A significant research effort by the Topos Partnership on behalf of the Ford Foundation has led to a communications appr
FRAMING JOB QUALITY AND ECONOMIC SECURITY FOR WOMEN: Communicating the Working Women’s Agenda By the Topos Partnership for the Ford Foundation January 2014
A significant research effort by the Topos Partnership on behalf of the Ford Foundation has led to a communications approach for job quality that has the best chance of bringing a broad audience on board with constructive change. Put simply, the idea that thriving communities and a thriving economy depend on people being reasonably compensated at work has the power to lift a range of economic policies, including those that increase women’s economic security. “Economy-boosting jobs” Advocates know there are a number of important reasons to push for greater job quality – basic fairness to workers who are helping create wealth for corporate employers, better child outcomes from lifting working families out of poverty, and so forth. But too often these rationales for job-quality policies can be dismissed even by sympathetic audiences, who feel that “now is the wrong time to be making additional demands on businesses,” or that “people should work harder and get a better education if they want better pay,” et cetera. Topos’ research and testing found that there is a particular way of framing the issues that helps more people think constructively about job quality requirements: For our communities and economy to thrive jobs need to pay at least enough to spend on the basics. When people, can’t afford food, or to go the doctor, or to make basic repairs, it hurts all of us, as the economy slows down. On the other hand, jobs that do pay enough are “economy-boosting” jobs that create stronger communities and a better economy. Companies making record profits shouldn’t be able to get away with offering “economy-busting” jobs, especially ones that require many of their workers to receive public assistance like food stamps just to get by.
Women’s Economic Security Some of the issues that are most critical to women’s economic security fit well within this frame, which gives people a new and helpful overview of what a good economy should mean. Note that while some particular audiences will respond to other frames, such as gender equity, corporate greed, et cetera, our research suggests that to bring broader audiences on board, and to give even some of our own potential supporters “permission” to demand more, this economic case builds broader support for policy proposals. Minimum wage increases, for instance, can easily be framed in terms of making sure that jobs that pay enough for the basics, and ensure that workers contribute to more successful and secure communities and families, and a stronger economy for all of us. Profitable, powerful companies have been able to use their influence to keep wages down in a number of labor market sectors – and extremely low in tipped jobs, of course – and an increase will boost, not only individual households, but the communities these workers live and spend in. Pay equity, too, can be framed in terms of benefits for us all. If women are paid less than 80% of what men are for the same job, this is another way of letting profitable employers get away with putting less money back into the community. Women are frequently primary earners for their households, and when these households can’t afford the basics, we all pay the price -- both in terms of an economic slowdown, and the public assistance workers need to get by. (Note that the “economy-boosting jobs” frame is about practical issues on the surface, but people infer that it is also about fundamental values like fairness and the dignity of work.) Likewise, paid family medical leave and paid sick days are about allowing people to take time off when they are sick or to care for a family member, without losing income from a job. When people are losing paychecks in order to care for themselves or family members, it slows down spending, and ends up affecting all of us. We should look at all job standards to make sure that jobs boost rather than bust the economy. More broadly, to the extent that any policy choice helps create communities of people who are more able to boost economic activity – i.e. spending on the basics – it is easier to promote broad support for that policy. Even when a given policy choice is not specifically related to compensation, it can be about making places thrive, for instance1. While making it easier for women to telecommute (for example, through tax credits to pay for needed equipment) is partly about strengthening family life and reducing the time 1 The Topos research was specifically about framing that helps promote support for better job compensation, but the following are reasonable if untested extensions of the successful framing approach that emerged from the testing.
burden of commuting, it can also be seen as a way of allowing more people to hold jobs, who would otherwise not be able to, due to family demands. When more women are able to stay in the workforce (while also being good parents, for instance), communities are more likely to thrive. The same arguments would apply to policies enhancing scheduling flexibility and reliability. Similarly, promoting greater access to high-quality, reliable childcare is both good for children and a way of allowing more people (and specifically women) to join or stay in the workforce, so that they are able to contribute to a thriving community and economy by spending on the basics, and more. Likewise, promoting STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) education for girls is partly about addressing a significant gender gap in this area, but also about creating a more thriving economy overall. Jobs that require STEM training are likely to be economy-boosting jobs that allow people to be economically active. When we emphasize that all of these policies share the benefit of ensuring jobs provide enough for workers to spend on the basics, we build broader understanding of the need to raise the floor on job standards for stronger communities and a healthier economy. On the other hand, a focus on struggling workers or on women (rather than on jobs) can often be trumped by an argument that people “should just make better choices if they want better jobs: get an education, don’t get pregnant, stay married, etc.”. While frames such as gender equity or a women’s agenda may be strongly effective for certain audiences, framing in terms of thriving communities is an effective way of reminding broad audiences why various policy choices are right for all of us. For more about Topos Partnership’s research on job quality, please visit our website at www.topospartnership.com or contact Senior Fellow, Margy Waller
[email protected].
