Abstract
Many studies have discussed the challenges of reconciling work and care, but few address the role of carers’ voice in advocating for, and facilitating access to, workplace support. Drawing on qualitative case studies of three large UK organisations, we examine the role of working carers’ voice in the development of a carer’s leave policy at work. Findings indicate that working carers’ voice is shaped by various factors, including available voice mechanisms; workers’ perceptions of their care responsibilities; and stigma, work processes and inequalities. Research implications indicate the need for a more effective representation of working carers through voice channels at work.
Introduction
Managing paid work and care has become a prominent public issue in the UK, with growing pressure on individuals to become carers for their family relatives due to population ageing, reductions in spending on public services and the impact of austerity policies following the Global Financial Crisis (Spann et al, 2020). In the UK, it is estimated that, about 8.8 million adults were carers before the pandemic (Carers UK, 2019). Juggling work and unpaid care can lead to mental and physical health problems, financial strain, and risks of dropping out of paid work (Yeandle and Buckner, 2011; Brimblecombe et al, 2017; 2018; Carers UK, 2022). Providing care for ten hours or more per week may put carers at greater risk of poverty, as their ability to sustain paid employment is threatened (King and Pickard, 2014).
There is well-known international evidence about workplace policies, such as carer’s leave schemes, and how these policies support carers who are managing work and care (Wang et al, 2018; Kim, 2021). Studies show that benefitting from carer’s leave at their workplace can help carers improve their health and reduce gender inequality by helping female carers remain in employment (Saad-Lessler, 2020; Heymann et al, 2022). In the UK, however, less attention has been paid to carer’s leave as a key means to support carers, and research on the accessibility and availability of this policy is particularly scarce. This article aims to address this gap. Specifically, this article considers the relationship between the implementation of a carer’s leave policy in three UK organisations and the opportunities for working carers to express their voice about this policy. We define implementation as what happens between policy design (such as the introduction of carer’s leave) and policy outcomes and practices (Read, 2018), such as the uptake of carer’s leave by working carers. It is important to look at whose voices are heard in the process of policy implementation for carer’s leave (Allard, 2021: 92), particularly those of working carers.
Our research asks: what are the opportunities for working carers to influence the development of a carer’s leave policy in their organisation? And what factors shape working carers’ use of voice in their organisation? This article makes the case that ‘voice’ is a crucial factor in supporting the implementation and application of work–care reconciliation policies, such as carer’s leave schemes. The article then explores the factors and dynamics shaping the way working carers exercise their voice in their organisation. In doing so, the article also addresses a continuing gap in knowledge about how and to what extent different workers can express their voice at work (Cooper et al, 2021). Workers are not a homogeneous population; ‘their opportunity or tendency to voice may be shaped by their gender, race, sexuality and personal perceptions in addition to institutional factors’ (Wilkinson et al, 2018: 717). Having care responsibilities for a disabled, long-term ill or ageing relative may also influence how employees express their voice at work.
We start with a review of the historical development of carer-related support and carer’s leave in the UK. Discussing the influence of employee voice on the work–care reconciliation agenda, we raise the issue that working carers’ voice has often been neglected in this discourse. Next, we introduce the research methods used for this study. Based on case studies of three UK organisations that have recently implemented carer’s leave, the article examines working carers’ experiences of expressing their voice. Our research data include an analysis of qualitative semi-structured interviews with working carers, human resources (HR) managers and employees’ representatives across three UK organisations, as well as an analysis of open-ended survey comments from working carers in one of these organisations.
We then present our main findings. First, we describe how formal voice mechanisms (both union and non-union) had limited influence on the design and introduction of carer’s leave in our three case-study organisations. We then examine working carers’ individual experiences of voice. Carers’ abilities to use their voice were shaped by their perception of available voice mechanisms in their workplace, their experiences of care and stigma, and work processes. Underlying these experiences was a perceived implicit emphasis in the workplace that care responsibilities were one’s individual responsibility. We show how these different factors contributed to shape inequalities of voice among working carers, with low-paid workers, the majority of whom were women, being less likely to use their voice.
Overview of carers’ support in the UK and the case for carer’s leave
In the UK, policies to support carers can be categorised as follows: indirect support, such as ‘replacement’ formal care services for the person with care needs; direct support, such as income support, training and therapy services for carers; and work conditions that enable the reconciliation of work and care (Brimblecombe et al, 2018: 27). Both direct and indirect supports for carers have been introduced in the UK since 1976, with the implementation of the first benefit for carers (renamed Care Allowance in 2003), the original form of ‘direct support’ that provided income replacement for carers unable to do full-time paid work (see Table 1). Carers acquired new entitlements to request an assessment of their needs by their local authorities, including their need to be in paid work, under the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 and the first National Carers’ Strategy in 1999. The Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 and the Carers (Equal Opportunities) Act 2004 both strengthened carers’ access to indirect support, such as care replacements and services to help them manage work and care. The National Carers’ Strategy emphasised the importance of supporting carers to combine work and care through encouraging flexible working opportunities and increased training provision. Fiscal austerity, however, led to cuts in adult social care budgets (Brimblecombe et al, 2017), and despite significant legislative progress for carers under the Care Act 2014, local authorities often lack funding to meet their duties towards carers (House of Commons Health Committee, 2016–17).
