Premium
Factors Shaping Breastfeeding Support Benefits in Workplaces: Perspectives of Human Resources Managers
Author(s) -
Uribe Alexandra Luisa MacMillan,
Bolton Tracie Ann,
Woelky Kaitland,
Olson Beth H
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.31.1_supplement.457.4
Subject(s) - breastfeeding , legislation , business , inclusion (mineral) , human resources , health care , nursing , psychology , marketing , public relations , medicine , social psychology , management , political science , pediatrics , law , economics
Breastfeeding (BF) has significant health benefits over formula for the mother and infant. Health professionals recommend mothers breastfeed exclusively for the first 6 months of life and continue, with complementary foods, to at least 1 year. Working women do not breastfeed as long as those not employed, and yet 58% of women with a child <1 year are in the labor force. In 2010, as part of the Affordable Care Act, federal legislation mandated employers provide a non‐restroom space and unpaid time for BF employees to pump. The US Department of Health and Human Services “Business Case for Breastfeeding” program outlines additional supports, achievable with minimal investment, helpful to BF employees. Few companies provide additional supports, which may contribute significantly to lack of BF success and public health improvements. Gaining an understanding of how Human Resources Managers (HRMs) determine which benefits to provi‐‐de is crucial for gaining inclusion of more comprehensive supports. The purpose of this study was to compare and contrast factors that shape decisions regarding overall employee benefits versus BF support. Fifteen semi‐structured, in‐depth interviews were conducted with HRMs from Michigan companies, who had previously responded to a BF support survey. A‐priori codes based on a theoretical model informed by organizational behavior theories was used, followed by grounded codes from emergent themes. The major themes included: (1) HRMs' primary concern was meeting the needs of their employees, regardless of type of benefit. (2) Offering general benefits standard for the majority of employees (e.g. health insurance) was viewed as essential to recruitment and retention, whereas BF benefits were viewed as discretionary benefits. (3) The federal mandate brought awareness to BF in the workplace; however, providing additional BF supports versus only the mandated supports was strongly influenced by HRMs' perception of employee need. These results indicate a discrepancy in the perceived value of BF supports between companies that provide benefits and health professionals; companies view it as a family‐friendly accommodation whereas health professionals see it as a health benefit. Communications to HRMs should include information on the unrecognized need for BF support, the variety of supports available with a relatively small investment, and the health benefits. However, communications may be more effective if also framed within the HRMs' context, e.g. as a benefit helpful to positioning a company as family‐friendly, which companies express as important to the recruitment and retention of employees.