Job Loss and Attempts to Return to Work: Complicating Inequalities across Gender and Class

Abstract

Drawing on data from 100 qualitative interviews with the recently unemployed, this study examines how participants made decisions about attempting to return to work and identifies how class and gender shape these decisions. Middle-class men were most likely to take time to attempt to return to work, middle-class women were most likely to begin a deliberate job search, working-class men were most likely to report an urgent search, and working-class women were most likely to have diverted searches. Financial resources, gendered labor force attachments, and family responsibilities shaped decision making. Ultimately, those in the middle-class appear doubly advantaged—both in their financial capabilities and in their ability to respond to the crisis with greater gender flexibility.

Keywords

unemployment gender flexibility class job search gender

Over the last half-century, job instability has increased and with it the risk of job loss and unemployment (Kalleberg 2009; Sharone 2013). Few workers are immune to growing instability; neither gender nor college degree has proven to be protective from this threat (Brand 2015). Although women’s workplace exits are often presumed to be voluntary and associated with family changes (Bianchi et al. 2012), since the 1950s women and men have experienced similar annual rates of involuntary unemployment (IWPR 2011; Mishel, Bernstein, and Allegretto 2007). Thus, job loss and subsequent unemployment have become more common for all workers across gender and class. Understanding whether women and men differentially approach their job search may prove crucial for understanding inequalities across gender and class, because the timing of returns matters for long-term job stability and future unemployment (Pedulla 2016; Sharone 2013).

Qualitative research on the job search offers some clues about how class and gender may matter for job searches: Class may shape searches whereas gender does not (Sharone 2013); job loss may trigger men’s searches whereas women’s searches may be more related to family change (Newman 1988); working-class women may be pushed to search for jobs they do not want and that underpay them (Gatta 2014); middle-class men may be able to take their time with a job search, because of their wives’ work (Lane 2011). Yet it remains unclear exactly how gender and class may intersect to shape women’s and men’s attempts to return to work when they are unemployed.

This article addresses three questions: First, how do the unemployed make decisions about attempting to return to work? Second, do these decisions vary across gender and class? Third, do gender and class differences in wages, labor force attachment levels, and work–family responsibilities intersect to shape attempts to return to work? To address these questions, this study analyzes data from 100 in-depth qualitative interviews conducted in the months immediately following a respondent’s job loss. A stratified theoretical sampling strategy yielded a group divided by gender and class recruited from state-mandated unemployment centers in five counties, urban and rural, in Pennsylvania. These data allow me to examine how respondents make decisions about their attempts (or lack of attempts) to return to work and to identify factors shaping these decisions. The results provide new insights about how class and gender shape unemployed workers’ attempts to regain employment.

Gender, Class, and The Job Search

Unemployment differs by class, gender, and family structure, but how gender and class shape the job search process remains under debate. In one of the largest recent qualitative studies of the job search, Sharone (2013, 82) argues there are “no clear cross-gender differences” in the early stages of the job search process. Instead, Sharone (2013) finds class-based differences in job-seeking strategies, arguing American white-collar workers must show they are the right “match” for a company, whereas blue-collar workers must demonstrate earnest effort. Both Sharone (2013) and Lane (2011) find the middle-class, at first, apply only for jobs comparable to those they have recently lost. In contrast, anxieties about finances generally bring greater financial pressures to the job search among the working class; both workers and employers expect working-class workers to search for positions that match their skill set rather than their prior job (Sharone 2013). Moreover, unemployment officers encourage working-class women to lower their expectations for finding work that pays a living wage (Gatta 2014).

Yet this research may understate the role of gender; others suggest gendered family responsibilities shape how respondents make sense of their unemployment. Sharone (2013) argues gender does matter, but only for how people frame their unemployment; unemployed women (unlike men) downplay their job loss by stating they are caring for children. This finding echoes Damaske (2011), who finds women who lose jobs claim they have returned home to care for children—a narrative that keeps some women from searching for work. In contrast, men emphasize they are “between jobs” even if they have become primary caregivers to their children, suggesting men are always searching for work (Chesley 2011). Lane (2011) finds middle-class men embrace their wives’ ability to support them financially, whereas middle-class women seem much more uneasy with their financial dependence on their husbands; however, more recently Basbug and Sharone (2017) find middle-class men lose emotional support from their wives when they are long-term unemployed.

Despite some claims that class rather than gender matters to the job search, researchers find sizable gender differences in family responsibilities in the wake of a job loss and in narratives about unemployment. Yet whether these differences shape job searches have not been fully explored. Moreover, gender flexibility—the ability to share work and home tasks and to break away from traditional gender norms—may help families when they face economic challenges and during times of familial change (Sherman 2009). Gender norms may constrain behaviors in the wake of a job loss, but the ability to adopt gender-flexible responses to a job loss may be protective. Finally, prior research highlights the role of financial insecurity in the job search for the working class (Gatta 2014; Sharone 2013), but how this plays out across gender remains unclear.

The Wage Gap

Because unemployment benefits in Pennsylvania are based on wages, the gender wage gap likely plays an important role in worker’s decisions about attempts to return to work. The gender wage gap remains significant in the United States, with women earning about 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man (Misra and Murray-Close 2014). Although working-class men have faced long-term declines in their earnings since the 1970s (McCall 2001) and the wage gap has shrunk among low-wage workers, a sizable wage gap remains at the bottom and, even more so, at the top of the labor force (Blau and Kahn 2017). In 2015, 48 percent of married couples relied on income from both husband and wife, but women are less able to find paid work to compensate for a husband’s job loss (BLS 2016; Legerski and Cornwall 2010). Thus, we may expect both class and gender to generate financial differences in unemployment compensation, but how this shapes job searches is unclear. On the one hand, higher earning potential may hasten returns to work after a bout of unemployment, whereas lower potential wage earnings may slow a return. On the other hand, higher unemployment compensation may slow the start of a job search, whereas lower unemployment compensation may speed up a search.