Development of policy and legislation regarding carers of working age
| Year | Policy/legislation | Provisions for carers |
|---|---|---|
| 1976 | Invalid Care Allowance (ICA) | First benefit for carers – for unmarried people. Renamed ‘Carer’s Allowance’ in 2003. |
| 1995 | Carers (Recognition and Services) Act | Gave carers who provide ‘substantial care on a regular basis’ the right to request an assessment from social services. |
| 1999 | National Carers’ Strategy | Aimed to support carers to combine work and care. |
| 1999 | Employment Relations Act | Employees given a right to take a ‘reasonable amount’ of (unpaid) time off from work to deal with emergencies involving a dependent child or adult. |
| 2000 | Carers and Disabled Children Act | Strengthened carers’ right to an assessment of their own needs. |
| 2002 | Employment Act | Gave parents of disabled children the right to request flexible working. |
| 2004 | Carers (Equal Opportunities) Act | Further strengthened carers’ right to an assessment, including carers’ wishes regarding employment. |
| 2006 | Work and Families Act | Extended the right to request flexible working to most carers of adults. |
| 2008 | National Carers’ Strategy | Pledged £38 million to support carers to combine work and care through encouraging flexible working opportunities and increased training provision. |
| 2010 | National Carers’ Strategy | Emphasised the importance of supporting carers to combine work and care, and argued that the right to request flexible working should be extended to all. |
| 2010 | Equality Act | Prevented carers from discrimination by association, including in the workplace, because they care for a disabled person. |
| 2014 | Children and Families Act | Extended the right to request flexible working to all employees. |
| 2014 | Carers Strategy: Second National Action Plan 2014–16 | Outlined commitments to supporting carers, including implementing pilot employment support projects for carers. |
| 2014 | Care Act | Gave carers the legal right to have their needs assessed and receive support. |
Source: Adapted from Read (2018).
Legislation shaping the working conditions for carers also remain limited in the UK. The Employment Relations Act 1999 provides employees with the legal right to request ‘reasonable’ time off from work for care emergencies. The Work and Family Act 2006 extended the right to request flexible working practices to most of those caring for adults and then to all employees in 2014 with the Children’s and Families Act. While the Equality Act 2010 provided protections to carers from discrimination because of their relationship with the cared-for person, the national charity Carers UK (2021) expressed concern that carers are not explicitly protected in the workplace based on their role as carers. In addition, while employers of individuals with a disability in the UK have a duty to consider ‘reasonable adjustments’, this duty does not extend to the employers of carers.
In 2019, the UK government was elected on a manifesto that included a commitment to introduce legislation that would give all employees the right to up to five days of unpaid carer’s leave per year (Institute for Government, 2021). At the time of writing, a bill on unpaid carer’s leave had succeeded at its second reading in October 2022 and completed the committee stage unopposed. Passage through the House of Lords and royal assent remain.
Some employers in the UK also provide support beyond current statutory requirements. For example, members of Employers for Carers (EfC),1 an organisation launched by Carers UK, implement carer-friendly policies in their workplaces, including carer’s leave. Little is known, however, about how employee voice and, more specifically, working carers’ voice influences the development of carer’s leave in these workplaces.
‘Work–life’ agenda and the forgotten voice of carers
This article defines ‘employee voice’ following Barry and Wilkinson’s (2016: 340) definition as ‘the expression of the desire of workers to have their own say over matters that affect their working lives’. Employee voice has been described by Pohler and Luchak (2014) as a normative intention that can be classified: first, as ‘promotive’, that is, aiming to ameliorate life in the organisation through decision making and influence; and, second, as ‘remedial’, that is, stopping or preventing harm and protecting employees’ interests and rights within the organisation). Employees need both promotive voice mechanisms to trigger change (such as introducing or influencing work–life policies) and remedial voice mechanisms for protection (Harlos, 2010). The type of voice expressed in an organisation is part of a broader regime or system that helps strengthen how voice (promotive, remedial or both) is expressed, such as through union and non-union employee representation (NER). For example, the embeddedness of voice is defined by the number of voice mechanisms available to workers, how frequently those mechanisms are used and whether they are relevant to workers’ concerns (Cox et al, 2006). In addition to embeddedness, employee voice also needs to have meaning (Dundon et al, 2004), defined as the extent to which a collective influence on managerial decision making can be present in the workplace.
Depending on the national and institutional contexts and forces, employee voice can play a significant role in the implementation of work–life policies (Atay et al, 2020). Research shows that trade unions’ organisational strength, gender composition and receptiveness to employees’ expectations affect the effectiveness of their approach to work–life policies (Rigby and O’Brien-Smith, 2010; Brochard and Letablier, 2017). Hyman and Summers (2007), however, argue that declining union membership and the rise in HR’s control over the work–life agenda limit inputs from employees. This does not mean that employees have no agency. While opportunities for collective bargaining vary according to political and institutional contexts, they are also dependent on voice and choice opportunities (Brochard and Letablier, 2017). More evidence is also needed on workers’ agency within employer-led schemes, such as NER or employer-led workplace consultative structures (Donaghey et al, 2022). NER systems are often introduced by companies (Colgan and McKearney, 2012) and can be chaired by employees, either elected or stepping in voluntarily. They enable workers to meet and share their experiences while also helping establish an inclusive workplace culture. NER systems have been criticised, however, as their effectiveness as a voice mechanism may be questionable for broader structural changes (Kirton and Greene, 2010).
In terms of worker representation, there is a lack of knowledge about how and to what extent different workers, especially women, can access voice at work (Cooper et al, 2021). Gender influences both individual identities and organisational practices, and contributes to shaping workers’ voices, with a predominantly male worker voice being an important marker of gender inequality (Cooper et al, 2021). Despite the increasing rate of female union membership, unions generally fail to champion demands for promoting work–life reconciliation (Cigna, 2023). Perspectives on employee voice that do not recognise differences between groups of workers can impact the direction taken by work–life agendas in workplaces. They can lead to excluding alternative perspectives on family life (Languilaire and Carey, 2017) or neglecting the social and historical contexts, as well as power dynamics, influencing work–life reconciliation practices (Özbilgin et al, 2011).
