rates of involuntary parttime employment have been increasing both in the United States and in Europe (Mason and Salverda 2009; Galtier 1999; Lambert, Haley-Lock, and Henly 2012).1 Regardless of the growing precariousness of employment, the United States is making eligibility for many social programs—unemployment insurance, food stamps, child care subsidies, and housing vouchers—contingent on the number of hours worked. Even an unpaid parental leave through the Family...

Share