(Re)Centering the discourse and practice of caring labor: The intersection of feminist thought and cooperative childcare By Rebecca Ann Matthew A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Social Welfare in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Jill Duerr Berrick, Chair Professor Susan Stone Professor Susan Holloway Professor Catherine Leviten-Reid Fall 2013 (Re)Centering the discourse and practice of caring labor: The intersection of feminist thought and cooperative childcare © 2013 by Rebecca Ann Matthew ABSTRACT (Re)Centering the discourse and practice of caring labor: The intersection of feminist thought and cooperative childcare by Rebecca Ann Matthew Doctor of Philosophy in Social Welfare University of California, Berkeley Professor Jill Duerr Berrick, Chair This dissertation examines a range of differences among for-profit, non-profit, and cooperative childcare centers using cross-sectional survey data obtained from approximately 748 childcare centers and 2,743 staff members throughout Canada. I make use of feminist theories of care to critically analyze the ways in which for-profit, non-profit, and cooperative childcare centers “value” this type of care, as evidenced by several indicators of labor quality (e.g., wages, benefits, advancement opportunity, workplace social capital). The following research questions guided this inquiry: (1) In what ways do employee labor conditions (e.g., wages) in cooperatives differ from non-profit and for-profit childcare centers? (2) In what ways do individual-level factors (e.g., # of years within childcare field) within cooperatives differ from non-profit and for-profit childcare centers? (3) How well do labor conditions (e.g., wages) predict turnover/intentions to leave and level of job security, controlling for the nature of the work, co-worker and supervisory relationship satisfaction, workplace social capital, decision-making practices, and quality of the work situation? (4) How well does auspice predict various labor conditions (e.g., gross wages), controlling for individual-level factors (e.g., education level, age)? And, (5) How well does auspice predict turnover/intentions to leave and level of job security, controlling for: individual-level factors; gross hourly wages; pay/benefit/promotional opportunity satisfaction; unionization; promotional opportunities; professional development; the nature of the work; co-worker and supervisory relationship satisfaction; workplace social capital; organizational influence and decision-making practices; and quality of the work situation? 1 Findings indicate that much like previous research demonstrating a non-profit labor advantage (e.g., Doherty, Friendly, & Forer, 2002), cooperatives also tend to “value” this labor to a greater extent than do for-profit centers, as evidenced by: higher wages; greater employee satisfaction with pay, benefits, and promotional opportunities; better assessments of work situation (e.g., my work gives me a sense of accomplishment); higher levels of de-centralization (i.e., extent to which others can and do have input into decision-making), formalization (i.e., extent to which roles and responsibilities are standardized and explicit), and overall organizational influence; as well as, greater odds of unionization, participation in professional development, and intentions to remain working in the childcare field. And, cooperative employees in particular, reported the highest levels of de-centralized decision-making practices. This study represents the largest analysis of differences in labor conditions among for- profit, non-profit, and cooperative childcare centers to date—the findings from which have implications in several domains. First, these data underscore the need for continued research and development of non-profit and cooperative models of childcare, given the ways in which they outperformed for-profit centers with respect to several indicators of labor quality. Second, a (re)assessment of current union legislation is also merited, based on the strong, positive association between unionization and hourly wages. Third, further development and codification of de-centralized decision making practices, given their demonstrated associations with enhanced service quality. Forth, further development and enhancement of educational advancement opportunities among early childhood educators—to include the creation of a work climate that more adequately supports more highly educators providers (e.g., greater mentoring opportunities, higher salary, lower turnover)—appears necessary given the findings that more highly educated staff are less likely to remain in the field. And, finally, there is a call for continued use of research concerning childcare labor to inform and enrich the theoretical dialogue concerning caring labor more generally. 2 DEDICATION Dedicated to childcare workers. i TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................ 1 DEDICATION .............................................................................................................................................. i FIGURES ................................................................................................................................................... iv TABLES ....................................................................................................................................................... v GRATITUDES ......................................................................................................................................... vii INTRODUCTION & STATEMENT OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS .................................................. 1 CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................. 4 SECTION 1: CHILDCARE LABOR CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................... 4 1.1. Wages and benefits .............................................................................................................................................. 5 1.2. Breaks/time‐outs and lack of advancement opportunities ................................................................ 6 1.3. Education and work history/experience .................................................................................................... 6 1.4. Communication, social support, and workplace social capital .......................................................... 6 1.5. Level of formalization & centralization ....................................................................................................... 7 1.6. Nature of the work ............................................................................................................................................... 8 SECTION 2: RESEARCH EXPLORING THE IMPACT OF AUSPICE ON LABOR CONDITIONS ................ 8 2.1. Structural & goal‐related differences between for‐ and non‐profit organizations ................... 8 2.2. Differences in adult work environment by auspice ............................................................................... 9 2.3. Drawing attention to the need for sub‐sector analyses ...................................................................... 11 2.4. A focus on sub‐sectors: Cooperative possibilities? ............................................................................... 11 SECTION 3: THE COOPERATIVE MODEL: DEFINITION, HISTORY & SIGNIFICANCE .......................... 13 3.1. Cooperative definition, values & principals ............................................................................................. 14 3.2. Origins of the cooperative movement ........................................................................................................ 15 3.3. Theoretical influences ...................................................................................................................................... 15 3.4. Early pioneers ...................................................................................................................................................... 16 3.5. Cooperative history within the United States ......................................................................................... 19 3.6. Cooperative significance .................................................................................................................................. 23 CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ................................................................................. 24 SECTION 1: DEFINING CARE ....................................................................................................................................... 24 1.1. A Sampling of Care Definitions ..................................................................................................................... 26 SECTION 2: A GENEALOGY of CARE THEORY ...................................................................................................... 29 2.1. Formative Beginnings ....................................................................................................................................... 30 2.2. Expanding the Scope ........................................................................................................................................