Gender and Class Differences in Labor Force Attachment and Family Responsibilities

Men’s labor force attachment is often taken for granted; both working- and middle-class men report strong expectations that they will work full-time and continuously (Townsend 2002). Moreover, men continue to measure their self-worth through their breadwinning, not their caregiving (Chesley 2011; Townsend 2002), suggesting men may feel societal pressure to return to paid work quickly. Middle-class men’s identity is strongly tied to their careers (Basbug and Sharone 2017; Newman 1988), whereas work holds less importance to working-class men’s identities (Komarovsky 1964; Sharone 2013). Additionally, stigma about unemployment remains high among the middle class (Newman 1988; Sharone 2013), while the devastation of the Great Recession appeared to remove some of the stigma for working-class men (Chen 2015). Working-class men may be more likely to search for work that allows split-shift child caring (Shows and Gerstel 2009), prolonging working-class men’s job search. Overall, we would expect men to have strong work devotions, but there may be differences in work identities and family responsibilities by class that may differentially drive men’s return to work.

Although the majority of women now spend their prime childbearing years working at least full-time (Damaske and Frech 2016), women are more likely than men to spend time out of work (Moen and Roehling 2005). Because women are presumed to make a “choice” about motherhood versus work (Blair-Loy 2003; Cha 2010), a job loss may raise questions about women’s continued employment. Women continue to be primarily responsible for household chores and child-rearing (Bianchi et al. 2012), which may lead them to reconsider continued employment after a job loss or to return only if they can find satisfactory childcare (Damaske 2011).

Class differences also shape women’s work and family decisions, although how is under debate. On the one hand, working-class women may be less constrained by intensive mothering ideals (Garey 1999; McGinn and Oh 2017). On the other hand, continued workforce participation requires resources, and women with higher levels of educational and occupational attainment have had higher levels of workforce participation in recent years (Damaske 2011; Landivar 2017). Some qualitative work shows greater egalitarian family responsibilities for those with lower occupational attainment, and recent survey data show gains in the equitable division of household labor among lower-income families (Carlson, Miller, and Sassler 2018; Clawson and Gerstel 2014). But other research suggests working-class women’s lower earnings appear to leave them less able to bargain out of undesirable household tasks (Miller and Carlson 2016) and more at risk of criticism for their continued workforce participation (Damaske 2011). A study of changes to household labor finds a working-class husband’s job loss ultimately strengthens traditional gender dynamics in the home (Legerski and Cornwall 2010). But working-class women are also less likely to be married than middle-class women (Miller and Carlson 2016), which may increase financial pressures to return to work.

Thus, broad social and cultural norms about who should care and who should work for pay likely shape how men and women across classes behave after they lose their jobs. Gender flexibility may allow for families to move away from these norms and respond to periods of crisis (Sherman 2009). Yet economic conditions may change who has access to gender flexibility and how it is used. A qualitative study of emergency medical technicians suggests greater economic security (not insecurity) allows working-class men to “undo gender” (Clawson and Gerstel 2014, 142). And in times of economic uncertainty, middle-class men may revert to traditional breadwinner roles after a period of long-term unemployment (Basbug and Sharone 2017). In sum, there remains mixed evidence on how gender and class might shape attempts to return to work and how gender flexibility may allow people to respond to the challenges raised by a job loss and subsequent unemployment.

Methods

This article uses data from 100 qualitative interviews with working- and middle-class men and women conducted from 2013 through 2015. I began by fielding a pilot study, using snowball sampling to recruit 17 participants from social networks (plus three participants randomly recruited via 10-digit dialing). Four pilot study participants were excluded because they were above the age of 55 years. At the conclusion of the pilot study, the research was expanded, and 84 men and women were recruited from unemployment centers serving five different counties in Pennsylvania. Pilot study results suggested varied experiences across rural and city dwellers, so the counties included one midsized city, two small cities, and two rural areas. Everyone who received unemployment benefits from the state was required to attend an introductory meeting at an unemployment center. At these meetings, either I or a trained graduate student recruiter informed the gathering about the unemployment study and invited all in attendance to fill out a form indicating their interest in participation; the form included information to determine study eligibility. Although the meetings were held at a centralized location to recruit the unemployed, those who have lower levels of education and people of color are less likely to apply for unemployment insurance; if they do apply, high school graduates, those with less than a high school education, and Hispanics are less likely to receive unemployment; gender differences appear minimal (Gould-Werth and Schaefer 2012; Vroman 2008).

Eligibility was constrained to participants between the ages of 28 and 52 years (prime working and child-rearing years), those who had worked full-time, and those who experienced an involuntary job loss (e.g., were not fired owing to behavior). A theoretically informed stratified sampling design was used to achieve representation across gender and class. Class was operationalized based on the highest education level in the household. Although the sample varied by race, the sample was less racially diverse than is the national population. Of the 138 people who filled out forms and were eligible, one was excluded because of health, six provided nonworking/illegible phone numbers, and four were not recruited because the study closed owing to saturation. Eighty-four participants were recruited, with a participation rate of 67 percent.¹

Participants had spent, on average, 11 weeks since the day they had worked at their last job.² Although most people interviewed were clustered between 10 and 12 weeks since their last day worked, the range was wider—from two to 40 weeks. For the years 2013-2015, between 22 and 28 percent of the unemployed spent less than five weeks unemployed during those three years, 24 to 27 percent spent five to 14 weeks unemployed, and the modal category was longer than 27 weeks unemployed (BLS 2015). See Table 1 for demographic descriptives.

