Abstract
This study uses human capital and gender stratification theory to answer three research questions concerning the gendered patterns of precarious employment, the effects of human capital investments and family obligations on precarious employment, and the extent that these investments and obligations affect precarious employment differently for men and women. Lucrative jobs that offer benefits, union protection, with full-time work status were considered indicators of high quality and therefore non-precarious employment. Using data from U.S. respondents, findings suggest: a) a “gender” to precarious employment in that women are more likely to work in low quality job settings; b) gender discrepancies in benefits and union protection are explained by differences in men’s and women’s human capital, family investments, and other work-related situations; and, c) gender differences in wages and part-time work status result from workplace discrimination towards women. The implications of these findings are discussed along with recommendations for future research.
Subject
Management of Technology and Innovation,Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management,Strategy and Management
Reference52 articles.
1. Acker, J. 1989. Doing Comparable Worth: Gender, Class, and Pay Equity. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
2. Becker, G. 1985. “Human Capital, Effort, and the Sexual Division of Labor.” Journal of Labor Economics, 3 (1), S33-S58.
3. Becker, G. 1994. Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special Reference to Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4. Bergmann, B. 1974. “Occupational Segregation, Wages and Profits: When Employers Discriminate by Race or Sex.” Eastern Economic Journal, 2, 103-110.
5. Bianchi, S., J. Robinson, and M. Milkie. 2006. Changing Rhythms of American Family Life. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Cited by
48 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献