There is a need for more evidence on whether working carers can effectively influence the development and application of such policies as carer’s leave, and use their voice at work. Indeed, for Charlap et al (2019), successfully articulating work and care depends on the resources available for workers, such as voice opportunities. In this article, we provide evidence on whether and how working carers use their voice in the workplace through employees’ networks, both union and non-union, arguing that their voice is essential in helping to implement relevant support.
Research methods
The article uses qualitative empirical findings from a PhD study (Allard, 2021), comprising three case studies of British organisations that were members of EfC. As noted earlier, the EfC forum is a membership organisation launched by Carers UK, with the aim of supporting employers to implement working carer-friendly policies at work. The case-study organisations were large private, public and third-sector organisations in the UK that had implemented a paid carer’s leave policy within the past few years. It was important to include organisations in diverse sectors in order to allow for richer insight into organisational differences in terms of the variety of occupational cultures, norms and decision-making processes (Wilson, 2010), as well as how these different factors influenced the implementation of carer’s leave. Here, these organisations are referred to as PrivateCo, GovOrg and CharityCo. They were recruited thanks to collaborative links between the researcher and the EfC. The inclusion criteria for taking part in the study were that the organisation had already identified ‘working carers’ as a group of employees it wished to support and was willing to discuss its policies in this area, particularly carer’s leave, with the researcher. The characteristics of each organisation are presented in Table 2.
Characteristics of case-study organisations
| Organisation | GovOrg | CharityCo | PrivateCo |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sector | Public sector government | Third sector services and retail | Private sector finance |
| Number of employees | 71,596 employees | 1,800 employees | 15,800 employees |
| Occupational roles | Administrative and customer-facing roles | Administrative and support services, IT, finance, HR and retail | Customer services, call centres, legal services, marketing, sales, HR, IT and underwriting |
| EfC membership | Initial EfC member in 2009-10, then rejoined in 2019 | Since 2015 | Since 2016 |
| Trade unions | GMB, PCS, FDA and Prospect | Unite | (Non-recognised) Unite |
Notes: GMB = General, Municipal, Boilermakers’ and Allied Trade Union; PCS = Public and Commercial Services Union; FDA = Association of First Division Civil Servants; IT = information technology.
Some of the findings presented here derive from analysing 60 interviews with employees who were working carers, line managers, HR managers and trade union representatives across the three organisations (see Table 3). All participants volunteered to take part in the research. The working carers interviewed had some form of care responsibilities for a disabled, long-term ill or elderly relative. The interviews were conducted between April and November 2019, either by phone or face to face, and lasted between 30 minutes and two hours. Interviews were semi-structured and related to the broader research questions of the PhD, which included understanding the opportunities for working carers to influence the development of carer’s leave, either through unions or NER systems, as well as examining the factors shaping their use of voice. Our study had some limitations in terms of the diversity of participants. Most participants recruited across all organisations were White British, which could be related to the composition of the organisations researched. The interview recordings were transcribed verbatim, and transcripts and field notes were coded following thematic analysis using NVivo. The codes were established both inductively and deductively, with the support of the literature review on work–care reconciliation and employee voice.
Characteristics of participants
| Characteristics | Number |
|---|---|
| All | 60 |
| Women, of whom | 43 |
| Employees | 24 |
| Line managers | 8 |
| HR managers | 5 |
| Chairs and champions of carers’ network | 3 |
| Union chairs | 0 |
| Union representatives | 3 |
| Men, of whom | 17 |
| Employees | 10 |
| Line managers | 1 |
| HR managers | 1 |
| Chairs and champions of carers’ network | 2 |
| Union chairs | 2 |
| Union representative | 1 |
Some of our findings also draw from the analysis of a survey of employees of the public sector organisation, GovOrg (N = 320). The 35-item survey questionnaire had three sections (care situation, work situation and personal information) and was adapted, with permission, from an EfC questionnaire. In this article, we analyse open-ended comments from the GovOrg survey (n = 105) that were linked to a question on (non-union) representation for working carers in their organisation: ‘Would you like to comment on your experience with the carers’ network?’ We adopted a thematic analytical approach. We first reviewed all the open-ended comments to capture a general impression of the survey respondents’ experiences. We then looked for patterns and themes emerging from across the survey comments with the support of the literature on employee voice and work–care reconciliation. We identified the following themes: first, a perceived lack of voice at the organisational level, working carers’ experience of care, as well as representation of care as one’s individual responsibility; and, second, the way in which work processes also influenced working carers’ voice and contributed to inequalities of voice among them.
Findings
The development of employer-led carer’s leave
While all three organisations were members of the EfC and offered the same forms of carer- friendly support to their staff, the development and implementation of carer’s leave varied between them.
CharityCo
In CharityCo, carer’s leave was available up to one week per year for any colleague recognised as a ‘working carer’ by their manager. Carer’s leave was paid and could be taken for care emergencies and medical appointments. There were also other forms of supports that, among others, included a ‘carers’ network’ (a support group of employees with care responsibilities), a ‘carer passport’ (defined as a way to document the flexibilities needed to support the carer in combining caring and work), additional unpaid time off for care emergencies and bereavement leave (see Table 4).