Table 1:

Demographic Characteristics of Sample (N = 100)

Variable	n
Age, mean	40
Age, range	27–51
Weeks since job loss (mean)	11
Weeks since job loss (range)	2–40
Gender
Men	51
Women	49
Current class
Working class	56
Middle/upper middle class	44
Race
White	89
Black	7
Latino/a	3
Asian	1
Marital status
Married	63
Cohabiting	17
Single	20
Children in household
Under the age of 18 years	75
Under the age of 23 years	84

All interviews were conducted in person by me or a trained graduate student and lasted from one to five hours, averaging two and a half. Interviews took place in respondents’ homes, coffee shops, diners, or my office. Participants received 50 dollars for their participation. Interviews were recorded using digital recorders and transcribed.

To facilitate systematic comparisons, I used a detailed interview guide, which included questions on household demographics, education, work history, unemployment, and the like. For the analysis, I began with a list of possible codes derived from the literature and read each interview transcript, compiling a list of additional codes. I created new coding schemes when patterns emerged and were repeated. This iterative process required multiple readings of each transcript, as coding ideas were evaluated to determine their importance across the interview data. Interview transcripts, field notes, and other pieces of data were labeled in Atlas.ti and entered into an Excel spreadsheet. Some codes developed directly from the interview guide; others, such as the code for how participants made attempts to return to work, emerged from patterns developed across multiple questions, including whether/when they had started their job search, their goals, the urgency of their job search, and their perceived ability to decline a job. To understand gender and class differences in attempts to return to work, I developed codes to gauge participants’ financial precarity based on whether they had “enough” to cover their daily costs. This was contrasted with having “barely enough” (some essentials were occasionally foregone, as well as many luxuries) or “not enough” (daily they went without essentials). Those in the final category reported food scarcity, missed bills, loss of basic services, and/or an inability to pay for children’s necessities.

Searching for work

Four primary patterns emerged in how participants considered re-engaging with the labor market: Deliberate, Take Time, Urgent, and Diverted. The categories, described below, were divided by gender and class, as detailed in Table 2. In the second half of the article, I explore the financial resources and gendered labor force attachments and family responsibilities that shaped these classed and gendered responses.

Table 2:

Attempts to Return to Work by Gender and Class

	Deliberate^a	Take Time	Urgent	Diverted	N/A^b	Total
Middle-class men	12 (46)	12 (46)	2 (8)	0 (0)	0 (0)	26
Middle-class women	14 (78)	0 (0)	0 (0)	4 (22)	0 (0)	18
Working-class men	4 (16)	3 (12)	15 (60)	1 (4)	2 (8)	25
Working-class women	7 (23)	5 (16)	8 (26)	11 (35)	0 (0)	31
Total	37	20	25	16	2	100

NOTE: Values within parentheses are percentages.

Percentages total across rows to show distribution within each gender/class group.

N/A: Two working-class men did not fall into any of the search categories, as they were seasonally unemployed from their companies and not searching for work, as they expected to be rehired, as they were annually, when their company’s busy season commenced.

Deliberate

The first group, Deliberate, was the modal category and it is one previous studies have highlighted (see Lane 2011; Sharone 2013). These workers (average age, 41 years) started their searches quickly and methodically after their job loss (sometimes before a job was lost) and treated their job search as if it were a job—clocking in and out and networking with colleagues to help them find work. They wanted to maintain their positions and felt able to decline a job if it were not a comparable position. Despite existing research about middle-class women and intensive mothering norms (Blair-Loy 2003), middle-class women were most likely to follow this deliberate search pattern, with 14 middle-class women (more than three-quarters of the middle-class women) reporting an immediate methodical search.

Middle-class women spoke primarily of looking for jobs similar to those they had lost. They discussed timelines for expanding their searches outside of the region and when they would have to consider jobs that were not comparable to what they had had. These benchmarks were common among those who undertook a deliberate search. Heather,³ a 33-year-old, white, middle-class woman, hoped to use the job search to transition back to work she had done before her most recent job. She explained:

I’m looking to move more into accounting. So, I was an accounting clerk when I worked at [an investment firm], and when I took the job at [an energy company], it was more marketing, land resources, and I worked some for the finance department, but not a lot. I want to get a job doing accounting.

Heather started applying for work before she officially lost her job (she was phased out in a large takeover) and she had a contingency plan: She would return to something more similar to what she had done if she could not find an accounting position.

Nearly half of the middle-class men (n = 12) also had a deliberate job search. Harold, a 46-year-old, white, middle-class man, wanted to complete the last class needed to earn his bachelor’s degree. But for now, he said:

I just want to get into something similar to what I was doing. Maybe a hotel accounting position, something like that. That’s not what I want to stay in. I’d like to finish that last class [laughter], and maybe. . . . I’ve always thought that teaching would be good, like elementary or junior high teacher.

While Harold dreamed of becoming a teacher someday, he put his dream on hold so he could search for work in his current field.

Almost a quarter of the working-class women (n = 7) took deliberate searches; most had lost either office or health care jobs. Latesha, a 44-year-old, black, working-class woman, started her search the day after she lost her job and began applying for administrative jobs similar to the one she had lost. After high school, Latesha earned a certificate from a technical school in office administration, which she hoped would give her an advantage over the deep pool of high school candidates in the area competing for a limited number of jobs.

A small number of working-class (n = 4) men took the deliberate search approach. These men had work histories from a time seemingly gone by. Paul, a 35-year-old, white, working-class man, was a carpenter and his recent job loss came at a nonunion job. After his job loss, he explained, “I just decided, that’s it, I’m gonna call the union.” While Paul expected his search would take longer through the union, he believed it would lead to better pay and better long-term stability. Finding a job through the union meant, “you get paid what you are worth, what you need to get paid.” The working-class men and women who took deliberate searches had experience in working-class jobs that were more stable than many working-class jobs are these days, and they hoped a deliberate search would lead to better long-term prospects.

