Search for: All records

The COVID-19 pandemic led to an unprecedented employer-driven shift to remote/hybrid work for those whose jobs allow it, but then came retrenchments, forging disjunctures between where one works (remote/hybrid or in-person) and individual preferences, which we term work-place mismatch. We draw on a combined worker power, employer biases, and adaptive strategy theoretical framing to investigate work-place mismatch in light of remarkable pandemic-precipitated shifts in place of work, opening up possibilities (and preferences) for remote/hybrid arrangements. In addition to examining inequities in work-place mismatch, we theorize employees’ possible adaptive strategies when confronting such mismatch—shifting where they work, changing their locational preferences, or intending to leave or actually leaving their employer. Using a nationally representative four-wave panel (October 2020–April 2022) of US employees who worked fully or partially remotely during the pandemic, we find that work-place mismatch is widespread, especially among those returning to on-site work. Hispanics, Black men, and those lacking a college degree are most likely to experience unfulfilled interest (mismatch) in remote work. Structurally disadvantaged mismatched workers also experience constrained strategies—less apt to change their work location or quit relative to white or college-educated workers.

 

Working remotely at least some of the time has long been seen as promoting a better integration of work and care obligations, even though prepandemic research is mixed as to the extent to which parents benefit emotionally from remote work. We exploit dual social experiments in schooling and work spawned by the COVID-19 pandemic to understand any stress-reducing effects of working from home under different school-closing state policy contexts. The pandemic led to an unprecedented shift to (and subsequent away from) remote and hybrid work but also to the implementation of various containment policies, most notably school closures driving a shift to remote learning that were put into effect to different degrees across U.S. states. Drawing on parents’ data from a U.S. nationally representative panel survey of workers who spent at least some time working from home since the pandemic onset, we use mixed-effects models to examine whether and in what ways cross-state and over-time variations in school closure policies shape any stress-reducing impacts of remote/hybrid work. Results show that when schools were not mandated to close, remote/hybrid work largely reduces parents’—especially mothers’—stress. However, an opposite pattern emerges in the face of closing mandates. These patterns are especially pronounced among white mothers and are not observed among nonparents. 

The future of work is ambiguous at best. Despite widespread shifts to remote/hybrid work during the COVID-19 lockdown, there is a paucity of knowledge about changing job conditions in tandem with different work locales. Is the move to remote/hybrid work a disrupter or accentuator of existing norms and inequalities? Drawing on nationally representative, four-wave panel survey data (October 2020 to April 2022) collected from U.S. workers who spent at least some time working from home since the pandemic onset, we examine effects of within-person changes in where respondents work on changes in job conditions (psychological job demands, job control, coworker support, and monitoring). Estimates from fixed-effects models show that, compared with returning to working at work, ongoing remote and moving to hybrid work lead to greater reductions in psychological job demands, especially among older women and men. Black and Hispanic women moving back to the office experience the greatest loss of decision latitude and schedule control. While white workers see increased coworker support when returning to the office, returning Black and Hispanic men report a decline in coworker support. Family caregivers’ job conditions do not improve whether remote/hybrid or returning to work. Qualitative data collected from Amazon Mechanic Turk illuminate mechanisms leading to salutary effects of remote work, but also the stress of combining jobs with family carework.

 

The COVID-19 pandemic precipitated a massive turn to remote work, followed by subsequent shifts for many into hybrid or fully returning to the office. To understand the patterned dynamics of subjective well-being associated with shifting places of work, we conducted a nationally representative panel survey (October 2020 and April 2021) of U.S. employees who worked remotely at some point since the pandemic (N = 1,817). Cluster analysis identified four patterned constellations of well-being based on burnout, work–life conflict, and job and life satisfaction. A total return to office is generally more stressful, leading to significantly lower probabilities of being in the optimal low stress/high satisfaction constellation by Wave 2, especially for men and women without care obligations. Remote and hybrid arrangements have salutary effects; moving to hybrid is especially positive for minority men and less educated men, although it disadvantages White women’s well-being.

