450px-ProtectedByPinkertonsSignNOLA

Precarious work is now at the forefront of much academic research and journalism, and with good reason. These investigations show that precarious employment has led to increased instability, insecurity, and vulnerability for a significant and growing population of workers.

Yet I believe there is more work to do in this vein. We need to identify how this sprawling sector of the economy is changing the rules of employment for workers. Because all workers—and disadvantaged workers in particular—who are already “playing” this “game” on an unequal playing field are losing rights and power at work.

An example of this much-needed research is the recent report by Reveal News’ Will Evans, which documents racism, sexism, and other discriminatory hiring practices in temp agencies. As this report shows, at least some employers are outsourcing illegal discrimination to the temporary help industry. Yet such practices are obscured—and, therefore, largely undetected—because of the convoluted structure of temp work and lagging employment law. In particular, the originator of the discrimination is obscured because the employers who insist, for example, that temp agencies send only “country boys” (i.e., white men) or “mujeres” (i.e., Hispanic women) are not the legal employer of record and are therefore not held responsible for illegal hiring practices. Meanwhile, the enactor of the discrimination—those temp agency managers so eager to keep companies’ business that they readily engage in illegal practices—can easily hide behind the presumed precarity of the temp economy, dishonestly telling only some temps that no jobs are available or that their jobs have been suddenly canceled.

This is not an inevitable outcome of the temp economy, but when such illegal actions are unregulated and overlooked, it is not surprising that they have become one of the ways that employers use temp agencies to change the rules of the labor market for workers.

Read More

Felix_von_Luschan_Skin_Color_chart.svg

von Luschan skin color chart (Wikimedia Commons)

by Andrea Gómez Cervantes and ChangHwan Kim

Racial divisions between black and white have marked American society throughout history. Color lines have been synonym to racial division and social inequality. Recently, the demographic composition of the country has changed, becoming more diverse due to growing new immigrants and multiracial populations. It is predicted that by 2065, one in three Americans will be an immigrant, or have immigrant parent, with Asians expected to be the largest immigrant group (38 percent among immigrants), followed by Hispanics (31 percent), whites (20 percent), and blacks (9 percent). In contrast the white, native-born population is expected to decrease from 62 to 46 percent. Social scientists attempt to understand the changing demographic composition of the country and its implications for social stratification. While some point to the continuing divide between blacks and whites, others argue that new immigrants reshape racial divides, either by blurring the color lines, or by re-establishing them.

In new research, we explore the way immigrants fit into these existing racial divides by looking at the intersection of gender, skin color and race in immigrants’ employment possibilities. We find that for male immigrants, darker skin color has a substantial negative effect on employment, while for women skin color had no effect on employment.

Read More

Unicef

Image: UNICEF Ukraine via Wikimedia Commons

by Christiane Bode, Jasjit Singh and Michelle Rogan

The essence of capitalism is that companies create value for society by focusing on their own profits. However, this narrative has increasingly come under pressure taking the form of protests and boycotts. In response to societal backlash and due to the emerging belief of managers that firms do have societal responsibilities beyond those that naturally emerge from their profit motives, companies are in turn launching initiatives with explicitly stated social impact objectives.

Indeed, current popular wisdom suggests that such explicit corporate social engagement could ultimately benefit not only society but also firms. If corporate employees want to “have their cake and eat it too” – in other words, to have a corporate career and be directly involved in making a visible contribution to society – then social engagement could benefit firms while benefiting society.

To test this argument, in an article recently published in Organization Science, we examine whether participation by corporate employees in an initiative with an explicit social impact objective is positively correlated employee retention, a key performance outcome for many firms.

Read More

4132414326_ce10c42583_b

Image: Steve Rhodes via Flickr (CC-BY-NC-SA-2.0)

by Jiwook Jung

In February, 1993, IBM, the world’s largest computer maker, announced that it would order the first layoffs in its then 80-year history. In the face of tougher international and domestic competition, the company had suffered from a steady decline in profitability and slow growth throughout the 1980s; workforce adjustment and cost reduction seemed warranted. Nevertheless, IBM’s decision marked a drastic departure from its acclaimed tradition of lifetime employment. Throughout its history, it had prided itself on caring for its employees. Seen in a broader context, however, what was truly remarkable was the fact that the company had managed to avoid layoffs for so long; most of its peers had already accepted the practice as necessary.

Indeed, corporate America had experienced waves of downsizing since the 1980s. And even before the 1980s, firms made layoffs during economic downturns. But the 1980s marked a sea change in the layoff policy of large US companies. Whereas layoff had previously meant temporary suspension of employment with an explicit or implicit agreement that laid-off workers would be called back when economic situations improved, it has recently come to mean permanent termination (see Figure 1 below). Moreover, unlike in the past, even healthy, profitable companies have begun to engage in downsizing. For instance, in 1993 Xerox announced its plan to cut 10,000 jobs or nearly 10 percent of its work force, although the company had been consistently profitable before the announcement. Its CEO explained that in order to compete effectively, the company would have to be lean and flexible.

Read More

by Herbert J Gans

In his recent post on sociology’s image problem, Prof Rojas included a definition of sociology as “the scientific study of groups.” It is the same one I was taught in graduate school seventy years ago, and think it is now long out of date.