Take Time

Research has emphasized middle-class men’s strong labor force attachment (Moen and Roehling 2005; Townsend 2002). Yet middle-class men were overrepresented in the Take Time category, with 12 middle class men (almost half) reporting they were “taking my time” in the wake of their job loss, whereas none of the middle-class women reported this. These workers (average age, 40 years) explained that they were deciding their next steps, considering a change of career, or enjoying time off before the search began. Three working-class men and three of the five working-class women reported they had taken their time to return to work in order to bolster their position in the labor market.

Many middle-class men felt it would be easy to find another position. Dean, a 50-year-old, white, middle-class man, explained,

This is almost a chosen unemployment at some level. . . . Even before I was unemployed, I could’ve gotten another [company where I worked] job. There were other jobs that I can do that I could’ve applied for and I had zero motivation to do it.

Instead of looking, Dean, and those like him, decided they wanted some time off first. Although these stories may have provided some social cover for men whose primary identities are tied to the paid labor market, the middle-class men in this group reported that they had made very little effort to find work.

The working-class women and men spoke infrequently about time off and more about avoiding future unemployment. Dawn, a 36-year-old, white, working-class woman, explained she and her husband were hoping to start their own business as a way to ward off instability. She said, “Nope [I haven’t applied to any jobs], just looking at different businesses. There’s a business seminar that we want to go to.” Roger, a 38-year-old, white, working-class man, explained that his job loss was “a good opportunity to make a change. And do something more fulfilling with my life. So with that in mind, I’ve kind of been taking my time.” The start of Roger’s job search was paused, while he reflected upon what type of work he might seek.

Urgent

The third group, Urgent, was characterized by an almost frantic scramble to find work, with respondents (average age, 40 years) describing their searches as beginning immediately. Fifteen working-class men, not quite two-thirds, reported their need to find work demanded they search for any job that would hire them as soon as possible. Eight working-class women, about a quarter, also reported the need to return quickly and to any job, an approach very much like that described by Gatta (2014). In stark contrast, none of the middle-class women and only two of the middle-class men undertook urgent searches.

Seth, a 27-year-old, white, working-class man, had applied for more than 70 jobs and said the reality of his financial situation meant he was searching for “anything.” While Seth preferred to find “anything that’s paying decent,” he worried the urgency of his search meant “the only job I can find still is McDonalds, because that’s happening to a lot of people. So, I fear that the most.” The men with urgent job searches understood it would be better to wait for a higher-paying job, but financial pressures rarely allowed such time.

Like Seth, Robin, a 42-year-old, white, working-class woman, hoped she could find better work than her last job, cleaning buildings after hours. Before her position was outsourced, she had searched for different jobs: “I’ve applied to [for a clerical position], I’ve applied in [medical centers] and everything. I’ve applied for office jobs in just local areas here.” Yet Robin’s clerical search was unsuccessful, so when she lost her job, she knew she had to “put it in high gear” and she expanded her search broadly, looking for any job, including cleaning companies.

Although middle-class men were unlikely to take such an urgent approach, two middle-class men did. Both had prior job losses. Jeff, a 36-year-old, white, middle-class man, had experienced a prior bout of unemployment that lasted nearly two years. Jeff said, “I’ve applied for factory work, I have not gotten any calls. I’ve applied for other administrative work.” Multiple job losses had left these two men in greater precarity than other middle-class men and more willing to take almost any job they could find.

Diverted

Those in the final group, Diverted, had not started looking for work. Unlike the take time group, these participants (average age, 38.5 years) did not want time for themselves; some desperately needed to work. No middle-class men followed this pathway, and only one working-class man did. Eleven working-class women (a little over a third) reported being constrained in their attempts to return to work. Although working-class women were more evenly dispersed across all four groups than their peers, they made up the vast majority of this group (11 of 16). For four middle-class women, their return to work was also diverted. Unlike their peers, the diverted group could not begin a job search nor successfully maintain one.

Many said a lack of child care prevented them from searching for work. Kimberly, a 36-year-old, white, middle-class woman, explained she had a “great support system” in the town she lived when she lost her job. She said, “I could take the kids to work and my friend [who lived nearby] watched [them]. . . . It worked out great; I had a great support system where I didn’t have to pay a babysitter.” But after her job loss, the family moved to a new city, so her husband could take a new job with better pay to offset her lost income. In the new town, Kimberly was unable to find affordable quality child care, and without her old support network Kimberly did not attempt to return to work. Samantha, a 25-year-old, black, working-class woman, lost her state child care credit when she lost her job. She said, “I’m a stay-at-home mom now, again, because my day care [credit] was pulled. . . . I couldn’t afford day care with the check I was making from [unemployment]. So, now I’m just home with the kids again.” Although Samantha called herself a stay-at-home mom, she was not partnered, so she knew she would need a job once her unemployment ran out. In the meantime, with two young children and no child care, she could not search for work.

Family constraints were not the only challenge facing participants. A job loss can throw families into poverty (Cellini, McKernan, and Ratcliffe 2008). Tracy, a 37-year-old, white, working-class woman, had started working for a factory, but then the factory went through a series of layoffs and Tracy lost her job. Although she was a single mother to two children, Tracy had not started her job search. She explained, “I haven’t looked. I haven’t tried . . . I don’t even know where to apply.” Tracy thought the biggest barrier to her job search was “just stress.” Despite wishing she could be working again, Tracy was too stressed to start her search.

Economic Incentives to Return to Work

I next examine the processes that may have led to these differing patterns by gender and class. First, there were different economic incentives for middle-class and working-class men and women. In the state of Pennsylvania at the time of the interviews, unemployment benefits were calculated based on prior earnings (highest average quarterly earnings of any two quarters of the last 4 quarters).