Policies and supports for working carers in the study organisations
| CharityCo | PrivateCo | GovOrg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Support | |||
| Opportunities to talk about flexible working options for candidates during job interviews | Y | ||
| Carers’ network | Y | Y | Y |
| Carer passport | Y | Y | Y |
| Use of telephone at any time | |||
| Employee assistance programme | Y | Y | Y |
| All employees have access to information and can log in on the EfC forum | Y | ||
| Intranet page support for carers | Y | Y | Y |
| Flexible working | |||
| Job share | Y | Y | |
| Career break | Y | Y | |
| Part-time working hours | Y | Y | Y |
| Term-time working hours | Y | ||
| Compressed or reduced working hours | Y | Y | Y |
| Annualised hours | Y | ||
| Flexible working hours | Y | Y | Y |
| Working from home | Y | Y | Y |
| Forms of leave available | |||
| Paid leave of one working week (hours or days) for emergencies, appointments or both | Y | Y | Y |
| Unpaid leave of one working week (hours or days) for emergencies, appointments or both | Y | Y | Y |
| Additional unpaid leave for carers and parents | Y | ||
| Bereavement leave | Y | Y | Y |
| Annual leave purchase | Y | Y | Y |
Initial interviews with HR managers suggested that the carer’s policy was very much HR driven. It was considered important to adopt policies to accommodate ageing workers, and this was also a way to enhance CharityCo’s organisational reputation. Moral pride was invoked by an HR manager, not only because introducing carer’s leave seemed the ‘right’ thing to do but also because it was important to align HR policies with the values of CharityCo and its position as part of the third sector: “I think, you know, we pride ourselves in that. So, it was very important to us given our age demographics … and the nature of CharityCo” (HR manager, CharityCo). An additional factor was the organisation’s membership of the EfC. One manager explained that 50 per cent of its staff were aged over 50, adding: “Obviously, when you’re looking at some of the issues that are affecting colleagues in those age groups, caring becomes quite an important issue.” In terms of organisational factors, 76 per cent of CharityCo’s workforce were women, putting carer support high on the organisational agenda; also, as salaries in the third sector were not competitive against those in other sectors, the organisation needed to offer workers other benefits.
‘What [HR team] will try to do is involve us as early as possible, say: “This is something that we feel that CharityCo needs.” We worked with V (diversity and inclusion manager), and V is what I call a “friend of the union”; she gets involved from time to time.’
While the policy applied to the entire organisation (administrative and retail segments), there was a single union recognition agreement covering office-based employees only (and not the retail sector). Due to this, employees in the retail segment were not involved in the consultation over the policies. This was despite the fact that while 76 per cent of the overall CharityCo workforce were women, 80 per cent of those women worked in the retail segment. This limited the impact of the voices of carers in this sector and pointed towards a strong occupational class division between ‘office-based’ and ‘retail-based’ employees in terms of employee representation.
PrivateCo
At PrivateCo, working carers could benefit annually from a week of paid carer’s leave for emergencies or unplanned events, and a week for appointments and planned events. In addition, working carers had access to a broad range of flexible working options, as well as a carers’ network, a carer passport and bereavement leave (see Table 4).
‘How it worked on this occasion is that we [HR managers] already had our proposal, and we presented our proposal, which everybody was happy with. So, it wasn’t a tough negotiation or anything like that; we were presenting something, and our employee council and union were both very happy that we were doing something to support our carers.’ (HR, PrivateCo)
This declaration from the HR manager suggested very limited capacity for the union to influence development of the policy, which was confirmed by another union representative explaining that the Unite branch were more used to adopting a ‘counselling position’: “Clearly, we haven’t got any clout in terms of saying, ‘Well, we withdraw our labour if you don’t agree’, but what we could do is to say, ‘You would retain staff you would otherwise lose’” (union representative, PrivateCo). The proposed policy was nonetheless influenced by the experiences of a carers’ group that was set up and coordinated by PrivateCo’s diversity and inclusion strategy group, as one of the coordinators explained: “I’ve set up a carers’ group within the organisation. We tested a new carer leave policy within that group and then rolled that out nationally” (carers’ group coordinator). The group was composed of volunteers from the office-based headquarters, indicating that, similarly to CharityCo, the full diversity of employees across the organisation, such as staff from PrivateCo’s different branches and business areas, were not included in the development of the policy.
GovOrg
In GovOrg, in contrast with the two other organisations, carer’s leave was described by an HR manager as something its carers’ network had “fought for”; GovOrg had been the first civil service department to establish a carers’ network and to implement a carer’s leave policy. Employees could benefit from paid special leave up to five days for domestic or family matters, a day of carer’s leave for medical appointments for dependants or children, and up to five days for the breakdown of care arrangements. Alongside carer’s leave, employees also had access to a carers’ network and a carer’s passport (see Table 4).
GovOrg joined the EfC in 2009–10 but experienced the same budget cuts applied to most UK public services after the 2008 financial crisis, which limited the resources available to invest in developing support for carers. Due to budget pressures, GovOrg had to quit the EfC, and at the time of the interview (in 2019), the organisation was in the process of rejoining. A carer’s champion and senior civil servant emphasised the public nature of the organisation and its predominantly female workforce as a strong rationale for implementing work–care reconciliation policies, though the impact of austerity may have hindered their development.
Employees’ voices seemed more embedded in GovOrg, perhaps also due to the public nature of the organisation and the presence of several recognised trade unions, including the General, Municipal, Boilermakers’ and Allied Trade Union (GMB), Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS), Prospect and the Association of First Division Civil Servants (FDA). Similarly, trade unions seemed to be proactive in negotiating on flexible working policies for carers. One union official, however, described the government as hostile to trade unions, which then affected the work of trade unionists in GovOrg. Alongside trade unions, GovOrg also had an established carers’ network and annual Civil Service People Survey.
