Flexible Workplace Policies: Lessons From the Federal Alternative Work Schedules Act

• Author: Janet M. Liechty,Elaine A. Anderson
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2007.00461.x
• Published date: 01 July 2007
• Date: 01 July 2007

Flexible Workplace Policies: Lessons From the Federal

Alternative Work Schedules Act

Janet M. Liechty Elaine A. Anderson*

Abstract: This case study uses a feminist framework to examine the 7-year process by which the Federal Alternative

Work Schedules Act (1978 – 1985) became law and the reasons for reenergized implementation in the 1990s. We

analyze the legislative discourse for rationale in support of and opposition to this policy, connect findings to current

flexible work research, and identify criteria for evaluating the impact of flextime policies with attention to intersec-

tions of gender and socioeconomic status. Unexpectedly, traditional views on hierarchical manager-worker relations

figured more prominently than gender in the Congressional debates.

Key Words: family-friendly work policies, family policy, flexible work schedules, flextime, gender, work and family.

Work-family policies have been evolving in the

United States over the past 30 years as a way to

attract and retain a highly skilled workforce and to

enable workingwomen and men who have family

caregiving responsibilities to participate fully in the

workplace without compromising the well-being of

their dependents. These policies include programs

such as paid sick leave, on-site child care and emer-

gency care, flexible schedules, part-time career track

options, working from a home office, and elder care

resource referrals (Stebbins, 2001; Zimmerman,

2001). Perhaps the most widely known national

work-family policy is the Family and Medical Leave

Act (FMLA) of 1993, enabling employees to take up

to 12 weeks per 2 years of unpaid leave to manage

illness of self or a family member. Despite its popu-

larity, the FMLA legislation met considerable resis-

tance and endured nearly a decade of controversy

and compromise before becoming law (Elison,

1997; Marks, 1997; Wisensale, 2003).

Work-family policies have emerged at all policy

levels, and national policies governing federal

employees have often played a pioneering role. For

example, in response to increased labor demands

within the federal government and the availability of

new female workers, a law was passed in 1978

(PL-437) to increase part-time career employment

within the civil service, explicitly to ‘‘provide parents

opportunities to balance family responsibilities with

the need for additional income’’ (U.S. Government,

1980, p. 1055). In the same year, the Federal

Employees Flexible and Compressed Work Sched-

ules Act of 1978 (PL 95-390), the subject of this

case study, was implemented on an experimental

basis, allowing federal employees to alter their daily

work schedules for the first time. In 1993, the Fed-

eral Employees Leave Sharing Act was passed, allowing

government employees to donate leave to coworkers

who were dealing with protracted medical absence.

In addition, the Federal Employees Family Friendly

Leave Act of 1994 permitted workers to use their

sick leave to care for an ill family member. Many

agencies within the federal government have demon-

strated leadership in establishing family-friendly

workplace policies. For example, the U.S. Office of

Personnel Management disseminates information

on an array of Work/Life programs that may be

adopted by federal agencies such as flexible work

schedules, childcare subsidies, an Employee Assis-

tance Program, job sharing, telecommuting, and

*Janet M. Liechty is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Family Studies at the University of Maryland, 1204 Marie Mount Hall, College Park, MD 20742

(janetliechty@comcast.net). Elaine A. Anderson is Professor in the Department of Family Studies at the University of Maryland, 1204 Marie Mount Hall, College

Park, MD 20742 (eanders@umd.edu).

Family Relations, 56 (July 2007), 304–317. Blackwell Publishing.

Copyright 2007 by the National Council on Family Relations.