More than three-quarters of middle-class men (n = 20) and two-thirds of middle-class women (n = 12) said they had enough money to cover their daily costs, which helped them take time or follow deliberate searches. Rodney (Take Time), a 50-year-old, white, middle-class man, explained that his search decisions came down to how long his unemployment kept his family from tapping into their savings account. He said, “We have enough in the joint checking account to live month to month.” Joan (Deliberate), a 39-year-old, white, middle-class woman, had dipped into her bank savings a little, but when asked about retirement she replied, “I have not dipped into my retirement, no. We’ve had other pots that we’ve been able to take from. No, I will not do that. I refuse to do that.” The respondents’ certainty they would not touch savings or retirement accounts showed a broad sense of financial security.

Taking money from a retirement account or increasing a spouse’s hours gave some working-class families the financial security to take time or be deliberate in their return to work. Joel (Take Time), a 42-year-old, white, working-class man, reported, “I had 10,000 dollars in a 401, so what I did, I rolled part of that into my checking account . . . so we had that financial cushion.” Many working-class families had a family member increase work hours to provide financial security. Heidi (Deliberate), a 44-year-old, white, working-class woman, explained her husband had increased his hours to keep the family financially stable. She said, “Like he would work two doubles in one week. Or he’d pick up an extra day.” Her husband’s extra hours made it possible for her to reject a bad job. She added, “I don’t want to do [a CNA job again]. That is like my last resort. You work so hard. It’s so underpaid. . . . I’m trying to steer away from that.” Her husband’s additional hours allowed Heidi to keep her search expanded away from these particularly poor options.

In contrast, nearly two-thirds of working-class women (n = 19) and nearly half of working-class men (n = 11) said there was not enough or barely enough to cover their needs. Although this financial pressure sped some workers to return to work, others were so constrained by financial insecurity that they did not search. Marcus (Urgent), a 39-year-old, white, working-class man whose church was helping him with food donations, explained, “I’m looking for anything I can get my hands on. I need something.” Wendy (Urgent), a 30-year-old, white, working-class woman, had sent out numerous applications. Wendy had fairly low expectations, explaining, “hopefully it’s comparable to at least what I’m making on unemployment,” which was about “150 dollars” less “per paycheck” than her last job. Urgent searches like Wendy’s were often motivated by the fact that many working-class women saw all of their job options as poor.

Financial strains sometimes diverted people from starting a search. Roy (Diverted), a 38-year-old, white, working-class man, had not started a job search. He felt overwhelmed by choosing which bills to pay: “What I get in unemployment is basically barely enough to even feed us . . . or pay the mortgage, or pay the other bills, or keep gas in car or daycare.” He explained, “Every month, if we pay something, we’re falling behind in everything else.” Roy said all of his energy was spent managing bills, leaving no time to search for work.

Gendered Family Responsibilities

Financial resources alone do not fully explain search strategies. Each of the four groups is also gendered, with women overrepresented on deliberate or diverted paths, and men following urgent or take time paths. In this section, I explore how gendered labor force attachments and family responsibilities help explain some of the remaining differences. Among the middle class, we see a divergence from traditional gendered family obligations of male breadwinning and female caregiving. Yet among the working class, the crises created by unemployment thrust more traditional gendered forms of family responsibility back onto the shoulders of the unemployed.

Although most of the middle-class men anticipated a lifetime of full-time labor, few had been given an opportunity to rethink their relationship with work; but unemployment did just that. Many of the men in the take time group pointed to their long years in the labor force and said they deserved this time off. Neil (Take Time), a 47-year-old, white, middle-class man, explained, “I’ve been enjoying the past few weeks of not having much responsibility because it’s been 25 years of more than most normal people would work and the stresses. I’m like gosh, darn, it’s my time.” Dean (Take Time), a 50-year-old, white, middle-class man, explained, “It’s like I want a break. I just want a break. I’m going to let go of the appointment. I will figure out my next steps after I get to take a bit of a break. So that’s where this ended up.”

Some men felt torn about their decision because they were not fulfilling what they (and their wives) saw as their responsibilities to their families. Jacob (Take Time), a 37-year-old, white, middle-class man, explained:

I feel terrible about it and I’m not doing what I’m supposed to do. That if she wants to work that should be her prerogative to do that as sort of an extra thing. I don’t feel she should have to carry the burden of having to supply for her family like that.

Although Jacob “felt awful,” he was not willing to take “any job.” Not all men felt such conflict. Joel (Take Time), a 42-year-old, white, working-class man, explained his wife’s full-time work “doesn’t really bother me. I know she said, once I do get back to work, she’s gonna cut her hours down, but it’s sort of a balance. . . . It’s just trading places.” Some, like Joel, had been doing the breadwinning for most of their lives and felt it was acceptable for their wives to take a turn.

If labor force attachment did not necessarily push men back to work, then how might work devotions influence women’s return to work? In contrast to many middle-class men, both middle-class and working-class women repeatedly explained their attempts to return to work in terms of their work devotion and strong labor force attachment. They also emphasized what they were not—stay-at-home moms. Joan (Deliberate), a 39-year-old, white, middle class woman, was explicit, stating, “I’m not a stay-at-home mom. It’s not in me to do that. I need to be out contributing to society.” Christina (Deliberate), a 41-year-old, Latina, middle-class woman, explained, “I could never be a stay-at-home parent . . . . I do not have the strength to stay at home the whole time. And now, unfortunately, I’ve been doing that for two months and it’s driving me insane.” Middle-class women emphasized the importance of work to their identity. Latoya (Deliberate), a 47-year-old, black, middle-class woman, explained, “It’s very important for my self-esteem and I like to work. I like to have a job. . . . So yeah, for me it’s been an obsession to find a position.”