Care support and employee voice across the three organisations
Our findings show some differences and similarities across the three organisations. CharityCo, which offered lower salaries, had the most extended set of measures to support carers, while PrivateCo, as a private company, had the most generous conditions for carer’s leave. In all three organisations, there were challenges related to employee voice. Involvement of employees’ representatives and their ability to influence the development of the policy depended on their institutional strength and the quality of their working relationship with management. For instance, in PrivateCo, an HR-led approach limited input from employees, while in GovOrg, austerity resulted in a lack of consistent development for carer support over the years and affected the work of unions and staff networks. Finally, in CharityCo, there were strong inequalities related to voice opportunities between employees in different business areas of the organisation.
Working carers’ use of voice
Working carers’ perspectives: voice, care experiences and individual responsibility
‘We do get a union magazine, and sometimes there’s things on that, but again it seems to be more towards childcare. There’s a big push for childcare, which, don’t get me wrong, everybody’s entitled to that…. They’re too busy campaigning for better pay and better rights for us, I think. I can’t say I’ve seen anything in regard to that [caring] at work.’ (Working carer, GovOrg)
This participant viewed unions’ fight for ‘basic’ aspects of work (for example, pay) as making ‘care issues’ less likely to be at the front line of the union’s agenda. In addition, the trade union magazine that this participant referred to2 seemed to adopt views on family-friendly practices that reiterated a normative and traditional vision of caring responsibilities and family life (for example, childcare). This expectation that a trade union may not be able to prioritise carers was echoed by another working carer in GovOrg, who said that he felt his ability to use his union was limited because “our union representative … she has got a big area to cover, and I don’t like to keep harassing her”. In addition, union representatives faced a politically hostile environment, as noted earlier. Consequently, this hostility between them and the government hindered their scope of action.
They [carers’ network] should give more guidance, I feel as though they are still with management when it comes to flexible working arrangements, when this should not be the case. (Survey respondent, GovOrg)
Didn’t go far enough. And one lead said, ‘Speak to the line manager.’ This is always the default that clearly where there is a lack of support, you’re sent back to the people who don’t support you. (Survey respondent, GovOrg)
The emails received from [name of the chair] are great, but there’s absolutely no local support. (Survey respondent, GovOrg)
Email updates and that’s all. (Survey respondent, GovOrg)
‘We do have a “voice” [survey] in PrivateCo…. I think the trouble is that some of the people get confused with the terminology in it. Because I’ve got my director of my team, he is awesome, I couldn’t ask for a better leader…. So, when I answer my voice [for the survey], I kind of answer it on him because I know that they are going to be his results. That’s really important to me that he has his results, but the trouble is, then, I wouldn’t use that opportunity to then put comments in it which will hopefully be read at a higher level. But unless I score low, no one is really going to read it.’
The experience of this participant showed that a failure of voice to be embedded – defined by the relevance of voice mechanisms available to workers – hinders employees’ ability to convey concerns to different levels of the organisational hierarchy. Being loyal to her local manager, then, resulted in this participant remaining silent about her concerns regarding the accessibility of care support. A lack of embeddedness also leads to employee voice becoming individualised and lacking strength, in contrast to workplaces with access to staff and union groups capable of influencing broader structural changes.
Alongside these structural factors, experiences as a carer also influenced working carers’ opportunities for speaking up. Carers often took their caring responsibilities for granted, seeing care simply as ‘part of their life’. Many carers saw their caring roles as the natural consequence of the kinship or blood relationship to the person cared for, meaning that they did not see themselves as ‘carers’. Their ability to ‘speak up’ was then shaped by the social and normative implications of these care relations, often strongly influenced by gender norms: “We didn’t really see ourselves as ‘carers’…. You think you’re a mum and a daughter, and you just do whatever is needed” (working carer, PrivateCo). In other cases, carers could struggle to find relevance in the representation of carers’ issues, especially when other social dynamics, such as culture, also shaped their experiences: “I was more actively involved in going to meetings [with the carers’ network]. I stopped going … I found my issues are so different to the ones that people are talking about. And also, there is a culture issue in my problem as well” (working carer, CharityCo).
This preference for remaining ‘silent’ about care could be explained by the implicit emphasis that it was up to working carers to deal with their situation. In CharityCo, for example, carer’s leave could be offered to all carers, but this also depended on carers’ relationship with their line manager, as individuals had to make a request to use the policy. Another example was the carers’ network. When accessible, the carers’ network was designed as a privileged space for exchanging information and sharing tips about policies. The network chairs, however, lacked additional paid time off from their normal job to manage the network, which limited the support they could bring to carers in their organisation. As one said: “All I can do is signpost people to things about the relevant policies. It’s then entirely up to them if they choose to use them.” This chair was well aware that as a result, it was the responsibility of the individual working carers to seek support and convince their line managers to support them.
Work processes, inequalities and stigma
‘That’s a freebie within CharityCo; we don’t have a lunch hour. In theory, if we’ve got enough volunteers, we can stop and sit at the desk – but there are two or three days a week [when] we don’t have any volunteers … in essence, you’re giving away two hours’ work a day, which then doesn’t fit in with having to care as well.’
The lack of designated lunch breaks, as well as staff’s limited access to computers in the retail sector, meant that it seemed impossible to facilitate shop workers’ engagement with the CharityCo carers’ network, which often met during lunch breaks. They also lacked union representation. These factors put them at a disadvantage regarding the possibility of being ‘heard’ as retail-based working carers. As the office-based union chair highlighted: “I’ve always felt that the retail staff are treated differently. They are second-class citizens compared to the office staff because they are numbers.”
In PrivateCo, a similar divide existed between working carers in different jobs. A senior advocate described the relationship between working carers in call centres with managers as a “very parent–child relationship, which I don’t think helps”. Her use of a ‘parental’ metaphor also suggested a lack of autonomy and voice for those working carers.
