Family responsibilities discrimination

Séminaire avec Robin Stryker, Professeure de sociologie à l’Université de l’Arizona
  • Actualité Sciences PoActualité Sciences Po

L'axe « Discriminations et inégalités sociales » du LIEPP a le plaisir de vous inviter au séminaire-déjeuner :

"Family responsibilities discrimination"

Le mardi 19 septembre de 12h45 à 14h15

salle de réunion du LIEPP

254 boulevard st-Germain, 75007 Paris

Merci de cliquer sur ce lien pour vous inscrire

 

A l’occasion de la parution du LIEPP Working paper n°69 : Robin Stryker, Heidi Reynolds-Stenson et Krista Frederico, Family responsibilities discrimination, HR work-family discourse and organizational mediation of us civil rights law, ce séminaire propose une réflexion sur des discriminations liées aux responsabilités familiales dans une perspective comparative, avec Robin Stryker, Professeure de sociologie à l’Université de l’Arizona. 

Pour plus d'information, voir la page personnelle de Robin STRYKER

 

Paper abstract:

Robin Stryker, Heidi Reynolds-Stenson et Krista Frederico, Family responsibilities discrimination, HR work-family discourse and organizational mediation of us civil rights law

Because the US addresses work-family concerns mostly through voluntary employer-provided benefits combined with anti-discrimination legislation, organizational mediation of law shapes the content and impact of employers’ response to employees’ work- family issues.  Centrality of organizational mediation means centrality of HR professional discourse. Given skyrocketing lawsuits claiming family responsibilities discrimination (FRD), we examine FRD-related discourse, 1980-2012, in the two highest circulation HR journals, situating analysis within a theoretical model of organizational mediation.  Anti-discrimination law and the HR profession’s pre-FRD role combine to provide incentives and resources shaping HR journal work-family discourse.  Discourse employs multiple frames including business case, accommodation, diversity, and compliance, to motivate employer response to employees’ work-family issues.  Business case framing predominates.  But consistent with HR professionals’ dual mission of catering to top management’s concern for the bottom line while also addressing employees’ concerns, all four frames are used, in varying combinations, in complementary fashion.  Articles employing a diversity frame are most likely to acknowledge the gendered nature of family responsibilities, but articles employing the business case frame acknowledge the gendered nature of family responsibilities more than half the time.  Motivating frames are differentially associated with discussion of policies shown by prior research to promote gender and mother-other equality.  Business case framing is associated with discussion of equality-producing policies far more—and compliance framing far less—than prior research would have anticipated.  To the extent that HR motivating frames do promote policies that prior research suggests increase gender equality, HR mediation of FRD law can enhance gender equality.