Some working-class women expressed a similar attachment to paid work and to the importance of work to their identities. Dana (Take Time), a 43-year-old, white, working-class woman, explained, “I just know that I’ve always worked all my life and . . . I just don’t think I can be a stay-at-home person.” She expanded, “when I’m out working, I’m not ‘the wife’ anymore. I’m not the housewife. You’re a person again and people notice you.” Similarly, Peggy (Urgent), a 48-year-old, white, working-class woman, said, “I want to be working. I don’t want to be . . . I am not a person to be not working. I hate not working.” Tracy (Diverted), a 37-year-old, white, working-class woman, likewise lamented, “I like the time to myself—I like that. I like getting out of the house, making money and then going home; you feel more like a person. Yeah, I don’t like this, being off.” But unlike the middle-class women, many of the working-class women who reported this attachment to work experienced financial precarity, which hindered their ability to engage in one straightforward search path, the deliberate path, as the middle-class women did.

Unlike most of the middle class, many working-class men and women reported gendered family obligations shaped their searches—often brought on by the financial crises they faced after their job loss. Although many middle-class men felt freed from work devotions, most working-class men felt burdened by their inability to provide for their families. Differences in family structures may help explain this. Although the vast majority of all participants were either married or cohabitating (n = 81) and had a child aged 23 years or younger who lived in their household and depended on their income (n = 84), the middle-class men and women were most likely to have a working partner.⁴

Nearly half of the working-class men who had an urgent search had a wife who worked either part-time (n = 3) or not at all (n = 6). In contrast, only two of the men in the take time group reported having either a part-time or a not working spouse. Marcus (Urgent), a 39-year-old, white, working-class man, had started working part-time and not reporting his income while he searched for new work: “And I’m not going to lie, I’m [working under the table]. I have no choice; I have to provide for my children.” Seth (Urgent), a 27-year-old, white, working-class man, explained, “It just hurts my family because I don’t have a job right now. And it hurts me too.”

Those on the diverted path were the most likely to be single and to have children. Tracy (Diverted), a 38-year-old white working-class single mother, experienced food insecurity herself, but made sure her children had enough to eat. She added, “All my bills are paid, but we have no extra money. So it’s like—I have—just enough to cover my butt.” Without gas money, Tracy spent her time trying to juggle payment deadline and stretch her food budget. She had not happily returned home, but she saw no easy way back to work.

Many working-class women found their job loss gave their husbands leverage to expect them to increase their time on child care and household tasks. This was particularly true for working-class women, although two middle-class women also reported this. Pamela (Diverted), a 38-year-old, white, working-class woman, explained, “[My husband] was glad [I lost my job]. Now I could stay at home and he made a huge garden for me to have to work on, so that’s what I’m supposed to do. . . . But he feels at least I’m home where I’m supposed to be with the kids.” Similarly, Nicole (Diverted), a 38-year-old, white, working-class woman, said her husband “was thrilled. [He] had wanted to me quit that job for years.” Rhonda (Diverted), a 45-year-old, white, middle-class woman, explained, “[my husband is] respecting me a little more, and I think he’s realizing the treasure of having a woman home in the house. Because way back when, when his mom was a mom, that’s what they did, they stayed home, they were the stability of the home.” Although all of these women had previously worked full-time, their job loss opened them up to critiques from their husbands that they should remain at home to care for their children (and their spouse).

Both rising child care and rising medical costs kept some women from seeking new work. Regina (Diverted), a 38-year-old, white, working-class woman, explained her son’s medical situation had recently become “more complicated.” Her job loss timed with his rising medical needs meant she assumed a new (unpaid) job in the home: “I’m my son’s nurse.” Although many men somewhat increased their child care involvement at home after their job loss, none of the men took on full-time caregiving roles that prevented them from searching for a new job.

Conclusion

Understanding the decisions people make about returning to work in the wake of a job loss is necessary for a comprehensive account of how inequality in the labor market may be exacerbated by the unemployment experience. This article adds support to earlier qualitative findings (Gatta 2014; Lane 2011; Sharone 2013) of two types of search patterns—what I term deliberate and urgent—and extends this work by noting two additional patterns: take time and diverted. I additionally extend prior work by noting clear patterns in job searches across gender and class: Middle-class women were most likely to begin an immediate and deliberate job search, middle-class men were most likely to take time to attempt to return to work, working-class men were most likely to report an urgent search characterized by their willingness to take “any job,” and working-class women were most likely to report a diverted search, in which their job search was either delayed or stopped.

Financial security, gendered labor force attachment, and family responsibilities can help us understand how gender and class shape these processes. Unemployment exacerbates inequality through the ways the calculation of unemployment benefits and differences in pre–job loss savings shape people’s approaches to searching for work. Workers with higher education and earnings had a greater security net after their job loss, which better allowed for either deliberate searches or for taking time off. Workers with lower education levels and earnings often approached or entered poverty after a job loss, leading them either to search for work with a desperate urgency or not to start a search because they were overwhelmed by their inability to pay their daily bills.

Gendered work devotions and family responsibilities explained many remaining differences. Although the middle class explicitly referred to choices surrounding work and family and the ways they were breaking with traditional gender conventions, there was little discussion of gender beliefs or choices among the working class. Instead, these men and women reported structural constraints surrounding their gendered family responsibilities that were often brought on by the precarity their unemployment had caused. Middle-class men reported wanting a break from breadwinning responsibilities, whereas middle-class women emphasized that their deliberate search distinguished them from stay-at-home mothers. Working-class men, in contrast, were more likely to urgently search for work due to strong breadwinning obligations, whereas working-class women were more likely to face family obligations to provide care. Here we see diverging trends by class and gender, with the middle class actively rejecting traditional gender norms, and the working class being bound to them in the wake of a crisis.