‘I have had another colleague, who is actually now my current manager, sort of – as I was leaving – shout at me multiple times as I’m walking down the corridor, basically again questioning why I’m using this, and why I’m going to this appointment … and questions like, “Well, why are you doing this? Why isn’t your mum doing it?” … which has obviously put me off speaking about my caring responsibilities at work, you know, going forward.’ (Working carer, PrivateCo)
In GovOrg, participants explained that they were regularly told to think about ‘business needs’ before taking time off work, which discouraged them from talking about their caring situations at work. These ‘catchphrases’ can be used to strengthen employees’ compliance at work regardless of their personal circumstances and may particularly be in use in public organisations such as GovOrg, which emphasise ‘the ethos of service to clients’ (Healy et al, 2011: 482). Work processes, job roles, and pressures of the work environment all affected carers’ use of voice. These factors could lead to the denial of their voice or increase stigma against them, prompting some carers to remain silent.
Discussion
The implementation of carer’s leave offers a relevant case study for examining working carers’ voice in the workplace. The findings of this study expand our understanding of working carers’ experiences by exploring their voices as a key element in reconciling care and work. We show how a policy granting access to carer’s leave is not sufficient without meaningful collective representation for working carers in the workplace. Earlier, we examined the motivations of employers for introducing carer’s leave and the extent to which employees representing carers (whether through a union or network) were able to influence the development of the policy. All the organisations exercised some control over the workers’ voices included and excluded in the consultation process, limiting their overall impact. Working carers overall had limited influence on how carer’s leave was implemented. This also reflected the powerlessness of employees’ representative bodies in each organisation. This lack of influence was shaped differently, depending on the characteristics of each organisation and its sector. While there were clear differences between the public, voluntary and private sector organisations, particularly in terms of the embeddedness of employee voice and financial resources for implementing the policy, they faced similar challenges in terms of exercising influence over the work–care reconciliation agenda, work pressures and inequalities of voice among employees in different roles and occupations.
Earlier, we showed how the strength of a network for carers in the workplace could depend upon economic factors and investment from the organisation (such as in GovOrg), as well as the commitment by employers to invest in worker voice, such as allowing paid time off for champions to represent working carers. Similarly, trade unions were dependent on their relationship with management, which could be relatively cooperative (such as in CharityCo, depending on which area of the organisation was covered by a collective bargaining agreement), hostile (such as in GovOrg) or very constrained (such as in PrivateCo, where the union branch was not recognised by the employer). As a result, this impacted the perceptions carers had about their representatives as trustworthy and reliable channels of voice who would act as both promotive and remedial means to trigger change for carers and protect their interests. Some working carers described feeling that they were invisible to their union because of what they saw as a family-oriented union agenda that excluded them, echoing other research on trade unions and ‘heteronormative’ work–life agendas (Özbilgin et al, 2011; Languilaire and Carey, 2017). That said, unions in the UK have advocated legislating leave arrangements for working carers with a wide variety of caring responsibilities (NASUWT, 2020; TUC, 2020). More than a problem of commitment by unions to supporting carers, our findings indicate that employer hostility and constrained resources hinder unions’ ability to dedicate time to campaign for carer’s leave in the workplace.
Some working carers similarly described feeling a lack of support from their carers’ network, despite wanting to receive support and guidance from them; others expressed scepticism about receiving relevant support from the carers’ network, a finding that echoes previous research about staff networks (see, for example, Donaghey et al, 2022). The chairs of carers’ networks had to juggle the unpaid role with their day job, and at times, they were not accessible for all staff. Chairs often lacked the time and ability to offer individuals specific advice on how to access the policies or to take up individual cases to represent carers’ interests.
As outlined earlier, factors like care experiences and social norms, as well as a sense of individual responsibility, also contributed to shape working carers’ experiences of voice. First, social norms influencing care meant that working carers did not always see their responsibilities as an issue worth addressing in the workplace. Indeed, some carers felt reluctant to participate in collective activities because they felt that their caring circumstances were highly individual and potentially incongruous with the experience of other carers. Our findings here resonate with Tomkins and Eatough (2014) and the need for working carers to be able to resist or divert their identification as ‘carers’. Identifying as a ‘carer’ should not be conflated with the ability of workers to voice concerns, however, and we show that in addition to this, explicit policy design left it up to working carers to seek and obtain support. This approach to work–care policies does not acknowledge the type of conflicts carers could face when combining work and care (Kröger and Yeandle, 2013). This emphasis on care as one’s individual responsibility then contributed to reducing working carers’ use of voice and added to their feelings of marginalisation.
Our findings show how work processes influenced opportunities for working carers’ voice. Intensity of work could deprive working carers of the time and energy needed to attend meetings or speak up about their care responsibilities. With this intensity, there was also a fear of stigma. As Acker (1990) explains, discriminatory informal interactions between co-workers reinforce schemes of inequality in the workplace. Certain work practices can also reinforce the control of employees’ behaviour, such as keeping them ‘silent’. As such, working carers may be deterred to speak up as ‘carers’, not only because of their care responsibilities (Tomkins and Eatough, 2014) but also because of their work conditions and job positions as working carers. As noted by Anderson et al (2021), such positions could also result in an unequal allocation of resources and power, such as employee voice.