 

This paper addresses the uneven employment effects on older Americans (aged 50–75) of the COVID-19 pandemic. Drawing on monthly Current Population Survey data from January through December 2020, we take an intersectional and life course approach to study the labor market effects of COVID-19 on older Americans. First, we chart monthly labor force states throughout 2020 for older adult subgroups defined by age, gender, and race/ethnicity. We then examine transitions out of and into work from one month to the next. We find gendered age-graded declines in employment, increases in unemployment, and increases in the proportions of people in their 50s reporting they are not in the labor force for other reasons (NILF-other), most dramatically for Asian and Hispanic women. There is little change in age-graded retirement from before to during the pandemic, regardless of gender or race/ethnicity, though there are education-level effects, with those without a college degree more likely to retire in the face of COVID-19. White men with a college degree are the most apt to retain their work engagement. 

Abstract Objectives Later adult work attachments and exits are in flux, suggesting the need for understanding both the range of contemporary population-level pathways of work and non-work and variations by overlapping social locations. We document patterned continuity and change in monthly work attachments and analyze the intersecting effects of age, gender, education, and race/ethnicity. Methods We capitalize on massive micro-level 16-month panel data from the Current Population Survey (CPS) from 2008 through 2016 to empirically identify patterned pathways of monthly states: working full time, long hours, part time; being self-employed or unemployed; not working because of a disability, due to family care or other reasons, or because one defines oneself as retired. Results Analyses of 346,488 American women and men ages 50 to 75 reveal patterned elasticity in the timing and nature of work attachments in the form of six distinctive pathways. Our intersectional analyses illustrate divergences and disparities: advantages for educated white men, disadvantages for low-educated Black men and women through their early 60s, and intersecting effects of gender, education, and race/ethnicity during the later work course across age groups. We find convergence across social markers by the 70s. Discussion This research highlights the importance of intersectional analysis, recasting the gendered work course in later adulthood into a framework of even greater complexities within mutually shaping categories of race/ethnicity, class, and age. Older Americans experience patterned, uneven pathways around work and non-work. We recommend additional scholarship on the dynamics of constrained and disparate choices unfolding across multiple intersecting social locations. 

The COVID-19 pandemic has transformed where paid work is done. Workers able to do so have been required to work remotely. We draw on survey data collected in October 2020 from a nationally representative sample of 3,017 remote workers, as well as qualitative survey data collected from 231 remote workers, to examine perceived changes in work hours from before to during the pandemic. Results indicate women are at greater risk of change (either a major decrease or a major increase)—rather than stability—in work hours. Gender also intersects with caregiving, race/ethnicity, prior remote work experiences, and socioeconomic status to shape changes in hours. Women and men in the sandwich generation, as well as women (but not men) with pre-school children, are the most likely to report a decrease in work hours, whereas women with older children at home or caring for adults (but not both) are the most likely to have an increase in hours. Remote working Black women and women moving into remote work are more likely to experience a major increase in hours worked, even as Hispanic women and Black men are the most likely to report somewhat of a reduction in work hours. Gender also intersects with SES, such that women without a college degree are more likely to have a decrease in work hours, while women with an advanced degree and women managers report a considerable increase in work hours. Qualitative data further illuminate why work hours change or remain stable for remote workers during COVID-19.

 

Abstract These are unprecedented times, as the COVID-19 pandemic disrupts public health, social interaction, and employment attachments. Evidence to date has been about broad shifts in unemployment rates as a percent of the labor force. We draw on monthly Current Population Survey data to examine subpopulation changes in employment states across the life course, from January through April 2020. COVID-19 downturns produced disparate life-course impacts. There are increases in unemployment and being out of the workforce at all ages, but especially among young adults, with young women most at risk. Intersectional analyses document conjoint life-course vulnerabilities by gender, educational attainment, and race/ethnicity. For example, Black men aged 20–29 with a college degree experienced a 12.4 percentage point increase in being not in the labor force for other reasons (NILF-other). Individuals with less than a college degree in their 50s and 60s were more likely to become unemployed, regardless of race. And more non-college-educated Asian men in their 60s and 70s reported being retired (6.6 and 8.9 percentage point increases, respectively). Repercussions from the pandemic may well challenge assumptions and possibilities for older adults’ working longer.