Many middle-class men were pleased to take a short pause from the paid labor force. These men seemed clear they were going against traditional gender norms; many men noted their long devotion to work while explaining this step back. In this way, the middle-class men appear to have the privilege of redefining their gender obligations without much apparent social cost; they also anticipated few economic costs. This differs from Basbug and Sharone’s (2017) findings, perhaps because of the duration of unemployment and age of respondents. Their respondents were older and likely faced more challenges to finding reemployment and experienced long-term unemployment. Their respondents also faced greater economic insecurity, much like the working-class men in my study. Middle-class women in my study made strong claims about their rightful place in the workforce. Though none of the middle-class women mentioned being concerned about being presumed to be a stay-at-home mother, many invoked stay-at-home moms when describing their own choices. Research has shown there are strong penalties for opting out of work to provide care (Weisshaar 2018). The middle-class women had financial privilege and the ability to reject traditional gender norms, but they likely faced the possibility that such norms would constrain their own chances in the job market, which may have spurred their deliberate returns.

Breadwinning responsibilities forced many working-class men to search urgently and take jobs quickly. This type of churning stemmed both from their poor labor prospects and from the greater likelihood that these men had stay-at-home or part-time working wives. Bearing the financial responsibility for the family was not something easily changed in the wake of a job loss, and it was a burden these men carried with them as they searched for new work. This supports Basbug and Sharone’s (2017) quantitative findings that working-class men face greater breadwinning pressure after unemployment. Finally, many working-class women felt obliged to take on caregiving tasks that prevented them from searching for new work. Although prior scholars have noted that employment allows working-class women to barter for more power in the home (Clawson and Gerstel 2014; Ferree 1987), these findings suggest job loss can mean an involuntary return to more traditional tasks.

Recent scholarship on the medical field found greater gender flexibility within working-class communities than middle-class ones (Clawson and Gerstel 2014). Other scholars have found the working-class can respond to increased precarity or even prolonged crisis with greater flexibility rather than less (Sherman 2009). Unlike the participants in this study who were out of work a short time, Sherman’s participants had experienced both long-term unemployment and years of precarity in their community. Perhaps the initial shock of job loss and plunge into vulnerability may explain the differences between these studies. There was little evidence of gender flexibility for the working class in this study. Instead, structural constraints appeared to reinforce traditional gender responsibilities, not through the installation of traditional gender beliefs, but by taking away women’s ability to acquire adequate and affordable child care or by limiting their bargaining power with their husbands who wanted them to be at home.

This study contributes to our understanding of gender flexibility in two ways: The first is by identifying how class and gender intersect in the process, as the middle class appeared to have access to greater gender flexibility than did the working class. The working class appeared to be particularly constrained by both their structural disadvantages and by how these disadvantages seemed to push both working-class men and women to enact more traditional gender norms of family responsibility—even as some of the women, in particular, espoused more egalitarian ideals. Second, these changes were brought on by a disruptive event—a financial shock to the household—which either brought greater gender flexibility, in the case of the middle-class men, or took that flexibility away, as was the case for many working-class women, who had been working full-time until their job loss. Ultimately, those in the middle class appear doubly advantaged—both in their financial capabilities and in their ability to respond to the crisis with greater gender flexibility. Those in the working class appear doubly disadvantaged—both in their financial precarity and in how their insecurity constrained access to greater gender flexibility, which may ultimately lead to greater financial distress, as women stay at home and men remain breadwinners in homes that could use a second earner.

There are limitations to this study. First, the study does not match the United States in racial diversity, despite attempts to recruit a diverse population. This means blacks, Latinos, and Asians were all underrepresented and further research is necessary to understand their experiences of unemployment. This is particularly important for blacks and Latinos, who are likely to be at greater risk of unemployment than are whites (Brand 2015). This problem was likely exacerbated by the recruitment method, and while the theoretical sampling strategy helped to ensure more adequate representation across class, this was not possible for race. A second limitation is the geographic area—while the study included midsize and small cities as well as rural areas, there were no densely populated urban areas. Further study is necessary to explore how these findings might translate to areas with different occupational opportunities and constraints. Finally, as noted in the methodology section, although the BLS data suggest that the unemployed who find jobs quickly are in the minority (BLS 2015), those who found jobs faster than 5 weeks were, in general, excluded by the sampling strategy. Further research is necessary to explore how these job seekers might differ from those in this study.

The implications of this research are multiple: First, the findings point to how class and gender differentially shape respondents’ attempts to return to work. Second, I find financial security works in tandem with gendered work devotions and family responsibilities to shape decision making about job searches. Finally, there are important policy implications. Changes need to be made to the calculation of unemployment benefits to minimize the immediate economic shock of job loss on working-class families, which might give working-class men and women better access to other search patterns. Additionally, child care credits must not be lost when women and men lose jobs. Instead, there is a good reason to expand child care credits for those who have lost jobs in order to ensure those with child-rearing responsibilities—who remain mostly women—can continue to search for work. Without these changes, unemployment often exacerbates inequality both in the job search and in the home for the newly unemployed.

Footnotes

Author’s note:

The author thanks Jo Reger, three anonymous reviewers, Adrianne Frech, Jessica Halliday Hardie, Heather Jacobson, Kristen Schultz Lee, Molly Martin, Léa Pessin, and Carrie Shandra for their insightful comments on prior drafts. The author also appreciates the critical feedback from the members of the Harvard Gender Inequality Workshop and Social Demography Seminar and members of the Washington University Sociology Department. The author acknowledges funding from the National Science Foundation, award number SES-1357264, the American Sociological Association Fund for the Advancement of the Discipline, and a seed grant as well as developmental assistance provided by the Population Research Institute at Penn State University, which is supported by an infrastructure grant by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P2CHD041025).

ORCID iD

Sarah Damaske

Notes

Sarah Damaske is an associate professor of sociology, labor and employment relations, and women’s studies at the Pennsylvania State University. She is currently writing a book on job loss and unemployment under contract with Princeton University Press. Her first book, For the Family? How Class and Gender Shape Women’s Work, was published in 2011 by Oxford University Press.