Our research can guide HR managers, as well as union and non-union representatives, in understanding the importance of enabling avenues for working carers’ voice to develop appropriate work–care reconciliation support. The consideration of such issues can enable employers to become more inclusive in their approach to voice in the workplace, creating a more favourable environment for a workforce with changing care responsibilities, such as ageing workers. First, collective bargaining on carer’s leave could lead to a better inclusion of carers’ voices in the workplace. For example, the trade union UNISON (2023) has published a guideline on negotiating a paid carer’s leave policy, which included the following points: the policy should be developed in consultation with trade unions and other employee representatives; commitment from the employers is needed; a clear definition of ‘carer’ is required; the policy should be reviewed on a regular basis; and data confidentiality should be ensured. Second, working carers need a variety of channels of voice to meet the diversity of their needs and experiences. They need spaces to exchange their experiences (through staff networks, for instance), as well as means to have meaningful influence over the work–care reconciliation agenda in their workplace (for example, through their representatives). Employers should commit to worker voice by providing paid time off to their representatives and work with union representatives to allow for a better representation of working carers’ issues in the workplace.
Conclusion
This article has explored working carers’ experiences of voice in the private, voluntary and public sectors in the UK context, and their influence on the development of carer’s leave. In doing so, we have contributed to the existing international evidence on carer’s leave as a key support to manage work and care (Wang et al, 2018; Saad-Lessler, 2020; Kim, 2021; Heymann et al, 2022). Our findings have also highlighted similar factors shaping the voice of carers across a variety of organisations. Their ability to ‘speak up’ strongly depended on the presence of engaged representatives at the organisational level. A lack of engaged representatives led working carers to remain ‘silent’ regarding their experiences. Working carers’ use of voice was also inhibited by the stigma they could face when interacting with their co-workers, as well as the position and pressures of their work (in some instances, leading to a lack of dedicated resources, such as time and space, to meet, exchange and organise). We showed how, in addition to these factors, the implicit framing of care responsibilities as the individual’s responsibility led carers to understate the significance of their issues. By bringing attention to the topic of working carers’ voice, we contribute to literature on work–care reconciliation, employee voice and marginalised workers (Kröger and Yeandle, 2013; Wilkinson et al, 2018; Carers UK, 2019; Cooper et al, 2021), and demonstrate how voice remains an important element for effective work–care reconciliation, such as the development and uptake of carer’s leave. Indeed, a lack of voice at work can add to further inequalities and challenges in reconciling work and care.
Notes
EfC currently includes 215 organisations, including large public and private organisations, as well as small businesses.
Unfortunately, we did not ask which union magazine this participant referred to.
Funding
The author gratefully acknowledges the support of the Economic & Social Research Council (award ES/P009255/1, ‘Sustainable Care: Connecting People and Systems’, 2017–21, Principal Investigator Sue Yeandle, University of Sheffield).
Acknowledgements
The author gratefully acknowledges the support of Professor Sue Yeandle for providing key insights on an early draft of the article. Thank you to O. Jones, P. O’Neil and Dr A. Gerosa for reading and offering precious editing support for this article.
Conflict of interest
The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.
References
Acker, J. (1990) Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: a theory of gendered organizations, Gender and Society, 4(2): 139–58. doi: 10.1177/089124390004002002
Allard, C. (2021) Taking the Time to Care? A Study of Employer-provided Paid Carer’s Leave in Three Organisations in the UK, PhD thesis, University of Sheffield.
Anderson, P., O’Hagan, A. and Thomson, E. (2021) Bringing positional processes back in: occupational gender segregation in ‘non-academic’ work, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 32(21): 4526–50. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2019.1686648
Atay, E., Bayraktaroglu, S. and Tanriverdi, G. (2020) The relationship of work–life conflict and organizational voice in higher education sector: a case study in Turkey, Eurasian Journal of Business and Economics, 13(25): 53–74. doi: 10.17015/ejbe.2020.025.04
Barry, M. and Wilkinson, A. (2016) Pro-social or pro-management? A critique of the conception of employee voice as a pro-social behaviour within organizational behaviour, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 54: 261–84. doi: 10.1111/bjir.12114
Brimblecombe, N., Pickard, L., King, D. and Knapp, M. (2017) Perceptions of unmet needs for community social care services in England. A comparison of working carers and the people they care for, Health and Social Care in the Community, 25: 435–46. doi: 10.1111/hsc.12323
Brimblecombe, N., Pickard, L., King, D. and Knapp, M. (2018) Barriers to receipt of social care services for working carers and the people they care for in times of austerity, Journal of Social Policy, 47(2): 215–33. doi: 10.1017/s0047279417000277
Brochard, D. and Letablier, M.T. (2017) Trade union involvement in work–family life balance: lessons from France, Work, Employment and Society, 31(4): 657–74. doi: 10.1177/0950017016680316
Carers UK (2019) Juggling work and unpaid care: a growing issue, https://www.carersuk.org/media/no2lwyxl/juggling-work-and-unpaid-care-report-final-web.pdf.
Carers UK (2021) Making caring the 10th protected characteristic, https://www.carersuk.org/news-and-campaigns/our-campaigns/making-caring-the-10th-protected-characteristic/.
Carers UK (2022) Your rights in work, https://www.carersuk.org/media/uarbiuje/your-rights-in-work-september-2022.pdf.