Let me offer the one I have used in recent years: Sociology is the study of what people in formal and informal organizations, institutions, communities, states and other social structures do, think and feel with, for, against and about others.

Three of its virtues are (1) it can be abbreviated or expanded for different venues; (2) it avoids the thorny questions of whether sociology is a science, or what kind of science, and something in addition to being a science; and (3) it offers a more graphic image of sociology to the lay people etc who now ignore sociology or do not understand what it is.

Herbert Gans is Robert S. Lynd Professor Emeritus and Special Lecturer, Columbia University, Department of Sociology.

 

exploratorium-clip1

Guess which discipline is missing ...

by Fabio Rojas

I recently visited the Exploratorium, the children’s “hands on” museum in San Francisco. I had a really wonderful experience. One of the most exciting things about the museum is that it actually has a whole section just on social and behavioral science. Kids can play prisoner dilemma games, a clever experiment about frames and disgust, and there is a fun exhibit on social networks. A+ experience.

The one disappointing aspect of the social science section is that it gives credit to all manner of social scientists… except sociology, even when the material is sociological in nature. The picture above mentions the funder and describes the science. If you are wondering what the sociological content is, it is at least these two exhibits: (a) a large display of global social networks and (b) a clever framing experiment.

Basically, this is another piece of evidence that the public simply doesn’t understand that sociology is the scientific study of groups. They think it is something else, probably inequality studies. We have to keep pushing to make our image fit our discipline.

Fabio Rojas is associate professor of sociology at Indiana University and a founding blogger at orgtheory.net.

We had another great year at Work in Progress and are delighted to see our readership continuing to rise substantially through the end of our fourth year. Our inaugural post went live on Oct 12, 2011. Our number of annual unique viewers — which are in the tens of thousands — increased 50% from 2013 to 2014, and an additional 30% from 2014-15. Not bad for a sociology blog from an American Sociological Association section with around 800 members!

Here are the top 10 most viewed post from 2015, beginning with the most viewed article and listed in descending order. Enjoy and have a great new year!

1) Early Childhood Education: No Place for Men? | Lata Murti

2) Canaries in the Coal Mine? Saida Grundy, Zandria Robinson, and Why Calls for their Firing are a Problem for Everyone | Adia Harvey Wingfield

3) Fixing the bad jobs economy | Herbert J Gans

4) Reframing Gender Equality: Explaining the Stalled Gender Revolution | David Cotter, Joan Hermsen & Reeve Vanneman

5) Flirking (Flirting at Work to Get Ahead): Why Some Women Do It | Julie Kmec

6) Citations are not enough: Academic promotion panels must take into account a scholar’s presence in popular media | Asit Biswas and Julian Kirchherr

7) Sociology versus Individualism | Jeremy Reynolds

8) Stand up and Be Counted: Why social science should stop using the qualitative / quantitative dichotomy | Howard Aldrich

9) A Luddite, An Economist and a Marxist Walk Into a Modern Factory … | Matt Vidal

10) The Tyranny of Leveled Workplaces | William Attwood-Charles and Juliet B. Schor

Image: UNIDO via Flickr (CC BY-ND 2.0)

Image: UNIDO via Flickr (CC BY-ND 2.0)

by Maria Azocar and Myra Marx Ferree

Important changes are under way in the world of lawyers. Their work has become increasingly dominated by large organizations, globalization has re-structured their work to be increasingly transnational, and demographic changes have redefined the profession. For example, an increasing participation of women in the legal profession is a global trend, with Latin American countries leading the rankings in terms of the number of women who enroll in and graduate from law schools.

What can the sociology of professions say about these changes? The consensus view of the field would be that these changes will translate into increasing jurisdictional battles over lawyers’ claims to expertise. Expertise is sociologically understood as knowledge that people have to accomplish a given task (Abbott 1988; Freidson 2001; Larson 1979). In this scholarship, the focus of study is often on the sites where expertise is produced and recognized, for example in practices of credentialing and licensing. Gender (and other) inequalities in a profession would be analyzed in terms of women’s struggles with men who are often considered more valuable workers or through considering the causes and effects of sex segregation in setting values, rewards or access to power.

These are important insights, but from a gender perspective, expertise not only involves practices of discrimination against women or the segregation of women from men. Expertise can itself be gendered through the differential evaluations of competences and expert claims. Science studies, especially actor-network theory (Latour 1987, Eyal 2013), also suggest asking how objects, technologies, and institutions are gendered and how they acquire stability as jurisdictional boundaries. In addition to claims and competences, networks of social arrangements can be gendered, and their gender can work independently of the gender of the individuals making use of them to advance their relative position.

Read More

Image: mSeattle via Flickr (CC-BY-2.0)

Image: mSeattle via Flickr (CC-BY-2.0)

by Matthew Wright

Recent studies highlight a growing class gap, in terms of prosperity and opportunity, between present-day Americans and the cohort that came of age in the 1950s. The root causes of this trend, however, have yet to be fully understood. In new research, I present systematic evidence confirming a growing class polarization in ‘social capital’ among American youth tracing back to the mid-1970s, and tie this trend explicitly to growth in economic inequality over that period.

Read More