References

Basbug

Gokce

Sharone

Ofer

. 2017. The emotional toll of long-term unemployment. The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences 3 (3): 222-44.

Bianchi

Suzanne M.

Sayer

Liana C.

Milkie

Melissa A.

Robinson.

John P.

2012. Housework: Who did, does or will do it, and how much does it matter? Social Forces 91 (1): 55-63.

Blair-Loy

Mary

. 2003. Competing devotions: Career and family among women executives. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Blau

Francine D.

Kahn.

Lawrence M.

2017. The gender wage gap: Extent, trends, and explanations. Journal of Economic Literature 55 (3): 789-865.

Brand

Jennie E.

2015. The far-reaching impact of job loss and unemployment. Annual Review of Sociology 41 (1): 359-75.

BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). 2015. Table A-12. Unemployed persons by duration of unemployment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.

BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). 2016. Husband and wife employed in 48 percent of married-couple families in 2015. The Economics Daily. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.

Carlson

Daniel L.

Miller

Amanda Jayne

Sassler

Sharon

. 2018. Stalled for whom? Change in the division of particular household tasks and their consequences for middle- and low-income couples. Socius 4:1-17.

Cellini

Stephanie Riegg

McKernan

Signe-Mary

Ratcliffe

Caroline

. 2008. The dynamics of poverty in the United States: A review of data, methods, and findings. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 27 (3): 577-605.

10.

Cha

Youngjoo

. 2010. Reinforcing separate spheres: The effect of spousal overwork on men’s and women’s employment in dual-earner households. American Sociological Review 75 (2): 303-29.

11.

Chen

Victor Tan

. 2015. Cut loose: Jobless and hopeless in an unfair economy. Berkeley: University of California Press.

12.

Chesley

Noelle

. 2011. Stay-at-home fathers and breadwinning mothers. Gender & Society 25 (5): 642-64.

13.

Clawson

Dan

Gerstel

Naomi

. 2014. Unequal time: Gender, class, and family in employment schedules. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

14.

Damaske

Sarah

. 2011. For the family? How class and gender shape women’s work. New York: Oxford University Press.

15.

Damaske

Sarah

Frech

Adrianne

. 2016. Women’s work pathways across the life course. Demography 53 (2): 365-91.

16.

Ferree

Myra Marx

. 1987. Family and job for working-class women: gender and class systems seen from below. In Families and work: Women in the political economy, edited by Gerstel

Naomi

Gross

Harriet E

. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

17.

Garey

Anita Ilta

. 1999. Weaving work and motherhood. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

18.

Gatta

Mary

. 2014. All I want is a job! Unemployed women navigating the public workforce system. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

19.

Gould-Werth

Alix

Schaefer

H. Luke

. 2012. Unemployment insurance participation by education and by race and ethnicity. Monthly Labor Review October:28-41.

20.

IWPR (Institute for Women’s Policy Research). 2011. Slow job growth in September points to need for federal help with job creation. Washington, DC: IWPR Quick Figures Report.

21.

Kalleberg

Arne L.

2009. Precarious work, insecure workers: Employment relations in transition. American Sociological Review 74 (1): 1-22.

22.

Komarovsky

Mirra

. 1964. Blue-collar marriage. New York: Random House.

23.

Landivar

Liana Christin

. 2017. Mothers at work: Who opts out? Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

24.

Lane

Carrie M.

2011. A company of one: Insecurity, independence, and the new world of white-collar unemployment. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

25.

Legerski

Elizabeth Miklya

Cornwall

Marie

. 2010. Working-class job loss, gender, and the negotiation of household labor. Gender & Society 24 (4): 447-74.

26.

McCall

Leslie

. 2001. Complex inequality: Gender, class and race in the new economy. New York: Routledge.

27.

McGinn

Kathleen L.

Eunsil

. 2017. Gender, social class, and women’s employment. Current Opinion in Psychology 18:84-88.

28.

Miller

Amanda J.

Carlson.

Daniel L.

2016. Great expectations? Working- and middle-class cohabitors’ expected and actual divisions of housework. Journal of Marriage and Family 78 (2): 346-63.

29.

Mishel

Lawrence R.

Bernstein

Jared

Allegretto.

Sylvia A.

2007. The state of working America: 2006/2007. Ithaca, NY: ILR/Cornell University Press.

30.

Misra

Joya

Murray-Close

Marta

. 2014. The gender wage gap in the United States and cross nationally. Sociology Compass 8 (11): 1281-95.

31.

Moen

Phyllis

Roehling

Patricia

. 2005. The career mystique: Cracks in the American dream. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

32.

Newman

Katherine S.

1988. Falling from grace: The experience of downward mobility in the American middle class. New York: Free Press.

33.

Pedulla

David S.

2016. Penalized or protected? Gender and the consequences of nonstandard and mismatched employment histories. American Sociological Review 81 (2): 262-89.

34.

Sharone

Ofer

. 2013. Flawed system/flawed self: Job searching and unemployment experiences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

35.

Sherman

Jennifer

. 2009. Those who work, those who don’t: Poverty, morality, and family in rural America. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

36.

Shows

Carla

Gerstel

Naomi

. 2009. Fathering, class, and gender: A comparison of physicians and emergency medical technicians. Gender & Society 23 (2): 161-87.

37.

Townsend

Nicholas W.

2002. The package deal: Marriage, work, and fatherhood in men’s lives. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

38.

Vroman

Wayne

. 2008. An analysis of unemployment insurance non-filers: 2005 CPS supplement results. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

39.

Weisshaar

Katherine

. 2018. From opt out to blocked out: The challenges for labor market re-entry after family-related employment lapses. American Sociological Review 81 (1): 34-60.