Charlap, C., Caradec, V., Chamahian, A. and Kushtanina, V. (2019) Être salarié et aider un proche âgé dépendant: droits sociaux et arrangements locaux [Being an employee and helping a dependent elderly relative: social rights and local arrangements], Revue Française des Affaires Sociales, 1: 181–98. doi: 10.3917/rfas.191.0181
Cigna, L. (2023) Bread or roses? Trade unions, female employment and the expansion of work–family policies, Journal of European Public Policy.doi: 10.1080/13501763.2023.2184414
Colgan, F. and McKearney, A. (2012) Visibility and voice in organisations: lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered employee networks, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 31(4): 359–78. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2023.2184414
Cooper, R., Mosseri, S., Vromen, A., Baird, M., Hill, E. and Probyn, E. (2021) Gender matters: a multilevel analysis of gender and voice at work, British Journal of Management, 32: 725–43. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.12487
Cox, A., Zagelmeyer, S. and Marchington, M. (2006) Embedding employee involvement and participation at work, Human Resource Management Journal, 16: 250–67. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-8583.2006.00017.x
Donaghey, J., Cullinane, N., Dundon, T., Dobbins, T. and Hickland, E. (2022) Employee choice of voice and non-union worker representation, Industrial Relations Journal, 53(6): 503–22. doi: 10.1111/irj.12383
Dundon, T., Wilkinson, A., Marchington, M. and Ackers, P. (2004) The meanings and purpose of employee voice, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 6(15): 1149–70.
Harlos, K. (2010) If you build a remedial voice mechanism, will they come? Determinants of voicing interpersonal mistreatment at work, Human Relations, 63(3): 311–29. doi: 10.1177/0018726709348937
Healy, G., Bradley, H. and Forson, C. (2011) Intersectional sensibilities in analysing inequality regimes in public sector organizations, Gender, Work and Organization, 18(5): 467–87. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0432.2011.00557.x
Heymann, J., Raub, A., Waisath, W., Earle, A., Stek, P. and Sprague, A. (2022) Paid leave to meet the health needs of aging family members in 193 countries, Journal of Aging & Social Policy. doi: 10.1080/08959420.2022.2110804
House of Commons Health Committee (2016–17) Impact on the Spending Review on health and social care: first report of session 2016–17, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmhealth/139/139.pdf.
Hyman, J. and Summers, J. (2007) Work and life: can employee representation influence balance?, Employee Relations, 29(4): 367–84. doi: 10.1108/01425450710759208
Institute for Government (2021) 2019 Conservative manifesto table of pledges, www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/annex-conservative-manifesto-half-time-analysis.pdf.
Kim, S. (2021) Access to employer-provided paid leave and eldercare provision for older workers, Community, Work & Family, 26(3): 285–91. doi: 10.1080/13668803.2021.1885346
King, D. and Pickard, L. (2014) When is a carer’s employment at risk? Longitudinal analysis of unpaid care and employment in midlife in England, Health & Social Care in the Community, 21(3): 303–14. doi: 10.1111/hsc.12018
Kirton, G. and Greene, A. (2010) What does diversity management mean for the gender equality project in the United Kingdom? Views and experiences of organizational ‘actors’, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences De L’Administration, 27(3): 49–262. doi: 10.1002/cjas.168
Kröger, T. and Yeandle, S. (eds) (2013) Combining Paid Work and Family Care: Policies and Experiences in International Perspective, Bristol: Policy Press.
Languilaire, E.C. and Carey, N. (2017) LGBT voices in work-life: a call for research and a research community, Community, Work & Family, 20(1): 99–111.
NASUWT (2020) Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) carer’s leave consultation, NASUWT submission, https://www.nasuwt.org.uk/static/uploaded/1a3cb81b-4db9-4911-a6ad886c4f6746f8.pdf.
Özbilgin, M.F., Beauregard, T.A., Tatli, A. and Bell, M.P. (2011) Work–life, diversity and intersectionality: a critical review and research agenda, International Journal of Management Reviews, 13: 177–98. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00291.x
Pohler, D.M. and Luchak, A. (2014) Balancing efficiency, equity and voice: the impact of unions and high-involvement work practices on work outcomes, ILR Review, 67(4): 1063–94. doi: 10.1177/0019793914546295
Read, J. (2018) The Role of Voluntary Organisations in Promoting Carers’ Work–Care Reconciliation: a Case Study of the Create Project, PhD thesis, University of Sheffield, UK, https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/21903/.
Rigby, M. and O’Brien-Smith, F. (2010) Trade union interventions in work–life balance, Work, Employment and Society, 24(2): 203–20. doi: 10.1177/0950017010362145
Saad-Lessler, J. (2020) How does paid family leave affect unpaid care providers?, The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, 17: 100–265. doi: 10.1016/j.jeoa.2020.100265
Spann, A., Vicente, J., Allard, C., Hawley, M., Spreeuwenberg, M. and de Witte, L. (2020) Challenges of combining work and unpaid care, and solutions: a scoping review, Health and Social Care in the Community, 28(3): 699–715. doi: 10.1111/hsc.12912
Tomkins, L. and Eatough, V. (2014) Stop ‘helping’ me! Identity, recognition and agency in the nexus of work and care, Organization, 21(1): 3–21. doi: 10.1177/1350508412461293
TUC (Trades Union Congress) (2020) BEIS carer’s leave consultation response, https://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/2020-08/Carers%20leave%20response%20final%20%281%29.pdf.
UNISON (2023) Carers’ policies: a bargaining guide and model policy, www.unison.org.uk/content/uploads/2022/12/Carers-policies-guide-June-2023.pdf.
Wang, L., Williams, A. and Kitchen, P. (2018) Health of caregiver-employees in Canada: determining the value of caregiver-friendly workplace policies and social support, International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 11(6): 382–94. doi: 10.1108/ijwhm-04-2018-0043
Wilkinson, A., Gollan, J., Kalfa, S. and Xu, Y. (2018) Voices unheard: employee voice in the new century, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(5): 711–24. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2018.1427347
Wilson, F. (2010) Organizational Behaviour at Work: A Critical Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yeandle, S. and Buckner, L. (2011) New Approaches to Carers’ Health and Wellbeing: Evidence from the NCS Demonstrator Sites Programme, Leeds: CIRCLE, University of Leeds.
