Work hour flexibility is believed to help couples manage career and family demands. The German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP) is unique in following both the flexible employee and their partner over time. The study utilizes this feature to investigate whether the take-up of work hour flexibility is detrimental for the flexible employee’s wage development. Men and women benefit from flexible working hours. For women, this positive wage effect occurs late, suggesting that, unlike men, they must first prove their commitment. Moreover, it tests for the first time whether flexible workers’ partners profit from the increased couple-level flexibility. The positive cross-partner effect for the inflexible partner is particularly pronounced for mothers’ wages, suggesting that men may use flexible working hours to support their wives’ careers. These measures are not necessarily used more frequently by those in need (e.g. parents or women). Instead, they seem to be accessed by those in sought-after positions.
Ala-MursulaLVahteraJKouvonenAVäänänenALinnaAPenttiJ. (2006) Long hours in paid and domestic work and subsequent sickness absence: does control over daily working hours matter?Occupational and Environmental Medicine63: 608–16.
2.
AllisonPD (1994) Using panel data to estimate the effects of events. Sociological Methods & Research23: 174–99.
3.
BernardiF (1999) Does the husband matter? Married women and employment in Italy. European Sociological Review15: 285–300.
4.
Blair-LoyM (2009) Work without end? Scheduling flexibility and work-to-family conflict among stockbrokers. Work and Occupations36: 279–317.
5.
Blair-LoyMWhartonAS (2002) Employees’ use of work–family policies and the workplace social context. Social Forces80: 813–45.
6.
BlossfeldH-PDrobnicSRohwerG (2001) Spouses’ employment careers in (West) Germany. In: BlossfeldHPDrobnicS (eds) Careers of Couples in Contemporary Societies: From Male Breadwinner to Dual Earner Families. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 53–76.
7.
BMFSFJ (2010) Europäischer Unternehmensmonitor Familienfreundlichkeit. Berlin: Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend.
8.
BMWI (2010) Allgemeine Wirtschaftspolitik. Wachstum und Demografie. Berlin: Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie.
9.
BousheyH (2008) Family friendly policies: helping mothers make ends meet. Review of Social Economy66: 51–70.
10.
BudigMJEnglandP (2001) The wage penalty for motherhood. American Sociological Review66: 204–25.
11.
ChaY (2010) Reinforcing separate spheres: the effect of spousal overwork on men’s and women’s employment in dual earner households. American Sociological Review75(2): 303–29.
12.
CohenPN (1998) Replacing housework in the service economy: gender, class, and race-ethnicity in service spending. Gender & Society12(2): 219–31.
13.
CostaGÅkerstedtTNachreinerFBaltieriFCarvalhaisJFolkardS. (2004) Flexible working hours, health, and well-being in Europe: some considerations from a SALTSA project. Chronobiology International21: 831–44.
14.
Destatis (2007) Kindertagesbetreuung Regional 2006, Ein Vergleich aller 439 Kreise in Deutschland. Wiesbaden: Destatis.
15.
Destatis (2013) Kinderbetreuung Regional 2012. Ein Vergleich aller 402 Kreise in Deutschland. Wiesbaden: Statistische Ämter des Bundes und der Länder.
16.
GalinskyESakaiKWigtonT (2011) Workplace flexibility: from research to action. The Future of Children21: 141–61.
17.
GanzeboomHBGTreimanDJ (1996) Internationally comparable measures of occupational status for the 1988 International Standard Classification of Occupations. Social Science Research25(3): 201–39.
18.
GanzeboomHBGTreimanDJ (2003) Three internationally standardised measures for comparative research on occupational status. In: Hoffmeyer-ZlotnikJHPWolfC (eds) Advances in Cross-National Comparison: A European Working Book for Demographic and Socio-Economic Variables. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 159–93.
GlassJ (2004) Blessing or curse?Work and Occupations31: 367–94.
21.
HavemanHABeresfordLS (2012) If you’re so smart, why aren’t you the boss? Explaining the persistent vertical gender gap in management. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science639: 114–30.
22.
JacobsJAGersonK (2001) Overworked individuals or overworked families? Explaining trends in work, leisure, and family time. Work and Occupations28: 40–63.
23.
KellyELMoenPTranbyE (2011) Changing workplaces to reduce work–family conflict schedule control in a white-collar organization. American Sociological Review76: 265–90.
24.
KellyELMoenPOakesJMFanWOkechukwuCDavisKD. (2014) Changing work and work–family conflict: evidence from the work, family, and health network. American Sociological Review79: 485–516.
25.
KrohMKäppnerKKühneS (2014) Sampling, Nonresponse, and Weighting in the 2011 and 2012 Refreshment Samples J and K of the Socio-Economic Panel. SOEP Survey Papers. Series C – Data Documentations. Berlin: SOEP – The German Socio-Economic Panel Study at DIW Berlin.
26.
MoenPSweetS (2004) From ‘work–family’ to ‘flexible careers’. A life course reframing. Community, Work & Family7: 209–26.
27.
PetersenTPennerAMHøgsnesG (2014) From motherhood penalties to husband premia: the new challenge for gender equality and family policy, lessons from Norway. American Journal of Sociology119: 1434–72.
28.
PlantengaJRemeryC (2009) The Provision of Childcare Services. A Comparative Review of 30 European Countries. Brussels: European Commission DG for Employment.
29.
PrandyKLambertP (2003) Marriage, social distance and the social space: An alternative derivation and validation of the Cambridge Scale. Sociology37(3): 397–411.
30.
RobinsJMHernánMÁBrumbackB (2000) Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology. Epidemiology11: 550–60.
31.
RoseE (2015) Temporal flexibility and its limits: the personal use of ICTs at work. Sociology49: 505–20.
32.
SampsonRJSharkeyPRaudenbushSW (2008) Durable effects of concentrated disadvantage on verbal ability among African-American children. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences105: 845–52.
33.
SchiemanSMilkieMAGlavinP (2009) When work interferes with life: work–nonwork interference and the influence of work-related demands and resources. American Sociological Review74: 966–88.
34.
SiegelNAHuberSBohlenderA (2014) Part III: summary report SOEP fieldwork in 2013. In: GerstorkSSchuppJ (eds) SOEP Wave Report 2013. Berlin: SOEP – The German Socio-Economic Panel Study at DIW Berlin, 73–100.
35.
SmithsonJLewisSCooperCDyerJ (2004) Flexible working and the gender pay gap in the accountancy profession. Work, Employment & Society18: 115–35.
36.
SOEP (2010) Introduction to the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) (ed JRFrick). Berlin: Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW).
37.
SOEP (2011) Documentation PGEN. Person-related status and generated variables. Berlin: Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW).
38.
Statistisches Bundesamt (2013) Preise. Verbraucherpreisindizes für Deutschland. Lange Reihen ab 1948. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt.
39.
SteiberNHaasB (2010) Limited choice-structures of opportunity and employment patterns in European couple households. Kolner Zeitschrift Fur Soziologie Und Sozialpsychologie62: 247–76.
40.
StoneP (2007) Opting Out? Why Women Really Quit Careers and Head Home. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
41.
VerbakelEDe GraafPM (2008) Resources of the partner: support or restriction in the occupational career? Developments in the Netherlands between 1940 and 2003. European Sociological Review24: 81–95.
42.
VoydanoffP (2004) The effects of work demands and resources on work-to-family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Marriage and Family66: 398–412.
43.
WeedenKA (2005) Is there a flexiglass ceiling? Flexible work arrangements and wages in the United States. Social Science Research34: 454–82.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
